Bar councillors vote on voice ‘conflict of interest’

The Victorian Bar Council will tonight vote on whether councillors who signed a motion urging the Bar to support the voice should remove themselves from any discussion moving forward.

Elizabeth Bennett SC. Picture: Maren Preuss/ABC

The Victorian Bar Council will tonight vote on whether three councillors who signed a motion urging the Bar issue its public support for the Indigenous voice should remove themselves from any discussion on the referendum moving forward.

The Australian revealed on Monday Victorian Bar Council vice-president Elizabeth Bennett SC, councillor Colin Mandy SC and councillor Fiona Livingston-Clark put their names to a motion proposing the Bar back Anthony Albanese’s proposed voice model, as the NSW Bar Association have done.

The motion called for a special general meeting of all 2200 state Bar members, at which they would vote on a proposal that stated: “The Victorian Bar considered that the amendment proposed by the Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution is sound, appropriate and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and ­responsible government which would be enhanced by addition of the voice.”

However, some Bar members believe that by attaching their names to the motion, the three councillors have compromised their independence.

Tonight, at a pre-scheduled Victorian Bar meeting, The Australian understands councillors will vote on whether Ms Bennett, Mr Mandy and Ms Livingston should declare a conflict of interest and refrain from taking any part in voice-related discussion.

Victorian Bar Council vice-president Elizabeth Bennett SC urged to resign

Ms Bennett SC is ­facing mounting pressure to ­resign, following the revelations she signed the motion.

Senior Bar members told The Australian that by attaching her name to the motion, Ms Bennett had “undermined her independence” as Bar Council vice-president, and should therefore resign immediately.

“It’s deeply concerning that somebody who has adopted a certain ideological position remains as vice-president of the Bar,” said one member, who asked to ­remain anonymous.

“People like Elizabeth Bennett have a view of supporting equality and diversity, but only if it is people who agree with them. This is not the Bar I joined. She should step down.”

As vice-president of the Bar Council, Ms Bennett automatically holds a position on the silk selection committee, referring applicants to the Chief Justice to become senior counsel.

Some Bar members said her decision to publicly back the voice could inhibit anyone applying for silk from giving their view on the issue, fearing that it may clash with hers.

“It’s extremely concerning for anybody applying for silk, and would have a chilling effect on applicants expressing their view, if that doesn’t reinforce her view,” the same member said. “It shows a lack of understanding or respect for the Bar Council process.”

Another Bar member, who also said Ms Bennett should ­resign, added: “By attaching her name to a petition essentially advocating a yes vote, she has lost any sense of impartiality.”

Victorian Bar president Sam Hay KC. Source: Victorian Bar website

But Ms Bennett told The Australian she respected “the right of all members of the Victorian Bar to take a position on the voice”.

“It is not inconsistent with my role as vice-president to take a personal position on an issue, and there is no conflict of interest in doing so,” she said.

The motion was lodged to the Victorian Bar Council on Friday afternoon. At a similar time, a ­motion from the Bar’s conservative camp was lodged, calling for the association to remain silent on the issue. Bar Council president Sam Hay KC now has the unenviable position of navigating the two motions.

The 21 Bar councillors were expected to hold a final vote on the issue on Tuesday night. But this is now highly unlikely considering the two motions for special general meetings to be held.

Instead, it seems likely Mr Hay will conduct one electronic poll of all members, asking them if they would like the institution to issue its public support for the voice, or remain silent.

While the NSW Bar Association has been vocal in its support for the voice, the Queensland Bar Council last week announced it would not issue a unified position.