Victorian Labor is uninterested in the opinion of lawyers

In addition to concerns that the cap will “unfairly and disproportionately affect women barristers” – particularly because government work is unduly concentrated among female junior counsel – Victorian Bar president Fiona Ryan SC was disappointed it was left out of the decision.

“We would have welcomed the chance to discuss its ramifications with the government,” Ryan said.

“The decision will have a flow-on effect, with many experienced barristers likely to decline government briefs, and that will affect the outcomes of cases conducted on behalf of the state and, ultimately, the Victorian community.”

The Labor government was tight-lipped when asked what barristers would be paid, according to The Australian Financial Review. All it could offer was that fees would align with NSW, Queensland, and the Commonwealth. In NSW and at the federal level, juniors are capped at $2,500, and seniors at $5,000. In Queensland, the limit is $3,000 for juniors and $5,000 for seniors.

In a public statement, Treasurer Colin Brooks said it made sense to “cap what we pay for legal advice”.

In response to questions put by Lawyers Weekly, a spokesperson doubled-down, claiming the Carroll government was making “commonsense decisions” about spending. The cap is anticipated to save about $8 million over forward estimates.

VIEW ALL

“We’ll work closely with the sector between now and next financial year to ensure these changes are implemented properly so that we get it right,” the spokesperson said.

There was no clarification on what “sector” they referred to.

Looking back over the last few years at decisions made by the Victorian government that directly impacted the profession and the administration of justice, Lawyers Weekly realised the troubling trend of legal associations being kept out of the loop.

Asked directly about this, the state government spokesperson said it “regularly consults with all stakeholders to make sure police, government and the courts are working together to meet community expectations”. They pointed to legislation like the Adult Time for Violent Crime and tough bail laws.

“Unlike the Liberal-One Nation Coalition, we won’t rush out thought-bubble policies without proper consultation that risk undermining the very system responsible for delivering justice.”

Last August, the then-Allan Labor government introduced the State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024, spurring on complaints from the legal industry about, among other things, the lack of consultation. The legislation limited civil liability to claims relating to information sharing or other assistance to Victoria Police off the back of the infamous Lawyer X scandal.

Then-attorney-general Jaclyn Symes said the government was taking steps to protect Victorians “being burdened from the costs of further spending on these matters so we can continue investing in the things that Victorian families rely on”.

Not long afterwards, the Victorian Bar came out swinging, slamming the legislation for its potential to extinguish the right to compensation for those who have suffered loss and damage from what the High Court labelled “reprehensible conduct”.

“There has been no consultation on the Bill and that it is sought to be enacted with reasonable haste is also deeply troubling. Where the fundamental rights of citizens are extinguished to benefit the state, we expect more of parliament,” the Bar said.

Last November, the Victorian Bar and Criminal Bar Association responded with disappointment to not having been consulted prior to the announcement of changes to youth justice.

The associations said they were unaware of evidence to suggest the reforms would address concerns for community safety “in an effective and sustained way”. Instead, they pointed to evidence that serious and sustained rehabilitative effort by experienced professionals can be effective in preventing reoffending.

“We would welcome, as always, the opportunity to consult with government around the proposed criminal law reforms to provide constructive feedback based on our considerable expertise and experience in the criminal justice system,” the Victorian Bar and Criminal Bar Association said in a statement.

Then there are extensive submissions from legal professionals prior to the November announcement, including National Legal Aid’s Inquiry into Australia’s Youth Justice and Incarceration System; Youth Law Australia’s submission to the National Children’s Commissioner’s Youth Justice and Child Wellbeing Reform; and the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Seen and Heard: Priority for Children in the Legal Process Report.

The Law Institute of Victoria’s (LIV) criminal law section co-chair Jarrod Behan said research has “consistently shown that imprisonment does not deter young people from committing crimes, nor keep the community safe”. By acting after the fact, the legislation does not prevent there being future victims.

LIV also responded to the Bail Further Amendment Bill 2025, which sought to implement a new high-harm test and second-strike rule for those accused of indictable offences while on bail for indictable offences. Placing people on remand would not fix the core issues that bring them to the justice system, it said.

“We urge the government to place more emphasis on wrap-around services focusing on rehabilitation. Reactive and punitive responses are only likely to further entrench young people in the criminal justice system rather than keep the community safe.”

There is also the recent Corrections Amendment Bill 2026, known as the No Air in Prison Bill, which drew the ire of the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) for violating Australia’s binding obligations under international human rights law.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) spokesperson Greg Barns SC said the legislation would “deliberately override fundamental human rights and risk causing genuine harm”.

“The Victorian government is ignoring its own human rights law to win votes. It is cynical, cruel and will lead to unrest among prisoners and make the lives of prison staff harder,” he said.

The Liberal Party has also come under fire for its proposal to split the Court of Appeal, with the Victorian Bar expressing its “deep concern” about the threat to the independence of the judiciary. The suggestion that judges be appointed to influence outcomes was also “condemned in the strongest terms”.

Lawyers Weekly put these examples directly to the Labor government. Beyond the claim that it was consulting with stakeholders, its response was, unsurprisingly, brief: “Our priority is community safety and victims, and we have made our sentencing laws reflect this.”