On our website, we explain that “leadership and representation is LIV core business. As the peak body for the legal profession in Victoria, the LIV represents members’ views and interests to industry and government, and advocates justice for all.”

So, it was somewhat surprising to read an article that ran in The Australian on Tuesday 17 September, “Leaning left by Association”.

The provocative article, by Judith Sloan, Contributing Economics Editor asks, “When did the associations representing university-qualified professionals become public advocates of all manner of "progressive" causes, the sum of which is a cross between Labor and Green policies? And do these public positions really reflect the views of the members? Alternatively, do the leaders and staff who work for these organisations indulge their personal preferences, knowing full well that most members don't take any notice?”

A united front

The LIV has joined with the other professional bodies mentioned in the article; the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia, Australian Institute of Architects and Engineers Australia to respond to the article.

Most of us found the suggestion that we do not represent our members to be particularly difficult to swallow. The LIV has more than 75 committees, working groups and interest groups canvassing various areas of substantive law and legal practice, comprising over 1,100 members who volunteer their time. That's an extraordinary effort for an association which represents 18,120 members. The LIV involves and reflects the views of those members who choose to contribute. And we provide opportunities for our wider membership to reflect differing views.

The big issues

Take the issue of asylum seekers, highlighted in the article. Our submissions to the previous government on asylum seeker policy were developed through our Administrative Law and Human Rights Section, and seek to hold government (and opposition parties) to account against Australia’s international legal obligations. It’s true that in my blog of 25 July 2013, I recounted my own family story of immigration to Australia in explaining why I personally consider it important, but that does not diminish the fact that the position was developed by, and therefore represents, the views of our members.

It was one of the most read blogs, and attracted many comments on the website and on twitter. Mostly, these supported the LIV position. Some disagreed. That’s healthy.

The article also raises our call for the Commonwealth contribution to legal aid to be restored to 50% as an example of our ‘progressive’ causes. The debate on legal aid is about access to justice and, as the newly appointed Federal Attorney-General has observed, it goes to the heart of the rule of law. It’s hard to think of an issue that is more legitimate for us to comment on. In the lead up to the election, we launched a petition calling on the government and opposition to commit to that restoration. Subsequently the Greens released their justice policy, which not only reflected our calls, but went further.

The right to choose

The author of the article suggests that we can get away with this because professionals have no choice but to belong, and have no scope for exit. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. Membership of the LIV is voluntary. Members can and do vote with their feet.

Finally, the author says, “Some members may well be disgusted by the partisan and specious political posturing that the leaders and staff engage in. But their response is to shrug their shoulders, pay the annual fee and throw the monthly magazine in the bin. In the meantime, they get on with making a living applying their professional skills.”

Again, the feedback from members is quite different. The Law Institute Journal (LIJ) is highly valued and we believe it has an important role to play in raising the issues and informing our members of the submissions we have made.

But if anyone reading this does feel unrepresented, I would encourage you to get involved in the work of the LIV and add your voice!

Do you think the issues raised by the Law Institute of Victoria represent the profession’s interests and concerns?