Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) & Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (NZ)
Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), ANZSCO
and other matters
Work-in-progress; last updated, 3 June 2025.
[A] Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 - Lawyers
"The principal purpose of the TTMRA is to enact legislation with the intention of recognising within Australia regulatory standards adopted in New Zealand regarding goods and occupations. The legislation was, as contemplated by the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement, entered into on 9 July 1996 between the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. ...": Little and Victorian Bar Inc [2024] AATA 2852.
"In the process that led to the establishment on 1 January 1901 of the Commonwealth of Australia, there was a time when it was possible that the then colony of New Zealand might become a State within the Commonwealth of Australia. Reference to that possibility and how that did not come to pass is to be found in Quick and Garran’s Annotated Constitute of the Commonwealth of Australia, at p 228; and see also pp 233 to 234. Even so, the closeness of ties between Australia and the now long independent New Zealand is evident on the Australian statute book in statutes such as the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), which, by Pt III, makes special and liberal provision in respect of extradition from Australia to New Zealand, adopting a regime once used for extraditions between Australian states; in the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth), which affords, in respect of both goods and occupations, preferential treatment for goods approved in New Zealand or occupations carried on in New Zealand in respect of Australia; and in the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) which, again, affords special status in Australia in respect of New Zealand proceedings. ...": TPTN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 788, [1].
"First, the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) and the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (NZ) confer a right on a legal practitioner of one country to practise as a legal practitioner in the other country. Thus, the Government of New Zealand has recognised the competence of an Australian legal practitioner to appear in New Zealand courts in a proceeding involving the application of New Zealand common law to a claim for damages for negligence for personal injury. If an Australian legal practitioner has that legal competence, should an Australian court readily shrink from the ascertainment and application of New Zealand’s common law? ...": Robinson v Studorp Ltd [2013] QSC 238, [24].
Issue with employed Barristers in NZ with supervision condition not being equivalent to Barrister occupation in Victoria: Little and Victorian Bar Inc [2024] AATA 2852; and in NSW, WA and ACT: Little and The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2024] AATA 497.
Queensland Solicitor, under condition of supervised legal practice, seeking registration in NZ under TTMRA -- equivalence of occupation in NZ established:
> "In Re Dabas,[59] the High Court of New Zealand was asked to determine an application made under the New Zealand TTMRA by a solicitor who held a practising certificate issued by the Queensland Law Society authorising him to engage in supervised legal practice. The legislative regimes of New Zealand and Queensland were compared by Cull J, her honour explaining: [24] There are two types of practising certificates issued in New Zealand, either as a barrister, or as a barrister and solicitor; and two categories of those two types of practising certificates, either in practice on own account, (which is equivalent to an unrestricted principle practising certificate in Australia) or as an employee (which is equivalent to a restricted practising certificate with a condition regarding supervision). … [25] Although statutory conditions are not specifically stated on the physical practising certificate itself, equivalent restrictions apply under the provisions of the LCA and the associated rules and regulations. [26] Under s 30 of the LCA, no lawyer may commence practice on own account unless approved to do so by the Law Society or the High Court. In order to be approved to practice on own account, an applicant must meet the requirements set out in regulation 12 (or regulation 13 if applying to the High Court for leave to practice on own account) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Practice Rules) Regulations 2008. [59] [2019] NZHC 1940.": Little and The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2024] AATA 497, [103].
> Carter Dabas [2019] NZHC 1940, [29]-[31] <https://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1940.html>: "[29] From the comprehensive submissions detailed by the New Zealand Law Society, I am satisfied that the status of the Queensland Law Society practising certificate for Mr Carter Dabas meets the requirement under s 19 of the Act, that Mr Carter Dabas has an equivalent occupation to enable registration to occur. [30] Accordingly, Mr Carter Dabas is entitled to admission as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand and, following his admission, is entitled to apply for a practising certificate as an employed barrister, or as an employed barrister and solicitor. [31] Mr Carter Dabas’ application under s 19 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand is granted.". --- decision undisturbed by later judicial review application in Little v New Zealand Law Society [2021] NZHC 1928 (see also, Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZCA 121 (summary of the legal framework to be admitted under the TTMRA and practice in NZ, esp [35], [61]-[72]); undisturbed in Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZSC 78.
Whether equivalence can be achieved by conditions:
> NZ Barristers in NSW, WA, Vic and the ACT: Little and The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2024] AATA 497 -- no.
> NZ Domestic Builder in Victoria: Hughes and Victorian Building Authority [2025] ARTA 113 -- no; but see, for Queensland, McLeod and Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] AATA 143.
> Tax Agents: Aalders v Tax Agents’ Board of Queensland [2006] FCA 1442; Aalders and Tax Agents' Board of Queensland [2005] AATA 727.
MRA and TTMRA:
> "[86] Section 19(5) reposes power in a local registration authority to impose conditions on registration. In Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis [2019] HCA 22; (2019) 268 CLR 168 at 179 [29] (Andriotis), the High Court considers the powers under s 20(5) of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) (MRA) in regards to this very situation when a local registration authority imposes insurance conditions. The High Court confirms that s 20(5) of the MRA, which is in the same terms as s 19(5) of the TTMRA, permits the imposition of insurance conditions. At [28]–[29], the High Court says: The VBA submits that a person registered in the first State cannot be said to have an absolute entitlement to registration. This may be seen by the operation of s 17(2) with respect to a State law. The VBA gives as an example s 169(2)(e)(i) of the Building Act, which requires an applicant for registration under that Act to prove that they have insurance cover. Section 17(2) would permit that requirement to be imposed. The answer to the submission lies in the power given by the MRA to the local registration authority of the second State to condition registration under s 20(5). It may do so as long as the conditions are not more onerous than would be imposed in similar circumstances. The use of that power to condition would be consistent with the scheme of the MRA; satisfaction of a requirement of a State Act as a precondition to a grant would not. ... [88] Section 19(5) of the TTMRA provides the power to impose conditions on registration so long as they are not “more onerous than would be imposed in similar circumstances…if it were registration effected apart from this Part”. This section invites a comparison between conditions imposed under s 19(5) and conditions imposed in similar circumstances where registration is effected other than by Part 3 of the TTMRA. To use the case before me as an example, the insurance obligation imposed by s 19(5) as a condition of registration could not be more onerous than the insurance obligation imposed as a condition of registration on a barrister in Victoria under s 45 of the Uniform Law (Victoria). Section 19(5) operates to regulate the imposition of conditions on registration by requiring that they be no more onerous than local conditions.": Meagher and Victorian Bar Incorporated [2021] AATA 3445, [86], [88]; See also, Meagher and Victorian Bar Incorporated [2022] AATA 4415, [72].
Jurisdiction hopping:
> "... There is an anecdotal suggestion that the TTMR regime may allow jurisdiction hopping, that is, using TTMR registration to support applications for admission in other jurisdictions that treat New Zealand admitted applicants more favourably than Australian-admitted applicants or vice-versa. The Society is aware that in Auckland a number of applications for admission have been made by Australian practitioners with no current intention to practise in New Zealand. Indeed of the 16 admitted last year under TTMRA just 5 applied for and were issued practising certificates. It was reported that at least some of those were seeking admission in New Zealand to assist their path to qualifying in Ireland. It appears that while there is no direct admission to practise in Ireland for either NZ or Australian qualified lawyers, NZ-admitted lawyers can shortcut the requisite training/study process, particularly if they are relatively recent graduates. New Zealand-admitted lawyers are eligible to take the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test, while Australian lawyers are required to undertake a full training process or at least seek an exemption from some of it, which could involve a traineeship, further examinations and vocational course. Hence it is advantageous for someone from Australia wishing to qualify in Ireland to be admitted in New Zealand first. This may not have been the intended result of the TTMR arrangement. It is a moot point as to whether moves could, or should, be taken to prevent this occurring. ...": 'Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement - Review of Progress' (NZ Law Society, 2003) <https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/mutual-recognition-2003/submissions/new_zealand_law_society/sub017.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/FJR3-E3AW>.
Statistics:
> inbound from NZ to AUS: "In terms of the Queensland legal profession, the 2020 National Profile tell us that between 2011 and 2020 the number of Queensland solicitors grew by 54%. In terms of the number of applications for admission in Queensland from law graduates, the LPAB Annual Report for the period 2020 to 2021 reveals that there has been an increase in admission numbers from 1,070 total admission applications (which include MRA – Mutual Recognition Applications and TTMRA – Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Applications) in 2016/2017 to 1,333 total admission applications in 2020/2021. ...": 'The Job Readiness of Law Graduates and Entry Level Solicitors in Private Practice - Final Report' (QLS, Bond, 1 Dec 2022) <https://www.qls.com.au/getattachment/d6f794fa-7f09-4010-82c2-849974fbdaa3/qls-job-readiness-report-final-1-12-22-complete-version-.pdf>.
> Qld LPAB: 2019-2020 Annual Report: "In addition to the ‘local’ admission applications, the Board considered 11 applications for admission lodged under the domestic MRA or the TTMRA. ... 10 TTMRA": Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, 2019-2020 Annual Report, 18, Appendix 4 <https://www.qls.com.au/getattachment/3e0302c6-ad74-48f3-8735-5d40e5f6b16d/lpab-annual_report_2019-20__final-tabled-in-parliament-september-2020.pdf>.
> Qld LPAB: 2022-23 Annual Report: 25 TTMRA: See appendix 4 <https://www.qls.com.au/getattachment/c5c87922-d85a-4c1a-b245-b6cd47c0dd1e/annual-report-2022-2023-signed-18-september-2023-.pdf>.
> NSW LPAB: "This includes 21 New Zealand lawyers who were admitted pursuant to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth), where an applicant applies directly to the Court.": LPAB of NSW Annual Report 2023-24, p 9 <https://lpab.nsw.gov.au/documents/annual-reports/LPAB_Annual_Report_2023-24.pdf>.
> LPBWA, 2022-23: 12 (including domestic MRA): LPBWA Annual Report 2022-23, p 26: <https://www.lpbwa.org.au/getmedia/190bbf1c-23af-4028-9e4a-653fd1de99b9/LPB-Annual-Report-22-23.pdf>; 2023-24: 9 : LPBWA Annual Report 2023-24, p 29 <https://www.lpbwa.org.au/getmedia/665562c7-1906-41f5-b24a-e78f7729c542/LPB-Annual-Report-23-24.pdf>.
> AUS outbound to NZ: 41 (2024), 42 (2023): 'Shaping Aoteroa's Legal Profession Together: Annual Report 2023/24' (NZ Law Society, 2024) 49 <https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/About-Us-Documents/Annual-Reports/Recent-Annual-Reports/Annual-Report-2023-2024.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/68KZ-SD5S>.
