Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Friday, 20 July 1906

Mr GLYNN (Angas) .- The difficulty I see about the adoption of the amendment is that in most of the States the admission of barristers and solicitors is regulated by Act of Parliament, whereas the amendment leaves the matter wholly in the hands of the High Court. It is true that there are boards of examiners, but they merely determine whether the qualifications required by Parliament are possessed by candidates for admission. In South Australia, the Act governing this matter was passed as far back as 1855. Persons admitted to practice before the High Court under this provision would have only a very limited sphere of action, and, unless of great capacity, so as to be able to command a very large share of the work of the Court, would not have much to do.

Mr Frazer - There appears to be enough work to justify the appointment of two additional Justices.

Mr Watson - I understand that in Sydney there are one or two practitioners who specialize for the work of the High Court.

Mr GLYNN - I have no objection to the principle of the amendment, but I think that it would be better to pass an Act regulating this matter.

Mr Frazer - I am inclined to agree with the honorable and learned member.

Mr GLYNN - The High Court should have the power given to the Supreme Courts of the States to say who, subject to compliance with' the provisions of an Act of Parliament, shall be admitted to practise.

Mr Watson - The present position is very anomalous.

Mr GLYNN - Personally, I see nothing to object to in the anomaly. I am opposed to leaving this matter wholly to the High Court, though I have no objection to the principle of the amendment. In my opinion, whatever conditions of admission are laid down, they should not be such as will be likely to preclude those admitted from taking advantage of reciprocal treatment.

Suggest corrections