Victorian Bar divided over constitutional diversity clause

A proposed change to the Victorian Bar’s constitution would pave the way for gender and race quotas, and make members financially liable for employment discrimination claims, eminent barristers say.

Victorian barristers are divided over a proposed constitutional amendment to boost diversity.

Discord has erupted in the Victorian Bar over proposed constitutional amendments to include a “diversity clause” in its governing document, with dozens of barristers fearing the move would make gender and race quotas inevitable, and members financially liable for employment discrim­ination claims.

The amendments would make it so the defined purpose of the Bar was no longer to promote the administration of justice, uphold the rule of law and manage the state’s Bar Roll, but also “actively promote and foster a diverse and inclusive membership that reflects the society it serves”.

It would also make it the 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”.

Lana Collaris, a barrister of 15 years, said the amendments were “underpinned by the political philosophy of victimhood, and the belief that the Bar is a hateful place were discrimination is rife, systemic and incurable”.

Barrister Lana Collaris said the amendments were “underpinned by the political philosophy of victimhood, and the belief that the Bar is a hateful place were discrimination is rife, systemic and incurable”.

“The purposes define why we exist,” she said. “Once you start tinkering with that, that is a big deal. These are not purposes of the Bar. The Bar exists to serve the administration of justice in Victoria and create a body of competent barristers.”

Ms Collaris said the amendments would “ground an argument” for quotas to be embedded in the Reader’s Course – the exam barristers must take to join the Bar.

“Not just the Reader’s Course, but the silk selection process,” she said. “They’re taking everything away from merit.

“Another barrister … said members of society have their liberty at stake. They might have their life savings in a barrister, they should be able to have the best. Barristers should be appointed on merit.

“These kind of amendments can change that.”

The proposition comes weeks after a mock notice was pinned to a lift in Melbourne’s Owen Dixon Chambers advertising the sham “Men in Law Awards” which included categories for “most woke counsel” and “best virtue-signalling counsel”.

At the time, the Women’s Barristers Association panned the notice as an attack on female members, saying “while the Bar has taken great strides towards equality and inclusion, challenges remain”.

In May, the Victorian Bar was divided over whether to support the Indigenous voice to parliament, leading to an all-in vote. Nearly 60 per cent of the barristers agreed to support the voice.

All 2200 Victorian Bar members were last week sent an email announcing an annual general meeting would be held this Wednesday to vote on proposed diversity amendments, which need 75 per cent support to get over the line.

Following that announcement, Ms Collaris sent an email to many Bar members urging them to vote down the proposition, and saying barristers could become fin­ancially liable for members’ discrimination claims if the changes were waved through.

Barristers pay a fee to be part of the association, and Ms Collaris fears that money could be used to fight off financial compensation claims that could arise if the new diversity clause is not properly complied with.

“The proposed amendments are divisive and will only serve to divide a Bar that is already inclusive,” she wrote. “The constitution is a contract between the Bar and its members.

“The proposed amendments create a new contractual obligation binding upon the Bar that could be sued upon by any member, with ensuing litigation being funded from the pockets of all members, including those who are completely removed from the circumstances of the litigation.”

Ms Collaris said she received more than 50 positive responses to her email. Bar Council president Sam Hay KC, in his weekly In Brief newsletter circulated to barristers, said the amendments had come from the association’s equality and diversity committee.

He said the Bar Council had made the decision to put the proposed amendments to a vote.

“Whatever your position on the proposed amendment, I urge you to have your say by attending the AGM or completing a proxy form,” he said.