See also, further in discussion in section on ANZSCO below.
[B] Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement
"The Victorian Legal Admissions Board understands that the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) came into effect on 31 May 2023. The agreement contains commitments to reform legal services provisions and drive collaboration between regulators with the aim of addressing remaining barriers to practise as a local lawyer in the other country's territory. The FTA did not have the effect of immediately introducing mutual recognition arrangements that will allow UK lawyers to be admitted as lawyers in Australia without having to undertake the usual application for admission that all foreign qualified lawyers are required to undertake under the various statutory regimes applicable in the various States and Territories of Australia. ...": 'Australia UK Free Trade Agreement' (Victorian Legal Admissions Board) <https://www.lawadmissions.vic.gov.au/australia-uk-free-trade-agreement>, archived at <https://archive.is/qsnAp>.
"The Australian-UK Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect on 31 May 2023, has established a Legal Services Regulatory Dialogue that, amongst other things, will consider enhancing the professional mobility of lawyers between Australia and the UK, but has not introduced mutual recognition arrangements that will immediately allow UK lawyers to be admitted as lawyers in Australia (or vice versa) without their having to undergoing the usual application for admission processes applicable in each Australian jurisdiction. ...": 'Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement' (LPAB NSW) <https://lpab.nsw.gov.au/publications-resources/august-admission-ceremonies.html>, archived at <https://archive.md/r4JgI>.
Chapter 10 of the UK-Australia FTA: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b85daee90e07043f2b98f6/uk-australia-free-trade-agreement-fta-chapter-10-professional-services-and-recognition-of-professional-qualifications.pdf>: "Each Party shall consider, or encourage its relevant bodies to consider, subject to its laws and regulations, whether or in what manner to: ... (e) establish dialogues with the relevant bodies of the other Party, with a view to the development of mutual recognition arrangements."
Law Society of England and Wales, position 3 September 2020 <https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/10989/pdf/>: "Mutual Recognition 41.The legal professions of both Australia and the UK share a common history and similar legal systems. Our reciprocal strength in the quality and standards of legal education and governance provides a solid foundation for discussions of recognition. One avenue for this is via a MRA. 42.The Australian Government Response to Industry's Action Plan to Boost Australian Services Exports (Export Services Action Plan) highlights the importance of collaboration with professional bodies and “is promoting Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) on licensing and registration including through Australia’s FTAs.” 3 Industry or issue specific agreements are also the preferred approach of Australian stakeholders.4 43.However, while trade agreements can play a role in facilitating MRAs, they do not guarantee an arrangement will be implemented. 44.Difficulties lie in the fact that admission to the Australian legal profession is an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of each state and territory, rather than the federal body. As there are no uniform rules regulating the practice of law across all Australian states and territories, this would require coordination of several local bodies and regulators. 45.Given the interaction with domestic regulation, addressing issues of mutual recognition will involve both government to government and profession to profession commitments. Open dialogue between LSEW, the UK Government and Australian counterparts is required to raise awareness of the practicalities of doing international business and facilitate this type of engagement. 46.The LSEW supports the inclusion of a framework for progressing MRAs in an UK-Australia trade agreement with clear actions and timeframes for an implementation. The Australian Government Productivity Commission further notes that “any implementation working group should be adequately resourced and involve representatives from the relevant regulators as well as the government agency responsible for policy matters in the specific service sector."
Intra-jurisdictional inconsistencies, see: QLS letter to LCA, 9 September 2022 <https://www.qls.com.au/getattachment/82ea72a9-b6d3-43bc-b703-120070003fde/2020-4159-australia-united-kingdom-free-trade-agreement.pdf>.
[B-A] UK-Switzerland Mutual Recognition
Michael Cross, 'Mutual recognition of qualifications in UK-Swiss deal' (The Law Society Gazette, 14 June 2023) <https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mutual-recognition-of-qualifications-in-uk-swiss-deal/5116311.article>, archived at <https://archive.md/44D5g>.
The Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) (Extension to Switzerland etc.) Regulations 2024 (UK) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/1379/made>.
Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers (Switzerland) <https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2002/153/en>. -- ?based on nationality than jurisdiction of admission and practice.
[B-B] Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) Court
'Court' (AIFC, Webpage) <https://court.aifc.kz/en/>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250505232612/https://court.aifc.kz/en/#expand> (5 May 2025, 761), <https://archive.is/354cX> (14 May 2025, 763 lawyers), <https://archive.is/kTB4R> (18 May 2025, 765).
AIFC Constitutional Statute 2015 <https://court.aifc.kz/uploads/constitutional-statute-with-amendments-as-of-30-december-2019.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9WYP-J9FZ>.
AIFC Court Regulations 2017, s 49: "49. Miscellaneous (1) The Court may, by approval of the Chief Justice of the Court: ... establish a lawyer’s registration scheme and code of conduct to facilitate the highest standards of conduct in Court proceedings; ... ". <https://court.aifc.kz/uploads/AIFC%20Court%20and%20IAC/AIFC%20Court%20regulations-2017.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/D3L4-TSHC>.
'Rights of Audience' (AIFC, Webpage) <https://court.aifc.kz/en/rights-of-audience>, archived at <https://archive.is/MVBWJ>.
Practice Direction 4: AIFC Court Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 23 October 2023: <https://court.aifc.kz/uploads/AIFC%20Court%20and%20IAC/Practice%20Direction%20No.%204%20-%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Legal%20Practitioners%20(Final).pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/8VPX-JZ8V>.
"Welcome to the AIFC Court, a hugely significant initiative for the Astana International Financial Centre, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the entire Eurasia region. The Court provides a common law court system for the first time in Eurasia. It operates to the highest international standards to resolve civil and commercial disputes in the AIFC. It has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the activities and operations of the AIFC and jurisdiction in the case of other disputes in which all parties agree to give the Court jurisdiction. The Court is separate and independent from the judicial system of the Republic of Kazakhstan. ...": 'About Us' (AIFC, Webpage) <https://court.aifc.kz/en/about-the-aifc-court>, archived at <https://archive.md/N6KK3>.
'Inauguration of Astana’s International Financial Centre' (Norton Rose Fulbright, April 2018) <https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-no/knowledge/publications/db1c0753/inauguration-of-astanas-international-financial-centre>, archived at <https://archive.is/bVI78>.
"Indeed, the only non-English flavour to the AIFC legal organs is the relaxed rules of rights of audience and representation, with admission being free, not subject to a time limit and open to lawyers admitted in any jurisdiction (or indeed law graduates with letters of recommendation from a court).": Philip Gardner, 'Astana joins Dubai: Can International Finance Centre courts Replace the English High Court?' (Peters and Peters, 2019) <https://www.petersandpeters.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019.06.06-Astana-Philip-Gardner-3.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/ZHE5-CNWY>.
Eg, 'Manohar Samal, MCIArb's Post' (LinkedIn) <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/manohar-samal-mciarb-820035195_law-legal-commercialcourt-activity-7300118881765879808-YLSz>, archived at <https://archive.is/04NpG>: "grants to you rights of audience without charge for an unlimited duration".
"Mr [Michael] Wilson’s supporting affidavit deposed to his Australian citizenship and admission as a solicitor in this State, Victoria, the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of England and Wales, as well as being an “AIFC” in Kazakhstan.": Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Emmott [2024] NSWSC 1258, [53].
See also, "The Defendants' Kazakh law expert was Ms Kulzan Mehrabi. Ms Mehrabi is a qualified Kazakh lawyer entitled to practice Kazakh law. She is a qualified advocate in the civil courts of Kazakhstan and the Astana International Financial Centre Court in Kazakhstan. Ms Mehrabi is also an English solicitor. Her professional experience, over more than 20 years, includes practising Kazakh corporate and commercial law as senior counsel and partner at leading Russian and Kazakh law firms, working as an in-house lawyer at a large Kazakh oil company, and as senior expert at the Department of Legislation and International Law in the Kazakh Ministry of Justice. I am satisfied that Ms Mehrabi had sufficient expertise and experience to give expert evidence of Kazakh law. Her oral evidence at times seemed a little discursive, but was given fairly, including appropriate concessions (as they might be regarded), and I am satisfied that it represented her genuine professional opinion.": Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus (formerly Zhunussov) and others [2021] EWHC 3462.
[B-C] Dubai International Financial Centre
DIFC Courts Order No. 1 of 2019 in Respect of Issuing and Conducting Proceedings, Rights of Audience and Registration in Part I and Part II of the DIFC Courts’ Register of Legal Practitioners <https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-administrative-orders/difc-courts-order-no-1-of-2019-in-respect-of-issuing-and-conducting-proceedings-rights-of-audience-and-registration-in-part-i-an>, archived at <https://archive.is/8dbdO> (Michael Hwang SC CJ).
[B-D] Brunei
To be admitted to the Brunei Bar, a person must satisfy sections 3 and 4 of the Legal Profession Act, Chapter 132, Laws of Brunei: “3. (1) A person shall be a qualified person for the purposes of this Act if, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), he — (a) is a barrister-at-law of England or Northern Ireland or a member of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland; (b) is a solicitor in England or Northern Ireland or a Writer to the Signet, law agent or solicitor in Scotland; (c) has been in active practice as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore or in any part of Malaysia; or (d) is a barrister, solicitor or who is a barrister and solicitor of a Supreme Court of any Australian State or Territory. (2) A person who is — (a) a citizen of Brunei Darussalam; or (b) a permanent resident on the date of his petition for admission shall, notwithstanding subsection (1), be a qualified person for the purposes of this Act if he has obtained such alternative qualification as may be prescribed. (3) A person who is not, on the date of his petition for admission, either a citizen of Brunei Darussalam or a permanent resident, shall only apply for admission if, in addition to satisfying the requirements of subsection (1), he has been in active practice in any part of the United Kingdom, in Singapore, in any part of Malaysia, in any Australian State or Territory or in any other country or territory or part of a country or territory in the Commonwealth designated by the Attorney General by notice in the Gazette for at least 7 years immediately preceding such application. (4) The Chief Justice may at his discretion, and subject to the provisions of this Act, admit as an advocate and solicitor any qualified person who — (a) has attained the age of 21 years; (b) is of good character; and (c) has, to the extent that he is not exempt therefrom, served satisfactorily such manner and period of pupillage (9 months) as may be prescribed for qualified persons.”": 'Becoming a Lawyer' (Law Society of Brunei Darussalam, Webpage) <https://bruneilawsociety.com/becoming-a-lawyer/>, archived at <https://archive.is/TYlvA>.
