Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19027] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens do support this bill and I have to say as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee that I was somewhat disadvantaged in considering it by never having practised as a lawyer. I guess that meant I was far more reliant on what submitters said to the committee and the advice that we received in order to determine the Greens’ view. On that basis we have taken the decision that we should support the bill because with the exception of certain specific areas many of which were addressed by the select committee the submitters were largely in favour of the bill. I think it is important that select committees be guided by the submissions presented to them. There were criticisms that the bill is overly prescriptive and detailed and that may well be the case but my sense was that there was a clear view that this Parliament should progress the bill and get on with it. As a non-lawyer I take cognisance of that. 
Not being a lawyer I was also interested to listen to the debate in the select committee and to look at the issues that excited the lawyers on the committee. Of course one of them was the need for a purpose clause. There was a great deal of concern to make sure that the purpose clause included a provision that recognised the status of the legal profession. Having so many lawyers on the committee ensured that that provision got into the purpose clause. But I think it is good that we have a proper purpose clause to the bill now: to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal and conveyancing services to protect the consumers of legal and conveyancing services and as I said to recognise the status of the legal profession and to establish the new profession of conveyancing practitioner. I thank Mr Fairbrother for his contribution to the debate because as Mr Jones acknowledged he gave a very genuine heartfelt and useful contribution to the House in outlining some of the roles and responsibilities of lawyers. It was useful for us to hear that. 
There are a few provisions that are probably of most interest to the Green Party in this bill. One of them is around the provisions relating to community law centres and there was some discussion around the definition of those centres. Originally such a centre simply had the meaning given to the term by section 85 of the Legal Services Act but community law centre representatives came to the committee and made a very strong submission that that was an inadequate definition. In particular they asked us to replace that definition with one that recognised what they considered to be the things at the heart of the community law centre network—what it was that drove the development and setting up of community law centres in the first place and what actually drove people to continue to contribute their work often in very low-paid or in unpaid situations in order to keep those law centres going and to make sure that legal services were available to members of the community who just do not have access to them in any other way. 
I think it is unfortunate that the committee more or less ignored that request. It has now put in the definition that a community law centre “means a community law centre within the meaning of section 85 of the Legal Services Act 2000 that is providing community legal services under a contract entered into by the Legal Services Agency pursuant to section 87 of that Act”. So the committee has not replaced the definition; it has simply tacked on that the centre should also be one that is being funded by the Legal Services Agency. I think that that is a shame because of the funding constraints that community law centres face and in particular the difficulty in securing funding for new community law centres given the enormous strains on the special fund that funds community law centres. So I think it is unfortunate that the funding is being restricted to people who are being funded by the Legal Services Agency an agency that as I say simply cannot afford to fund new law centres. Basically that denies the possibility of a community law centre setting itself up with alternative funding sources. That is not inconceivable—in fact the committee was told that at Wanganui that is exactly what had happened—but the definition in the bill denies the possibility for such a centre to set itself up as a community law centre with alternative sources of funding and to still receive the coverage of this legislation as a community law centre. I think that the committee made a mistake in doing that. 
The other issue about community law centres was around their funding because of course they are funded through the Legal Services Agency from the interest on the special fund. Over the years as a result of a number of pressures—faster transactions more demand for money and a lower interest rate—that funding has become tighter and tighter. In fact in previous years the Green Party has been responsible for securing extra funding as a Budget initiative with the Government when we had that kind of arrangement to provide extra money for community law centres. I acknowledge that the Hon Phil Goff has made that part of the baseline funding and that is appreciated but clearly the funding of community law centres is an ongoing problem. This bill as originally introduced increased the proportion of the interest that would go to community law centres. It had been the situation that 50 percent went to the banks as their fee and the bill made that 45 percent. It has always seemed to be exorbitant that the banks would take 50 percent of the interest as their fee. [ 
Interruption 
] I thank Mr Jones; I appreciate the point. 
The banks came to the committee and said that they could not afford the change and that they would lose money if the amount of money they were taking from interest was changed. When the committee was given evidence from a different source that in fact the banks were being a little disingenuous with regard to how they had presented that information and we offered the banks an opportunity to further clarify or substantiate their claim they simply chose to ignore the committee. The banks ignored requests to present information and they actually treated the select committee with a great deal of contempt. I think that is quite shameful and I am pleased that the select committee chose to challenge that figure and has now recommended a 60:40 split in favour of community law centres. 
The last point I would make is around the issue of Senior Counsel/Queen’s Counsel. I think as Mr Jones said that more than a simple name-change is envisioned here. By extending the grade of Senior Counsel to solicitors working in firms it does change the nature of the grade. The committee heard quite strong submissions from people that it was important to retain the exclusivity of that grade for the retention of the independent bar and that it was quite a substantial incentive for people to leave firms and operate as barristers sole in terms of the status that it brought and also the possibility of earning increased money by it because Queen’s Counsel or in this case Senior Counsel can obviously charge more for their services. I was persuaded by that argument but I was also persuaded by the argument that the current system is unfair and politically biased in some cases. That is not to say that people who attain the grade of Queen’s Counsel should not get it or that they are undeserving or unmeritorious but the comment was made quite strongly that some people who should get it do not—that people who certainly do show merit do not get that grade or get it only after an unjustifiable delay because they can offend the powers that be. 
I am convinced that it should not be a matter of Crown prerogative and should not be for the State to determine who gets such a grade. If it is important to recognise a senior grade of lawyer it should be up to the profession to determine who attains it and to regulate that. Accordingly I intend to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to amend this bill so that it becomes the job of the Law Society to regulate that.