Barristers on losing streak with constitutional change

Of the Bar’s 2200-odd members, only 508 voted. The no vote was 291 and the yes vote 217. It was a long way short of the 75 per cent needed.

There was a much bigger turnout for the Bar’s poll in June on whether to support the Voice. Yes garnered 1008 votes (57 per cent) against 714 (40.4 per cent) for the No – and no comment – forces. (Another 45 people ticked the third option, to abstain.)

Perhaps voter fatigue was a factor for Victoria’s barristers. Or they just didn’t care. Or they didn’t want another fight.

Defined purpose

The proposed amendment to the Bar’s constitution would have made it a defined purpose of the Bar “to promote and support the physical and mental wellbeing of barristers, including by preventing and redressing discrimination on the basis of legally protected attributes and unlawful harassment”.

After alerts for the AGM were sent out by the Bar, emails started circulating about how the clauses on diversity and harassment could lead to the Bar’s financial ruin.

Hearsay saw two emails – one from Lana Collaris and one from Gavin Silbert, KC, the state’s former chief crown prosecutor, urging proxy votes against the proposal.

Collaris reckoned some bar councillors were “once again seeking to impose their personal political views upon the rest of us”.

“They are political statements and have no place in our constitution. They are underpinned by the political philosophy of victimhood and the imagined spectre of the ‘white male patriarchy’.

“They are based upon the belief that the Bar is a hateful place where discrimination and harassment is rife, systemic, and incurable.”

Silbert suggested there were “potentially far-reaching and adverse consequences for all of us”.

“After all, if the Bar fails to prevent discrimination or harassment, there is a risk someone could make a claim against it.”

He called the wording “imprecise” and said it may “create adverse and potential financial exposure for all members”.

“Will this provision be used as a foothold to implement other political measures?”

Silbert’s is not a hollow argument. Companies are being far more careful about what they state as their purposes, lest shareholders later hold them to account for not doing as they say.

The idea, which came from the Bar’s equality and diversity committee and was endorsed by the Bar Council in May, will now be shelved.

Culture war

Bar president Sam Hay, KC, told members the debate on Monday night had been “considered, respectful and constructive”.

Still, it was another chapter in the culture war at the Victorian Bar between conservatives and progressives.

A vote for change ticket organised by conservatives swept the Bar Council elections in November 2020 after a move to mandate sexual harassment awareness training for all members of the Bar.

Nominations close on Thursday for this year’s Bar Council election. The conservatives no longer hold sway – they won only nine of the 21 seats last year – but are regrouping. They need to stop “other political measures”.