[B-E] Singapore International Commercial Court
Legal Professional Act 1966 (Cap 161) (SG) <https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/LPA1966>.
'Registration of Foreign Lawyers before the SICC' (SG Courts, Webpage) <https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/singapore-international-commercial-court/registration-of-foreign-lawyers/registration-of-foreign-lawyers>.
"35 What happened here was exceptional, however, and best avoided in the future by foreign lawyers exercising due care and foresight. Foreign lawyers who are planning to appear in the SICC in person or on the screen in a virtual zoom hearing must obtain permission ahead of time to cover the contingency that active participation may be required. Applying for permission from the SICC in advance of a hearing is the only proper course of action whenever foreign counsel anticipates that there may be a need to plead in a case in the SICC.": Re Terraform Labs Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 4 <https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGHCI_4>, archived at <https://archive.is/jFT1C>.
[B-F] Sarawak, Malaysia
"Qualifications for admission of advocate 4.—(1) No person shall be admitted as an advocate unless— ... (d) he has been admitted to practise as a legal practitioner (by whatever name called) by a Supreme Court or High Court exercising jurisdiction in any place within any territory within the Commonwealth.": Advocates Ordinance (Cap 110) (Sarawak) <https://lawnet.sarawak.gov.my/lawnet_file/Ordinance/ORD_ADVOCATES%20LawNet%20WM.pdf>.
[B-G] Sabah, Malaysia; Labuan, Malaysia
"Qualifications for admission of advocate. 4. (1) No person shall be admitted as an advocate unless— ... (d) he has been admitted to practise as a legal practitioner (by whatever name called) by a Supreme Court or High Court exercising jurisdiction in any place within any territory within the Commonwealth. ... (1B) The Chief Judge may, in his sole discretion, exempt a person from the whole or part of any period of pupillage or reading in chambers, upon application made to him supported by satisfactory evidence that- ... the applicant has for a period of not less than six months been a pupil, or read in the chambers, of a legal practitioner in active private practice, in any territory within the Commonwealth, of not less than seven years' standing; or (c) the applicant has satisfactorily completed a post-graduate course of instruction in law organised by any institution that would render him eligible to be admitted to practise as a legal practitioner (by whatever name called) in any territory within the Commonwealth. ... (2) A person having any of the qualifications mentioned in subsections (1) and (1A) shall be eligible to be admitted as an advocate if he satisfies the Chief Judge that— and he has Sabah connections.": Advocates Ordinance (Cap 2) (Sabah) <https://sagc.sabah.gov.my/sites/default/files/law/AdvocatesOrdinanceCap2_2_0.pdf>.
[B-I] Registered Foreign Lawyer, SRA UK
'Registered Foreign lawyers' (SRA, 13 February 2025) <https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/registered-foreign-lawyers/>, archived at <https://archive.is/1TjZC>.
[B-J-A] Overseas Lawyer, Hong Kong - Admission
'Admission Standards' (Law Society of Hong Kong) <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/en/maintain-standards/admission-standards> -- see 'C. Route to Admission for Overseas Lawyers', especially <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/Overseas_Lawyer_Route_202302.pdf?rev=cac0744930cd4e55b8e22c2325a196f8&hash=F107F76EF549686F72B32E18607650C8>.
Overseas Lawyers Qualification Examination
Also note, alternatively, PCLL conversion exam, PCLL, trainee solicitor route: <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/Booklet_on_becoming_a_solicitor_202302.pdf?rev=1d4117f6810943cbb164a841a2eded44&hash=A2FA6CC0A8322A7D9E9915C67DA85066>.
PCLL conversion examination: <https://www.pcea.com.hk/download>.
[B-J-B] Registered Foreign Lawyer, Hong Kong
'Foreign Lawyers' (Law Society of Hong Kong) <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/en/Maintain-Standards/Practice-Standards/Foreign-Lawyers>.
'Information for Registration as a Foreign Lawyer' (The Law Society of Hong Kong) <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Practice-Standards/Registered-Foreign-Lawyers/fl-info.pdf?rev=a35bfccdfaf94cdcb12c67c434de56f8&hash=723A54BC8FA74064E1C2BA37C1FB3FD6>.
[B-K] Abu Dhabi - ADGM Courts
ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015, <https://assets.adgm.com/download/assets/ADGM+Courts+Regulations.pdf/ae7e4a5045b611efbd775aec9993a0bd>, archived at <https://perma.cc/4Q48-5EFA>, Art 219: "Subject to court procedure rules – (a) where a person has been practising or employed as a lawyer for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately prior to appearing before the Court, he shall have the right of audience before the Courts; (b) where a person has not been practising or employed as a lawyer for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately prior to appearing before the Court, he may seek leave to have a right of audience before the Courts; save that (c) any person may appear and have a right of audience before the Small Claims and Employment Divisions of the Court of First Instance, but such appearance is subject to compliance with any rules of conduct of the Courts.".
[B-L] Qatar Financial Centre
Qatar Financial Centre Civil and Commercial Court Regulations and Procedural Rules <https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/courts/court/regulations-and-procedural-rules/regulations-court>, archived at <https://archive.is/hA8pM>: "Article (29) Rights of audience 29.1. The President of the Court or the Judge presiding over the case in question shall have a discretion to determine who shall have rights of audience for that case, However, where no direction has been made in relation to rights of audience, any qualified lawyer who is entitled to appear before the superior courts in the State of Qatar or of any other jurisdiction shall have rights of audience. 29.2. Where directions are given by a single Judge or by the Registrar in accordance with article 16.4 above, there are no restrictions on rights of audience unless that Judge or the Registrar otherwise determine."
[B-M] Pitcairn Island
Pitcairn Bar Admissions [2023] PNSC 1 <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6526ff6fef608a3828c13d05/t/655825d9ee6e8a42adebbc1c/1700275677030/Pitcairn+Bar+Admissions+%5B2023%5D+PNSC+1+%2823+February+2023%29.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/44UB-58XD>.
[C] Migration Act 1958 (Cth); Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
[C.A] ANZSCO Solicitor 271311 v Barrister 271111
No clear guidance from reported case law regarding the treatment of 'barristers and solicitors' in WA, ACT, SA, Tas & NT.
But see, Law Council of Australia's letter to Australian Statistician, 11 December 2023 <https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/6cf9c304-b8ad-ee11-948e-005056be13b5/4469%20-%20S%20-%20ANZSCO%20Comprehensive%20Review.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/F775-624X>: " ... The Law Council of Australia welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the consultation by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) Comprehensive Review. The Law Council acknowledges the contributions of the Law Society of South Australia and the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory in the preparation of this submission ... The Law Council has reviewed the occupations within the industry-based focus area of ‘Legal services’, 1 and considers that the description of each occupation, including the indicative skill level, remains accurate to a fairly large extent ... Solicitor (271311) 23. The Law Council suggests that the description of ‘Solicitor’ 28 be broadened to reflect that solicitors can plead cases before civil, criminal and industrial courts and other tribunals.29 24. The Law Council also considers it may be appropriate for legal practitioners who are employed in-house to be specifically identified under the broader category of ‘Solicitor’ (Unit Group 2713), to recognise the distinct role of in-house legal practitioners in managing legal risk for their employer". -- cf definition of Barrister in the ANZSCO -- cf, occupational equivalence.
** But see, 'ANZSCO [Preliminary] Proposed Changes - Version 1.0' (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 17 June 2024) <https://consult.abs.gov.au/standards-and-classifications/anzsco-comprehensive-review-round-3/results/legalservices-preliminaryproposedchanges.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/PT9M-5KFW>: "Barrister Main Tasks: • Receives briefs and verbal instructions concerning cases from solicitors, other specialist legal professionals and clients • Provides advice and written opinions on points of law • Confers with clients and witnesses in preparation for court proceedings • Draws up pleadings, affidavits, and other court documents • Researches statutes and previous court decisions relevant to cases • Outlines the facts to the court, calls and questions witnesses, and makes addresses to the court to argue a client's case • May draw up or settle documents ... Solicitor Main Tasks: • Interviews clients to determine the nature of cases and recommends appropriate legal action • Prepares cases by conducting investigations, undertaking research, arranging witness preparation and attendance, and giving notice of court actions • Represents clients in civil, criminal, and industrial courts and tribunals • Prepares and critically reviews legal documents between parties • Prepares wills • Provides advice on family, company, commercial, and property law, as well as partnerships and trusts • May act as trustee or guardian • May act as executor of clients' wills.".
> but see, Occupational Standard Classification for Australia (OSCA): <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/osca-occupation-standard-classification-australia/2024-version-1-0>, from 6 December 2024.
But see: PAM3:
> "The Tribunal notes that this is also appears to be the process contemplated by the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3), which provide guidance to Departmental decision-makers: 110 Assessment against the nominated occupation in ANZSCO ... 110.2 For nominations made on or after 1 July 2010 Under regulation 2.72(10)(e)(iv), the qualifications and experience of the person nominated to fill the occupation, should be commensurate with the qualifications and experience specified: for the occupation in the relevant ANZSCO code or if there is no ANZSCO code for the nominated occupation, the occupation in the legislative instrument for the purpose of regulation 2.72(10)(aa). 110.3 Assessment ASCO/ ANZSCO or the instrument should be referred to as the principal source of information on the normal tasks or duties and skill requirements for occupations in Australia. ASCO/ ANZSCO skill level references represent the entry level skills required for a particular occupation. In ANZSCO the skill level is defined at the Unit Group (4 digit level). In some cases, a higher qualification or level of experience will be required to complete the full range of duties competently. When using ANZSCO as a reference, case officers should refer to the indicative skill level specified for the nominated occupation rather than the generic ANZSCO Skill Level. In some occupations (for example teachers, barristers and nurses) formal qualifications are mandatory to undertake the role and the applicant must provide evidence of holding these qualifications with the application. In other occupations, significant experience in performing the tasks of the nominated occupation at a competent level can be considered as equivalent to formal qualifications. In all cases, case officers must be satisfied that the applicant has the skills to be able to perform the nominated occupation. ASCO/ ANZSCO provides guidance as to the level of qualification required and/or the number of years of experience a person should have in order to be able to perform the occupation. However, when making their assessment case officers should be mindful that the qualifications and experience of the applicant must be relevant to the nominated occupation. For example, ANZSCO suggests that an architect should hold a bachelor degree or higher qualification. If an applicant was nominated as an architect and provided evidence of holding a Bachelor of Law degree, it would be inappropriate to grant the visa as completing a Bachelor of Law degree would not have provided the applicant with the skills required to design a building. On the other hand, ANZSCO suggests that a marketing specialist should also hold a bachelor degree or higher qualification. If an applicant was nominated as a marketing specialist and they held a bachelor degree in business or sales for example, these degrees would be relevant to the occupation of marketing specialist so the delegate could be satisfied that the applicant had the requisite skills. If an applicant is unable to demonstrate skills and experience in a range of tasks, officers should consider whether or not the applicant is able to attribute 100% of their skills and experience to one of the sub-set of tasks prescribed. Although it is more favourable from an employer’s perspective, for an applicant to possess a range of skills and experience that covers the breadth of tasks prescribed under the nominated occupation, it should not provide grounds for refusal of the applicant’s application. For example, if an applicant were to nominate an occupation listed under a “not elsewhere classified" heading, it would be unreasonable to consider that the applicant possesses skills and experience in every prescribed task. Officers should also consider that some applicants will be highly skilled yet specialised in a small range of tasks rather than the range of duties. As this program is designed to enable employers to meet skill shortages, this degree of specialisation is acceptable for applicants for the program. ... 111 Requesting applicants to provide evidence of skills, qualifications and employment background If there is insufficient detail provided by the applicant to satisfy officers that the applicant has the necessary skills, qualifications and employment background for the nominated occupation, officers may request the applicant to provide additional information. If officers require further information, they should specify the evidence that the visa applicant is required to provide. Based on the circumstances of the case this may include (but is not limited to): formal qualifications formal and/or on-the-job training work and/or relevant experience employment references a skills assessment for migration purposes - see section 131 Skilled migration skills assessments and ability to meet any relevant Australian registration or licensing requirements - see Qualifications and experience.": 1313376 [2015] MRTA 769, [16] <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/769.html>.
> "In relation to the requirements of paragraph 457.223(4)(da), the departmental policy guidelines in PAM3[9] provide: 110.2 For nominations made on or after 1 July 2010 Under regulation 2.72(10)(e)(iv), the qualifications and experience of the person nominated to fill the occupation, should be commensurate with the qualifications and experience specified: for the occupation in the relevant ANZSCO code or if there is no ANZSCO code for the nominated occupation, the occupation in the legislative instrument for the purpose of regulation 2.72(10)(aa). 110.3 Assessment ASCO/ ANZSCO or the instrument should be referred to as the principal source of information on the normal tasks or duties and skill requirements for occupations in Australia. ASCO/ ANZSCO skill level references represent the entry level skills required for a particular occupation. In ANZSCO the skill level is defined at the Unit Group (4 digit level). In some cases, a higher qualification or level of experience will be required to complete the full range of duties competently. When using ANZSCO as a reference, case officers should refer to the indicative skill level specified for the nominated occupation rather than the generic ANZSCO Skill Level. In some occupations (for example teachers, barristers and nurses) formal qualifications are mandatory to undertake the role and the applicant must provide evidence of holding these qualifications with the application. In other occupations, significant experience in performing the tasks of the nominated occupation at a competent level can be considered as equivalent to formal qualifications. In all cases, case officers must be satisfied that the applicant has the skills to be able to perform the nominated occupation. ASCO/ ANZSCO provides guidance as to the level of qualification required and/or the number of years of experience a person should have in order to be able to perform the occupation. However, when making their assessment case officers should be mindful that the qualifications and experience of the applicant must be relevant to the nominated occupation. ... [Tribunal emphasis]": 1412055 [2015] MRTA 802, [25] <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/802.html>.
-> ASCO Dictionary: <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/5C244FD9D252CFC8CA25697E00184D35>; 1st ed, <https://www.whatjobspay.com.au/doc/ASCO%20Dictionary,%20First%20Edition.pdf>.
> See also, N03/07303 [2005] MRTA 832 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2005/832.html>.
> "In relation to the requirements of paragraph 457.223(4)(da), the departmental policy guidelines in PAM3[34] provide: ... Assessment against the nominated occupation in ANZSCO Under regulation 2.72(10)(e)(iv), for nominations made on or after 1 July 2010, the qualifications and experience of the person nominated to fill the occupation, should be commensurate with the qualifications and experience specified: ... Nominations made before 1 July 2010 are covered by regulation 2.72(10)(d)(iv). When assessing this criterion, ANZSCO should be referred to as the principal source of information on the normal tasks or duties and skill requirements for the nominated occupation. In ANZSCO, skill level references represent the entry level skills required for a particular occupation. The skill level is defined at the Unit Group (4 digit level). In some cases, a higher qualification or level of experience will be required to complete the full range of duties competently. Officers should refer to the indicative skill level specified for the nominated occupation rather than the generic ANZSCO Skill Level. In some occupations (for teachers, barristers and nurses) formal qualifications are mandatory to undertake the role and the applicant must provide evidence of holding these qualifications with the application. In other occupations, significant experience in performing the tasks of the nominated occupation at a competent level can be considered as equivalent to formal qualifications. In all cases, officers must be satisfied that the applicant has the skills to be able to perform the nominated occupation. ANZSCO provides guidance as to the level of qualification required and/or the number of years of experience a person should have in order to be able to perform the occupation. However, when making their assessment officers should be mindful that the qualifications and experience of the applicant must be relevant to the nominated occupation ...": McMichael (Migration) [2017] AATA 390, [46].
VIC, Solicitor"6. Clause 189.212(1) requires that at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the relevant assessing authority had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. For visa applications where the invitation to apply was given on or after 28 October 2013, this assessment cannot be one for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. For visa applications made on or after 1 July 2014, there are additional requirements relating to the currency of the assessment as at the time of invitation to apply for the visa. 7. ‘Relevant assessing authority’ means a person or body specified by the Minister in an instrument under r.2.26B of the Regulations (r.1.03). ‘Skilled occupation’ has the meaning given by r.1.15I of the Regulations (r.1.03). An occupation is a skilled occupation if: it is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing as a skilled occupation; and, if a number of points are specified in the instrument as being available — for which the number of points are available; and that is applicable to the person in accordance with the specification of the occupation. The relevant instrument for these purposes is Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/048. 8. IMMI 14/048 provides that the relevant assessing authority for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation of Solicitor is the State Legal Admission Authority (SLAA). According to the Department’s website (http://www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/asri/solicitors/aspx) in Victoria this is the Council of Legal Education and Board of Examiners (http://www.lawadmissions.vic.gov.au), whose website provides that: ... 10. The delegate asserted that solicitors are required to provide evidence of admission to the legal profession in the admitting state or territory as the relevant skills assessment. Although the delegate acknowledged that the applicant had completed the necessary legal training to satisfy the skills requirements for admission, the admission had not taken place before 9 January 2015 which was the time of invitation to apply for the visa. 11. Although the delegate did not cite a reference in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3), the Tribunal has had regard to the reference in PAM3 regarding “Suitable skills assessment” for Subclass 189 visas [at 4.1]. Whilst the reference specifically provides that for doctors evidence of full registration is a favourable skills assessment for this criterion, it is silent on the specific requirements for Solicitors. However, the Tribunal considers that even if it were not, to impose such a requirement in policy would be to superimpose a requirement in excess of that prescribed by the relevant regulation, which merely requires that at the time of invitation to apply for the visa the relevant assessing authority had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. ... 16. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of invitation to apply, the relevant assessing authority, the Council of Legal Education and Board of Examiners, which is the SLAA for Victoria, had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation of Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311).": 1504652 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3572 <https://jade.io/article/604712>.
Qld, Solicitor: Veerabhadra (Migration) [2019] AATA 2665 <https://jade.io/article/664417>.
VIC, Solicitor: "Clause 189.212(1) requires that at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the relevant assessing authority had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. For visa applications where the invitation to apply was given on or after 28 October 2013, this assessment cannot be one for a subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. For visa applications made on or after 1 July 2014, there are additional requirements relating to the currency of the assessment as at the time of invitation to apply for the visa. ‘Relevant assessing authority’ means a person or body specified by the Minister in an instrument under r.2.26B of the Regulations (r.1.03). ‘Skilled occupation’ has the meaning given by r.1.15I of the Regulations (r.1.03). An occupation is a skilled occupation if: it is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing as a skilled occupation; and, if a number of points are specified in the instrument as being available — for which the number of points are available; and that is applicable to the person in accordance with the specification of the occupation. The relevant instrument for these purposes is Legislative Instrument IMMI 16/060. If the assessment was made on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia while the applicant held a student visa, the qualification must have been obtained as a result of studying a registered course: cl.189.212(2). ‘Registered course’ is defined to mean a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students (r.1.03). The Tribunal is satisfied that IMMI 16/060 lists Solicitor as a skilled occupation for the purposes of this visa subclass, and that the relevant assessing authority is listed as SLAA. According to the Department's website (http://www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/asri/solicitors/aspx), in Victoria this is the Council of Legal Education and Board of Examiners (http://www.lawadmissions.vic.gov.au). Having made enquiries of VLAB, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Council of Legal Education and Board of Examiners changed its title to VLAB on 1 July 2015, and that it remains the relevant SLAA for Victorian legal practitioners for the purposes of this visa application. From the material on the Department’s and Tribunal’s files, the Tribunal is satisfied that: the applicant was invited to apply for a subclass 189 visa on 9 March 2016 by the Department; the applicant lodged a subclass 189 visa application online on 28 April 2016 in which she nominated her skilled occupation as Solicitor and indicated that she had a suitable skills assessment for this occupation from the State Legal Admission Authorities (SLAA) dated 16 February 2016; the applicant received a letter issued 16 February 2016 to the applicant by the Victorian Legal Admissions Board (VLAB) confirming that her academic and practical legal training requirements satisfied the skills requirements for admission to the legal profession in Australia, and that she had applied to be admitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria on 22 March 2016. The letter does not state that it was issued for the purposes of a subclass 485 visa application and expresses no validity period; and the applicant provided a copy of this letter to the Department on 12 May 2016. From the material on the Department’s file, it is evident that the letter issued by VLAB on 16 February 2016 was issued on the basis that the applicant had completed a Bachelor of Laws (Graduate Entry) at Victoria University in Melbourne between 24 February 2014 and 22 August 2015 and a Master of Laws degree at the University of Melbourne between 27 February 2012 and 27 February 2013. The Tribunal is satisfied from the Department of Education and Training’s Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) website that these are registered courses. The Tribunal is further satisfied from the Department’s movement records that the applicant held subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector) student visas for the duration of the above courses. The Tribunal has had regard to the reference in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) regarding “Suitable skills assessment” for subclass 189 visas. Whilst the reference specifically provides that for doctors, evidence of full registration is a favourable skills assessment for this criterion, it is silent on the specific requirements for Solicitors. However, the Tribunal considers that even if it were not, to impose a requirement in policy that applicants must be admitted to practise (as opposed to being eligible to be admitted) would be to superimpose a requirement in excess of that prescribed by the relevant regulation, which merely requires that at the time of invitation to apply for the visa the relevant assessing authority had assessed the applicant's skills as suitable for the applicant's nominated skilled occupation. The Tribunal is satisfied that the VLAB letter of 16 February 2016 is a positive skills assessment for the applicant as a Solicitor (regardless of whether she was not actually admitted to practise by the Supreme Court of Victoria until 22 March 2016). The Tribunal is further satisfied that the VLAB skills assessment was obtained prior to the applicant being invited to apply for the subclass 189 visa on 9 March 2016, and remains valid. ...": 1607515 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4637.
TAS, Solicitor: "Suitable Skills Assessment Clause 189.212(1)(a) requires that at the time of invitation to apply for the visa, the relevant assessing authority had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. ‘Relevant assessing authority’ means a person or body specified by the Minister in an instrument under r.2.26B of the Regulations (r.1.03). ‘Skilled occupation’ has the meaning given by r.1.15I of the Regulations (r.1.03). An occupation is a skilled occupation if: it is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing as a skilled occupation; and, if a number of points are specified in the instrument as being available — for which the number of points are available; and that is applicable to the person in accordance with the specification of the occupation. The relevant instrument for these purposes is Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/048. IMMI 14/048 provides that the relevant assessing authority for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation of Solicitor is the State Legal Admission Authority (SLAA). According to the Department’s website (http://www.immi.gov.au/Work/Pages/asri/solicitors/aspx) in Tasmania this is the Board of Legal Education (info@taslawsociety.asn.au). The delegate noted that the applicant had submitted a letter from the Board of Legal Education Tasmania, dated 31 July 2014, as evidence of her skills assessment for the nominated position of Solicitor. The delegate observed that the letter refers to the fact that the applicant’s admission hearing was scheduled for 22 August 2014. The delegate asserted that for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation of Solicitor, evidence of admission to practice law in the relevant state or territory is a suitable skills assessment. Although the delegate acknowledged the letter also states that the applicant’s academic and practical legal training qualifications meet the requirements for admission to the legal profession in Tasmania, the delegate considered that this document was not evidence of the applicant’s admission to practice law in Tasmania. On that basis, the delegate concluded that the Board of Legal Education Tasmania letter was not a suitable skills assessment for the purposes of cl.189.212(1). The Tribunal has had regard to the reference in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual 3 regarding “Suitable skills assessment” for Subclass 189 visas [at 4.1]. Whilst the reference specifically provides that for doctors evidence of full registration is a favourable skills assessment for this criterion, it is silent on the specific requirements for Solicitors. However, the Tribunal considers that even if it were not, to impose such a requirement in policy would be to superimpose a requirement in excess of that prescribed by the relevant regulation, which merely requires that at the time of invitation to apply for the visa the relevant assessing authority had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. In this instance, the applicant’s letter, dated 31 July 2014, from the Board of Legal Education Tasmania states: ...I confirm that your academic and practical legal training qualifications meet the requirements for admission to the legal profession in Tasmania in accordance with the Legal Profession (Board of Legal Education Rules) 2010... On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of invitation to apply, the relevant assessing authority, the Board of Legal Education Tasmania, which is the SLAA for Tasmania, had assessed the applicant’s skills as suitable for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation of Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311).": 1418279 [2015] MRTA 187.
NSW, Solicitor: "In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to section 360(2)(a) of the Act. The issue in this case is whether the applicant’s skills had been assessed as suitable by the relevant assessing authority. When making the application the applicant had nominated the occupation of Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311). That occupation is a skilled occupation set out in Legislative Instrument IMMI 11/068. The relevant assessing authority is specified as the State Legal Admission Authority . The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the skills assessment advice, issued by the Legal Professional Admission Board on 1 March 2011, indicating that the applicant had been successful in the assessment of her skills by the LPAB for the occupation of a Lawyer / Solicitor. The Tribunal finds on the basis of this evidence that the applicant’s skills have been assessed as suitable by the relevant assessing authority, a State Legal Admission Authority , for the nominated occupation of a Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311). Therefore, the applicant satisfies the requirements of cl.485.221(1). As the assessment advice does not indicate on what basis the assessment was made, the Tribunal cannot find that the skills assessment was made on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia. The Tribunal makes no findings with respect to cl. 485.221(2).": 1204825 [2012] MRTA 1573.
Queensland & NSW, Solicitor: "Department of Immigration information lists the assessing authorities and address for skilled occupation. At page 10 of the document it states: State Legal Admissions Authority (SLAA) If your nominated occupation is legal practitioner you must first make application for admission as a barrister and/or solicitor to the State Legal Admission Authority in the relevant state or territory in which you intend to settle and practice. When you have been accepted, you do not need any other skills assessment for your skilled, migration application.[1] For NSW it states for: New South Wales -The Professional Services Officer, Legal Practitioners Admission Board.[2] The Tribunal conducted a web search for information on admission requirements for NSW solicitors, which showed the following: NSW applicants (first admission in Australia) Admission First-time admittees should apply for admission to the Supreme Court of NSW via the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB), using the forms on their website. For any enquiries call the LPAB on (02) 9392 0300 or email ag_lpab@agd.nsw.gov.au[3] ... On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant nominated the occupation of Legal Practitioner - Solicitor which is a skilled occupation specified in IMMI 10/079. For that occupation, the relevant assessing authority specified in IMMI 10/079 is the State Legal Admission Authority (SLAA). The applicant provided a skills assessment for the Queensland Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, which is the State Legal Admission Authority for Queensland dated 9 September 2008. The skills assessment states the applicant is not eligible for admission to the legal profession in Queensland as he needed to complete his practical training and suitability and other associated requirements as well as certain procedural and administrative tasks. In considering the skills assessment from the Queensland State Legal Admission Authority the Tribunal finds the applicants skills were assessed as not suitable. However the applicant has since been admitted to NSW legal profession in April 2010. The applicant has not provided a skills assessment directly from the relevant assessing authority, being the NSW Legal Admission Authority . However, the Tribunal notes from its own research that the State Legal Admission Authority in NSW is the Legal Practitioners Admission Board and to be admitted as a solicitor in NSW, one needs to apply for admission from the Legal Profession Admission Board. The address and contact details for the Legal Practitioners Admission Board and the Legal Profession Admission Board are the same. The Board also confirmed with the Tribunal that “Practitioners” and “Profession” were used interchangeably and they were the one and same Admissions Board The Tribunal accepts that the applicant could not have been admitted to the NSW Supreme Court as a solicitor unless he had satisfied the admission requirements of Legal Profession Admission Board. The Tribunal also notes from the Immigration information sheet about assessing authorities that when one has been admitted to practice “you do not need any other skills assessment for your skilled, migration application.”[4] Therefore the Tribunal finds that at the time of decision, the skills of the applicant have been assessed by the relevant assessing authority as suitable for that occupation. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets cl.485.221(1). The applicant provided to the Tribunal evidence that he completed the Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of International Relations at Bond University between January 2005 and 16 August 2008. Electronic records before the Tribunal indicate that during that period the applicant was the holder of a student visa. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the assessment was made on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia whilst the applicant was the holder of a student visa. As the applicant’s skills assessment was obtained on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia while the applicant was the holder of a student visa, the qualification must be as a result of studying a registered course (cl. 485.221(2)). According to the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) and information obtained from CRICOS, Bond University was registered to provide these registered courses at the relevant time. Hence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets cl485.221 (2). For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant satisfies cl.485.221.": 0903940 [2011] MRTA 389.
"[30] The nominated occupation is that which has been nominated by the visa applicant’s business sponsor, being the occupation which has been approved under s 140GB of the Act: cl 457.223(4)(a). In the present case, Ms Sharma’s business sponsor nominated an occupation by reference to a six digit “ANZSCO code” as r 2.72(10)(e)(iv) of the Regulations permitted or required. It seems to me that in cases where the nominated occupation has been identified by a six digit ANZSCO code, it is not only permissible for the Tribunal to have regard to information contained in the ANZSCO but necessary that it do so for the purposes of identifying the tasks to be performed by a person in that occupation. [31] The ANZSCO is structured in a way that provides general information in respect of a unit group of occupations (given a four digit code), and more particular information in respect of specific occupations falling within the unit group (each of which is given a six digit code). In the present case, and at the relevant time, the unit group with the code 3322 had just one occupation falling within it, that of “PAINTING TRADES WORKER” (code 332211). [32] The tasks required of that occupation are not disputed. In determining the skills, qualifications and employment background necessary to perform the tasks, it was permissible for the Tribunal to have regard to the information appearing under the heading “Indicative Skill Level”. Importantly however, that part of the ANZSCO does not purport to state what is “necessary” to perform the tasks of the occupation. Rather, the ANZSCO gives an indication that “most” occupations in the unit have “a level of skill commensurate with” the qualifications and experience then listed. The ANZSCO indicates a skill level applicable to the occupation and provides some guidance as to how skills at that level can be attained. [33] It follows that it would constitute an error for the decision-maker to construe or use the ANZSCO as if it laid down an inflexible checklist for the skills, qualifications and employment background necessary to perform the nominated occupation.": Sharma v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1708, [30]-[33].
"[20] The ANZSCO provides as follows in a section entitled ‘Conceptual Basis of the ANZSCO’: SCOPE OF THE CLASSIFICATION The scope of ANZSCO is all occupations and jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets undertaken for pay or profit, including jobs occupied by people working for themselves. ANZSCO is not designed to cover work not undertaken for pay or profit, for example voluntary work. However, this does not preclude ANZSCO from describing such activities. … OVERVIEW OF ANZSCO STRUCTURE The structure of ANZSCO has five hierarchical levels — major group, sub-major group, minor group, unit group and occupation. The categories at the most detailed level of the classification are termed ‘occupations’. These are grouped together to form ‘unit groups’, which in turn are grouped into ‘minor groups’. Minor groups are aggregated to form ‘submajor groups’ which in turn are aggregated at the highest level to form ‘major groups’. … UNDERLYING CONCEPTS As noted in Conceptual model, the framework adopted for ANZSCO is based on the concepts of ‘job’ and ‘occupation’. The concept of ‘occupation’ is based on the concepts of ‘skill level’ and ‘skill specialisation’. Understanding these concepts is fundamental to understanding ANZSCO. These concepts are defined in the following sections. The concept of job A ‘job’ is defined as a set of tasks designed to be performed by one person for an employer (including self-employment) in return for payment or profit. Individual persons are classified by occupation through their relationship to a past, present or future job. Any particular job will typically involve an individual working for a particular employer and undertaking a particular set of tasks. People working for themselves are considered as having a job and belonging to the labour force. The concept of occupation The categories at the most detailed level of the ANZSCO structure are called ‘occupations’. An ‘occupation’ is defined as a set of jobs that require the performance of similar or identical sets of tasks. As it is rare for two actual jobs to have identical sets of tasks, in practical terms, an ‘occupation’ is a set of jobs whose main tasks are characterised by a high degree of similarity. The similarity of tasks is defined in ANZSCO as a function of the level and specialisation of skill required to perform those tasks. Skill is defined as the ability to competently perform the tasks associated with an occupation. It follows that ANZSCO classifies occupations according to two criteria — skill level and skill specialisation. The concept of skill level In ANZSCO, skill level is defined as a function of the range and complexity of the set of tasks performed in a particular occupation. The greater the range and complexity of the set of tasks, the greater the skill level of an occupation. Skill level is measured operationally by: •the level or amount of formal education and training •the amount of previous experience in a related occupation, and •the amount of on-the-job training required to competently perform the set of tasks required for that occupation. In general, the greater the range and complexity of the set of tasks involved, the greater the amount of formal education and training, previous experience and on-the-job training required to competently perform the set of tasks for that occupation. Formal education and training refers to the level and amount of education and training required for competent performance of the tasks required in an occupation. It is measured in terms of educational qualifications as set out in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and the New Zealand Register of Quality Assured Qualifications (NZ Register). Details of the AQF and the NZ Register, as they were at the time of the development of ANZSCO, can be found at Appendixes B and C, respectively. Previous experience refers to the time spent gaining work experience in related occupations or activities required for the competent performance of the tasks in an occupation. It is measured in months or years. On-the-job training refers to the amount of training required after commencing work in an occupation for competent performance of the tasks in that occupation. It is measured in months or years, and may be undertaken at the same time as formal training.": Dhimal v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCCA 1094, [20].
"[36] In Talha, with respect to the purpose of the ANZSCO Code, the Full Court said this (at [17]–[23]): 17.In view of its central significance in the present case, it is desirable to describe the relevant features of the ANZSCO Code. “ANZSCO” is an acronym for Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, 1st Edition (“the ANZSCO Code”). The ANZSCO Code replaced the previous ASCO directory. All occupations and jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets which are undertaken for pay or profit, including jobs occupied by people working for themselves, are classified in the ANZSCO Code. The introductory section of the ANZSCO Code explains the concept of “a job” as meaning: …a set of tasks designed to be performed by one person for an employer (including self-employment) in return for payment or profit. Individual persons are classified by occupation through their relationship to a past, present or future job. 18.“Occupation” is defined in the ANZSCO Code as “a set of jobs that require the performance of similar or identical sets of tasks”. 19.The introductory section of the ANZSCO Code also explains how occupations are classified. Occupations are classified according to their attributes and are grouped on the basis of their similarity into successively broader categories for statistical and other types of analysis. The occupations are then organised or classified into progressively larger groups on the basis of their similarities in terms of both skill level and skill specialisation. Details of the various hierarchies or groups are provided. “Occupation” is the most detailed level of classification. Occupations are distinguished from other occupations in the same unit group on the basis of detailed skill specialisation. 20.The notes explain that the classification of occupations is done according to two criteria, namely skill level and skill specialisation. “Skill level” is defined as a function of the range and complexity of the set of tasks performed in the particular occupation and is measured operationally by the level or amount of formal education and training, the amount of previous experience in a related occupation, and the amount of on-the-job training which is required competently to perform a set of tasks required for the occupation. Occupations are divided into five different skill levels. The highest skill level is Skill Level 1, which is defined as a level of skill commensurate with a bachelor degree or higher qualification, however, at least five years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualification. 21.The concept of “skill specialisation” is defined in the ANZSCO Code as a function of: •field of knowledge required; •tools and equipment used; •materials worked on; and •goods or services produced or provided. 22.It is important to understand the structure of the ANZSCO Code. It is divided into five “hierarchical levels”. Jobs are described at the most detailed level of classification as “occupations”. “Occupations” are then grouped together at a higher level of granularity to form “unit groups”, which in turn are grouped into “minor groups”. Minor groups are then aggregated to form “sub-major groups”, which in turn are aggregated at the highest level of granularity to form “major groups”. Significantly, in many cases, differing tasks are described at various levels of the hierarchy. 23.It should also be noted that the introductory section of the ANZSCO Code contains the following material as to its purposes: This publication is a reference document intended to provide a detailed account of the content and structure of ANZSCO and to assist the interpretation of statistics classified to it. It is not intended as a means of assigning information about particular jobs to ANZSCO classes. Care needs to be taken when assigning information about particular jobs to ANZSCO classes because the same job titles can be used in different industries to describe different occupations (eg business analyst). Additionally, the titles used in ANZSCO are not an exhaustive list of all titles used by people to describe an occupation (eg brickie).": Bhaskar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FEDCFAMC2G 320, [36].
NZ Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of NZ -- Solicitor ANZSCO: "[48] Immigration New Zealand also appears to have accepted that the appellant was working in an occupation capable of being assessed as skilled, given that it raised no concerns about her position being a substantial match to that of Solicitor under the relevant ANZSCO classification. Her present employer regards her as a responsible and effective employee.": RQ (Skilled Migrant) [2018] NZIPT 204515. -- no opinion expressed as to whether also equivalent to ANZSCO barrister.
LPAB, Qld: "Legislative provisions pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 2004 came into effect in Queensland as from 1 July 2004 resulting in a ‘fused’ legal profession as part of a move away from the traditional English model of a profession divided between ‘barristers’ and ‘solicitors’.... In Queensland, applicants are admitted as a lawyer on an Order made by the Supreme Court which, under the Act and Rules, is the admitting authority. The role of the Board includes making a recommendation to the Supreme Court in respect of each application in the form of a Certificate of Compliance with the Rules. The Board does NOT approve admission to the legal profession nor can it be described as the ‘admitting authority’. It is inappropriate for the Board to pre-empt any decision of the Court in relation to admission to the legal profession ... ": 'Overseas Legal Qualifications' (LPAB) <https://www.qls.com.au/getattachment/05dd6014-4f3c-417f-9498-7d0b15098995/admission-information-overseas-qualifications-september-2023-.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/W62P-FJ9D>.
BUT SEE, as of 2019 and modified 2022: Migration (LIN 19/051: Specification of Occupations and Assessing Authorities) Instrument 2019 (Cth) <https://jade.io/article/637334>, which state: "153 barrister 271111 a legal admissions authority of a State or Territory 154 solicitor 271311 a legal admissions authority of a State or Territory".
UWA GDLP, CRICOS: "The Tribunal notes that the delegate for the department was not satisfied that the applicant’s GDLP was an eligible qualification for the Graduate Work Stream. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s GDLP is a ‘registered course’ for the purpose of r.1.15F and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 with CRICOS number 013804A": Mavunduse (Migration) [2019] AATA 5078, [13].
Barristers and Solicitors:
> "There had been a problem in relation to persons who were 'barristers and solicitors' in other States seeking to be admitted in Queensland purely as barristers, without the appropriate experience and without attending the professional requirements and training for barristers under the Barristers Admission Rules 1975 (~ld).~~ Interstate practice is now addressed under the 'travelling' provisions of the 2004 Act ... 77 Re Lavery and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland (No 2) (1996) 43 ALD 13; see also the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court Queensland Law Society v Sande (No 2) [I9981 1 Qd R 273. 78 Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) ss 74-78,230-242.": Michael White, 'The Development of the Divided Legal Profession in Queensland' (2004) 23 University of Queensland Law Journal 296, 307 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/2004/25.pdf>.
> Re Lavery and Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland (No 2) (1996) 43 ALD 13, headnotes: "The tribunal then considered the merits of the decision under review. It examined in detail the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act (NT) relating to admission to practice as a legal practitioner and the entitlement that flowed from that admission. It then examined the history and effect of the equivalent provisions in the legislation that had dealt with the admission to legal practice of persons in Queensland. It concluded that in the Northern Territory there was only one profession or occupation for which a person may be registered if wishing to practise law. In Queensland there are two such professions and they are distinct. A comparision for the determination of equivalence could not be made between the occupation of legal practitioner in the Northern Territory and the occupation of barrister and solicitor in Queensland because such an occupation did not exist. The decision of the respondent to refuse admission of the applicant as a barrister and solicitor was therefore correct. It was not necessary for the tribunal to express an opinion on the question whether the applicant could seek admission as a solicitor in Queensland.". See also, "(48) It seems to us that it is important to answer this question before we can determine whether or not there is an equivalent occupation in Queensland. Mr Lavery's notice dated 6 September 1995 stated that he was “admitted as a legal practitioner, that is as a barrister and solicitor, of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia” (T documents, p 22). On the basis of the Master's Certificate issued on 24 August 1995, we are satisfied that Mr Lavery was admitted as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 4 December 1989. Also on the basis of that certificate, we are satisfied that his name remains on the roll of legal practitioners of that court and has never been removed from it. We also find that his right to practise in the Northern Territory has not been cancelled or suspended. (49) What is a “legal practitioner” in the Northern Territory? A legal practitioner is defined in the Legal Practitioners Act (NT) (the LP Act). The general effect of that definition is that a person is a legal practitioner if his or her name is on the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (the NT Roll) (LP Act, s 6 and Legal Practitioners Rules (the LP Rules), r 3). On the NT Roll is entered the name of each person admitted as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (r 3(1)(a)). (50) A person other than a legal practitioner may not hold him or her self out to be a legal practitioner. Furthermore, he or she may not hold him or her self out as qualified to perform any functions of a legal practitioner. (LP Act, s 131(1)) Certain documents, such as a will or an instrument creating or regulating rights between persons in relation to property or legal proceedings, may not be drawn by a person other than a legal practitioner (LP Act, s 132(1)). (51) The qualifications, requirements and procedures to be followed for admission to practise are regulated by the LP Rules (LP Act, s 11(1)). Part 3 of those rules regulate the admission of legal practitioners. Where admission is sought by a person already admitted in another Australian jurisdiction, no distinction is drawn between those legal practitioners who may have been admitted as barristers, those who may have been admitted as solicitors, those who may have been admitted as barristers, solicitors, proctors and attorneys or those who may have been admitted in some other way as legal practitioners. Provided a person meets the academic and other standard set out in the LP Rules, he or she may be admitted as a legal practitioner. (52) On admission as a legal practitioner, no distinction is to be found in the LP Act or the LP Rules (or, indeed in any Northern Territory legislation that we have searched) between the activities that may be undertaken by a person who wishes to practise his or her profession as if he or she were solely a barrister and those that may be undertaken by a person who wishes to practise his or her profession as a solicitor, proctor or attorney. Although the term “legal practitioner” is not defined in the LP Act in more specific terms than those used in s 6, it is arguable that all such persons come within the term “legal practitioners” and not simply those who may be described as “barristers” or “solicitors” as Mr Lavery sought to do in his notice of 6 September 1995. This is apparent from the history of the development of the legal profession in England. That history, including the separate development of various classes of legal practitioners, is summarised in the opening chapter of Harrison's Law and Conduct of the Legal Profession in Queensland (2nd ed, GN Williams J, 1984). That history is reflected in the legislation of other States, such as South Australia. Section 5 defines a legal practitioner to mean a barrister and solicitor and a solicitor to include a proctor and attorney. What is the occupation (or the occupations if more than one) for which a person practising law may be registered in Queensland? (55) This question is best answered by first looking at the historical development of the legal profession in Queensland. As much of the present State of Queensland originally formed part of the colony of New South Wales (Letters Patent and Commission dated 2 April 1787 and granted to the Governor of New South Wales — Warrant for the Charter of Justice, HRA Series 1V, vol 1, 6–12), it follows that the Australian Courts Act 1828 (9 Geo 4, c 83) applied to Queensland. Section 16 of that Imperial Act provided that the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales could make rules regarding “… the admission of attornies, solicitors, and barristers, …” The Barristers Act 1848 (11 Vic. No 57) (the Barristers Act) provided for the creation of a board to approve the admission of those properly qualified for admission as barristers. (56) Following the establishment of Queensland as a colony separate from New South Wales, the matter of admission came to be governed by the Supreme Court Act 1867 (31 Vic No 23) (the 1867 Act). That legislation provided that the Supreme Court of Queensland and its judges would be held to have always had within the colony of Queensland all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and its judges: s 34. (57) Under s 40 of the 1867 Act: Any attorney, solicitor or proctor of good repute in his profession having been three years in actual practice in Great Britain or the colony who shall pass the examination in classics or mathematics prescribed for persons seeking admission to the bar or who shall have a certificate of honour or other academical distinction in classics mathematics or law from any university or college within the British dominions may upon motion in open court be called and admitted a barrister-at-law. Provided that when so called and admitted he shall cease to practise as an attorney solicitor or proctor and shall be struck off the Roll of the Supreme Court … (58) To this point in the history of Queensland, there appears to have been a division between the person wbo was an attorney, solicitor and proctor and the person who was a barrister. Lest we appear to have overlooked the use of the male pronoun in that part of the section which we have quoted, we note that, until the Legal Practitioners Act 1905 (the 1905 Act), a woman could not be admitted as a “… barrister, solicitor, or conveyancer, as the case … [might] be” (s 2). The very language of s 2 of the 1905 Act suggests a division among the classes of legal practitioner to which it referred but we shall return to that later in these reasons. ... (76) It is apparent from this summary of the statutory provisions affecting the legal profession that there is a division between what we will for the moment call the “office” of a barrister and that of a solicitor. The admission (ie the registration) for each is entirely separate from the other. A person may not be “registered” for both at the same time. (77) The functions of the two “offices” are a different matter. In relation to those functions, it can be said that there is a blurring of the line between the two. This is particularly as a result of the right of audience given to solicitors as a result of the 1973 Act (see para 71 above) and in other legislation such as the Justices Act 1886 (s 72), the District Courts Act 1967 (s 52) and the Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (s 18). Despite the blurring, it can be said that the barrister's main function is that of advocacy and, on appropriate instructions, the preparation of work, such as pleadings and affidavits, in connection with litigation. ... May Mr Lavery be registered as a barrister and solicitor in Queensland? (78) This question is best answered by returning to the specific question we must consider in light of the provisions of s 29(1) — are the activities of the occupation of a legal practitioner for which Mr Lavery may be registered in the Northern Territory substantially the same as the activities of an occupation for which Mr Lavery may be registered in Queensland? (79) The Act does not define the meaning of “occupation” but it would seem from the context of the legislation that it should be given its ordinary meaning ie an occupation is: … What a person is (habitually) engaged in, esp to earn a living; a job, a business, a profession; a pursuit, an activity …” (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). (80) In the Northern Territory, there is, generally speaking, only one profession, pursuit or activity (ie occupation) for which a person may be registered if he or she wishes to practise law. We say “generally speaking” for we are aware that a notation may be added against the name of a person on the Roll of Legal Practitioners so that he or she may practise only as a barrister. Whether or not this amounts to “registration” within the meaning of the Act is not something which we must decide. In Queensland, there are clearly two such professions, pursuits or activities (ie occupations) and it is quite clear from the historical context and the current legislative provisions that the two are quite distinct. A person may not be admitted and so on the roll (ie registered) for both at the same time. (81) Nothing in s 29(1) or in the Act generally requires that there may be a comparison between an occupation in the first state and an amalgamation of occupations in the second. Section 29(1) speaks clearly of “an occupation” in the first and “an occupation” in the second [Emphasis added]. That means that the comparison must be between the occupation of a legal practitioner in the Northern Territory and an occupation of a barrister in Queensland. Having done that, the comparison must then be made with the occupation of a solicitor in Queensland. The comparison cannot be made between the occupation of a legal practitioner in the Northern Territory on the one hand and the occupation of a barrister and solicitor in Queensland on the other for such a fused occupation does not exist. (82) Only once the occupations have been identified in this way can there be a comparison of the activities authorised to be carried on under each registration. Once that comparison is made and regard is had to the extensive right of audience given to solicitors in Queensland, it may well be that registration as a legal practitioner in the Northern Territory is equivalent to registration as a solicitor in Queensland. We do not, however, need to decide that point in this case and we do not express any concluded view. ..."
> "(23) The applicant stated that the respondent's approach would mean that people with less qualifications and experience than himself would be entitled to practise as solicitors with unrestricted practising rights in the Australian Capital Territory while he would be denied this right. He submitted that the substantial activities must be looked at and the respondent's contentions raise an artificial barrier which mutual recognition aims at overcoming. The applicant stated that equivalence of occupation should be determined by the substantial activities of the occupations, not by title. ... (28) The tribunal stated at the outset that the only issue which it may consider is the applicant's entitlement to registration under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. Lockhart J in Sande v Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland (1994) 33 ALD 713 ; 134 ALR 560 at 565 stated that the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 must be applied in a practical, commonsense manner and regard must be had to the substance of the matter and the substantial equivalence of occupations. Section 17(1) of this Act clearly requires registration for an equivalent occupation. The tribunal accepts that the threshold question is to ask for what occupation is the applicant registered in the first state. This occupation must then be compared to that for which he seeks registration in the second state. In Queensland the applicant is registered for the occupation of barrister. In New South Wales the applicant has been issued with a restricted practising certificate as a solicitor. The applicant is therefore prima facie entitled to a restricted practising certificate as a solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory, which is what he has been granted. He is also entitled to set up practice as a barrister at the independent bar of the Australian Capital Territory. (29) Section 29(1) of the Act states that an occupation for which persons may be registered in the first state is taken to be equivalent to an occupation for which persons may be registered in the second state if the activities authorised to be carried out under each registration are substantially the same. The tribunal is unable to find that the activities authorised to be carried out by a barrister in Queensland are substantially the same as the activities authorised to be carried out by a solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent made submissions as to the work he undertook as a barrister in Queensland. He summarised this as being mainly advocacy work, including receiving prepared briefs, arranging appointments with clients to provide legal opinion and advice and undertaking research. He stated that he also undertook duty lawyer work at courts. However, the applicant did not make any submissions as to the activities authorised to be carried out by a solicitor with an unrestricted practising certificate in the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent did not make submissions on the specific activities authorised to be carried out by either of these occupations other than the different categories of admission that exist. The tribunal feels that it cannot be said that the activities authorised to be carried out by the two occupations are substantially similar. To begin with, the legal profession in Queensland is divided, whereas admission to the legal profession in the Australian Capital Territory is as a barrister and solicitor. A solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory may on occasions undertake advocacy work and appear before courts and tribunals, but a barrister is not ordinarily authorised to undertake the substantive work of a solicitor. There is some scope for overlap between the two occupations, however one cannot say that there is substantial equivalence. The applicant contends that the tribunal should adopt the reasoning of Deputy President McMahon in Re Cleary , above, namely that in defining the relevant occupation one should look at the activities of the occupation rather than the legal structure within which the occupation operates. The tribunal adopts this approach, but concludes that the activities authorised to be undertaken by a solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory and a barrister in Queensland are substantially different. ... (31) The applicant's New South Wales registration does not assist him in this matter as he is not fully registered in New South Wales either for the occupation of practising barrister or for the occupation of practising solicitor. The applicant has been registered by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory as a barrister and solicitor and this is the only step needed for him to practise as a barrister. Equivalence in an occupation for which the applicant is registered has thus been achieved. If he wished to do so he could commence practice as a member of the Independent Bar of Canberra without further qualification or the issue of a certificate. However, to practise as a solicitor in any capacity under the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 (ACT) he would require a practising certificate. He is only entitled to that registration in the Australian Capital Territory if he can rely upon his already being registered for an equivalent occupation in another state. ...": Kozera and Law Society of the ACT (1997) 46 ALD 785 (AATA).
> "... The Mutual Recognition Acts passed by the Australian parliaments in 1992 were part of a national scheme, not limited to lawyers, for the recognition throughout Australia of occupational qualifications. As beneficial as that legislation may have been, it was administratively inconvenient and raised awkward questions about the equivalence of occupations in the context of separate Bars and fused professions. Those problems have been largely circumvented by the statutory introduction of National Practising Certificates, the benefits of which we are as a profession only beginning to harvest. ...": 'Editorial' (2002) 22 Aust Bar Review 89, 90-91.
> ** "[Headnotes] (iii) The onus rests upon a person arguing for equivalence of occupations to show that the activities authorised to be carried out under the respective occupations are substantially the same.": Re Sande and the Supreme Court of Queensland (1995) 38 ALD 639 (AATA).
> "In Western Australia all barristers and solicitors are practically in the one class, without distinction. ... ": Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Western Australia, 14 September 1932, at 604 (Sleeman, Fremantle) <https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/lh/1932-09-14/pdf/download>.
> "28) The relevant occupation, for the purposes of the MR Act, in the present case is that of a legal practitioner — more specifically, barrister and solicitor. In the Australian Capital Territory and in Western Australia an individual carrying on that occupation is “subject to more than one system of registration” and “more than one local registration authority” within the meaning of s 18(2) of the MR Act, because in each of those jurisdictions that occupation “involves both the admission as a legal practitioner by a court and the issue of a practising certificate by another body”: see s 18(3) of the MR Act. In each of those jurisdictions admission as a barrister and solicitor is effected by the relevant Supreme Court, whereas practising certificates are issued by another body — in the Australian Capital Territory, by The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory; in Western Australia, by the respondent. (29) Section 18(2) of the MR Act provides that Pt 3 of that Act applies “in relation to each such system of registration and each such (local registration) authority”. In the present case the applicant was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 20 December 1996. The applicant was, therefore, entitled, by virtue of s 20(1) of the MR Act, to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor in Western Australia, provided that he had lodged a notice under s 19 of that Act. The applicant was, on 2 May 1997, admitted as a barrister and solicitor in Western Australia by the full court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. (30) The applicant has not been issued with a practising certificate by The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory or any other equivalent local registration authority in any state or territory in Australia. Section 20(1) of the MR Act does not, therefore, confer any entitlement upon the applicant to be issued with an annual practice certificate by the respondent. (31) Section 20(2) of the MR Act empowers a local registration authority to grant registration to a person on the ground of that person's entitlement to such registration pursuant to s 20(1), and s 20(5) empowers the authority to impose conditions on such registration. Because the applicant had no entitlement to the issue of an annual practice certificate in Western Australia, it follows that s 20(2) of the MR Act does not confer authority on the respondent to issue such a certificate to the applicant. It necessarily also follows that s 20(5) of the MR Act does not confer authority on the respondent to impose conditions on the issue of such a certificate to the applicant. ...": Mulligan and the Legal Practice Board (1998) 50 ALD 940 (AATA).
> Barrister-sole and Barrister and Solicitor distinguished, WA:
-> "barristers owe duties to the courts, to their clients and to their barrister and solicitor colleagues": Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (WA) r 4(d) <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_45729.pdf/$FILE/Legal%20Profession%20Uniform%20Conduct%20(Barristers)%20Rules%202015%20-%20%5B00-a0-01%5D.pdf?OpenElement>.
-> "9. Entitlement to certain titles For the purposes of section 12 of the Uniform Law, a person listed in column 3 of an item in the Table below is entitled to take or use the title specified in column 2 of that item in the circumstances specified in column 4 of that item. Barrister and solicitor, solicitor and barrister, solicitor, attorney, proctor ... When the Australian legal practitioner holds an Australian practising certificate, other than an Australian practising certificate authorising the practitioner to engage in legal practice as or in the manner of a barrister only Barrister ... When the Australian legal practitioner holds an Australian practising certificate granted in a fused jurisdiction, or an Australian practising certificate granted in a non-fused jurisdiction that authorises the practitioner to engage in legal practice as or in the manner of a barrister only": Legal Professional Uniform General Rules 2015 (WA) r 9 <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_45732.pdf/$FILE/Legal%20Profession%20Uniform%20General%20Rules%202015%20-%20%5B00-a0-01%5D.pdf?OpenElement>.
> *** See, TTMRA decisions, particularly, Little and The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2024] AATA 497: "... The Occupation of a Barrister in NSW, Victoria and WA The regulation of the legal profession in New South Wales is governed by uniform legislation and rules which includes the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 No 16 [NSW] (the Application Act), the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) No 16a of 2014 [NSW] (the Uniform Law) and the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 [NSW] (Bar Rules). Victoria and WA have adopted legislation and rules in the same form as New South Wales. The objects of the Bar Rules include to “act independently”.[67] Rules 11 to 16 of the Bar Rules set out the work of a barrister. The work of a barrister set out in rule 11 includes appearing as an advocate, giving legal advice and such other work as is from time to time commonly carried out by barristers. Rule 13 of the Bar Rules sets out certain conduct that a barrister must not engage in. Rule 12 of the Bar Rules provides: A barrister must be a sole practitioner, and must not: (a) practise in partnership with any person, (b) practise as the employer of any legal practitioner who acts as a legal practitioner in the course of that employment, (c) practise as the employee of any person, (d) be a director of an incorporated legal practice, or (e) practice by or through an unincorporated legal practice. ... The Occupation of a Barrister in the ACT Mr Marcus Hassell is a barrister in the ACT and President of the ACT Bar Council who swore an affidavit on behalf of the ACT Bar Council.[68] Mr Hassell deposed to the regulatory scheme for the regulation of lawyers in the ACT under the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT); the Legal Profession (Barristers) Rules 2021 (ACT); and the Legal Profession Regulation 2007 (ACT). In this section of our reasons, we have adopted much of the summary of the regulatory scheme provided by Mr Hassell, noting that his evidence was not challenged in cross examination. [68] Exhibit 18. Section 81 of the ACT Barristers Rules provides as follows: A barrister must be a sole practitioner, and must not practice: (a) in partnership with any person; (b) as the employer of any legal practitioner who acts as a legal practitioner in the course of that employment; or (c) as the employee of any person. The combined effect of the ACT Barristers Rules and the ACT Legal Profession Act includes that:[69] (a) a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister of any kind must only engage in “barristers work”; (b) any barrister at the “independent bar” in the ACT “must” be a sole practitioner and “must not” practise in partnership with or as the employee of any person, and must not be the “employer” of any other legal practitioner. [69] Ibid, [6]. In the ACT, a legal practitioner cannot be issued with a barrister’s practising certificate which entitles them to practise as an “employed barrister”, except in limited circumstances for those persons who are government lawyers.[70] [70] Ibid, [6(c)]. ... The applicant contends that equivalency could be achieved by imposing a requirement of supervision on him as a barrister in the Australian jurisdictions. The respondents contend that under their respective legislative schemes there is no scope for the imposition of conditions that the applicant conduct his practice as a supervisee or employee of another barrister. It is our view that equivalence cannot be achieved by imposing conditions. It is a fundamental requirement of the legislative schemes regulating barristers that they are independent sole practitioners who do not act under supervision and are prohibited from being an employee.". ---
-> ** this would likely exclude employed 'Barrister and Solicitors' (cf Barrister sole), and those Australian Legal Practitioners under supervision conditions and non-Principal conditions (eg employee), from the definition of 'Barrister' under State law in NSW, Vic, WA and ACT (and likely also Qld).
-> Question, for the purposes of Migration Regulations, whether a person is or is eligible to practice as a Barrister, having regard to the person's academic and practical legal training qualifications, and any further education and vocational training to practice or carry out the occupation of a Barrister (and whether any statutory schemes attenuate the assessment of whether a person may practice in that occupation having regard to their experience and skill).
> Advocates: "... What these considerations, and the other historical matters described above, reveal is that attention must be directed to the nature of the role which an advocate (whether barrister, solicitor or both barrister and solicitor) plays in the judicial system. ...": D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12, [21] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).
*** WA - admission - TTMRA - admission in WA as 'lawyers' previously known as 'barristers and solicitors': "This leads to another point in relation to the issues identified by the Board. The 'equivalence' in relation to the issue before the Court is not as between 'a barrister in New Zealand' and an 'unrestricted legal practitioner in Western Australia'. It is an equivalence of the occupations in each jurisdiction that is the subject of admission. In that regard, in both New Zealand and Western Australia admission is to the legal profession generally. In New Zealand a person is admitted by the High Court 'as a barrister and solicitor' (and no person may be admitted as a barrister or solicitor only).[13] That is the nature of Mr Chambers' admission (i.e. 'as a barrister and solicitor').[14] Likewise, in this State, persons are admitted to the legal profession as 'lawyers' (although, in the past the nomenclature 'barrister and solicitor' has also been used). Significantly, both forms of admission are general in nature. [13] Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (NZ), s 48. [14] See [31] above. Registration at the level of the mode of practice (either as 'barrister' or 'barrister and solicitor') in both New Zealand and Western Australia is regulated at the level of practising certificates. As we have said above, that is not an issue before this Court. For these reasons, we are satisfied that the occupation in which Mr Chambers seeks registration is an equivalent occupation to that which he is registered in New Zealand. No discretion under s 22(1)(c) of the Act arises in relation to admission. ...": Re Chambers; Ex parte Chambers [2021] WASC 196, [56]-[59].
> see provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893-2003 (WA) s 3: "“practitioner” shall mean a person admitted and entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, for the purposes of Part IV includes a person who is entitled by virtue of a law of the Commonwealth to perform in Western Australia the functions of a barrister or solicitor, for the purposes of Part V includes a firm of practitioners of which the person is a member and for the purposes of Part IV and Part VA includes a person who has been a practitioner; ..."
> see also, "10 Although these comments were made with reference to a barrister practising in New South Wales, where the profession is divided into barristers and solicitors, the comments apply in this State to any person who has been admitted as a barrister and solicitor of this Court. In particular, they apply to the conduct of a practitioner in carrying out the work of a solicitor as distinct from a barrister. That was the kind of work being undertaken in the present case.": Re Fatharly and the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 [1999] WASCA 163.
> admission of a Victorian barrister and solicitor: Kahn v Board of Examiners [1939] 62 CLR 422.
> noting the decision in Little [2024] AATA 497 above, query whether admission as a lawyer in the LPUL states would entitle as person to carry out the work of a Barrister, noting the nomenclature in the past was 'barrister and solicitor', and noting that the ANSZCO criteria is predicated on the ability to carry out the occupation, not whether a person is entitled to carry out the occupation of Barrister-?sole.
** SA, admission: "The Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) (the Act) governs the right of a person who satisfies the Supreme Court that she or he has complied with the Rules of the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council 2004 (the LPEAC Rules 2004) to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor by the Supreme Court of South Australia.[4] ...": Ejueyitsi v Board of Examiners [2021] SASCA 118, [12].
Barrister, Qld - academic and vocation training requirements when applying for a Barrister's Practicing Certificate (up from Solicitor or as a Australian lawyer): "Once you have successfully completed all of the academic and vocational training pre-requisites (as outlined above) you may apply to the Association for the grant of a practising certificate ...": 'Guide to becoming a barrister in Queensland' (Bar Association of Queensland) <https://qldbar.asn.au/baq/v1/viewDocument?documentId=984>. -- consistent with PAM3 guidance, more vocation training is needed (cf Solicitor and admitted Australian lawyer).
© Jing Zhi Wong, 2023-2025