Little Andrew: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand again to talk on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the House the thing that I find overwhelming about this bill is just how disappointing it is that in a world where all around in many other countries conservative and progressive Governments are looking to changes that actually progress the human race—when they are looking to do things that might be rooted in the values of the old but they are changing the practices of the past—here we have a piece of legislation that does the opposite. It reinstates the practices of the past with no real values attached to them at all. 
This bill does a number of disappointing things. It reinstates the Queen’s Counsel name. Make no mistake as a member of the legal profession I think it is good that at least in the profession of law and the practice of the law we do develop a profession—a body of people with a set of values and principles with an approach and who play a very important role—but also understand that part of developing a profession is that you recognise those who are top performers in it those who are stellar performers. You do accord some status to it so that those coming into the profession know what good performance at the Bar looks like have something to aspire to and know who the good performers are. Likewise those on the bench who are dealing with counsel all day every day can rely upon those who have achieved a certain degree of skill and indeed notoriety in some cases when they appear before them. So the profession understands that. 
Conferring some sort of name or title or rank on the senior practitioners in this very important field—a field that as I submitted the other day is one of the bulwarks against a rampant breakdown of the rule of law and an undermining of democracy—is appropriate. It is appropriate that we confer some sort of style upon those who are the top performers in it. But when we hanker to the colonial relics of the past and reinstate the Queen’s Counsel title that is what is so unnecessary. 
If the Government is serious about going back to the past here is another relic from the past that we might consider. You see counsel when they are appearing at the Bar and certainly at the senior Bar now wear their gowns and carry on the back of their gowns a little pouch. The background to the pouch was that it was beneath senior members of the profession to ask for money for being a good advocate a top advocate. Were that to be the case today life may be a little different. But they did not ask for a fee or to be paid. The pouch was there so that the happy client irrespective of the outcome of their proceeding knew that they had a duty to reward their counsel who had put themselves in some cases on the line and risked a beheading by the queen or monarch of the day. So as the counsel was cleaning out their desk after a hard day’s advocacy at the Chancery or the Admiralty Bar or the assizes or whatever court it was that they were in a few golden ducats or guineas or coins would be placed in the pouch and the client would wander away. It would be seen by counsel as an anonymous contribution and a fee for their work. 
Well that is not the way it operates today. Of course one engages a QC as I know at least one member of the House has recently—and I enjoyed his company yesterday. QCs do not do that any more. They do not wait until somebody fills up the pouch in the back of their gown. They send an invoice. When you carry the rank of QC of course that invoice frequently has several zeros on it—and that is before the decimal point and the two other zeros that follow after it. That is what it has become. 
In this day and age the legal profession like many others—but apparently not the accountancy profession—has changed significantly. Top performers are not always barristers sole. Many of the top performers in our legal profession are in the firms or they set up their own firms and they do not want to have to partake of the intervention rule so they retain their style as a barrister and solicitor so that they can take clients directly which is a quite honest transaction. There are some barristers sole for whom the intervention rule is really a formality that they honour in its breach. 
But the legal profession has changed and our top performers come from all parts of the profession. Some of them are employed solicitors. They are employed by corporations. They are the general counsel of large companies and large corporations. Indeed I might say that even in one or two trade unions there are top performing lawyers. There is no reason why the top performing members of the profession irrespective of where in the profession they practise should not be recognised if they are regarded by their colleagues across the profession and the members of the bench. There is no reason why they should not have recognition of their excellence and of the performance that they can achieve for the clients on whose behalf they act. That is why it is so unfortunate that now the conditions upon which one might acquire that style or that label that will indicate and mark them out as a senior and excellent practitioner are going to be so restricted and confined. It does limit it. It limits it not just for men but also for the women in the profession and let us face it we are desperately short of women who have been recognised by the profession as being top in their rank. That is so disappointing and it is so unnecessary for us to hanker back to the past and maintain those colonial relics. 
Then of course there is the provision that allows the royal prerogative to be exercised which as we know under the Constitution Act and other provisions is done upon the advice of the Government of the day the Cabinet of the day. So it is not a genuine royal prerogative. It is the prerogative of the Government of the day and that allows the Government to recognise anybody not just those in the profession. The legislation marks out that those who could have the style conferred upon them do not have to be at the Bar but the royal prerogative provision in this bill allows the Government to confer it on anybody. For a bill that claims to be acknowledging and recognising the excellence of the profession that is really beyond the pale because it takes it outside the profession. It takes the judgment of who is recognised by the profession as excellent and as warranting that sort of recognition out of their hands and it really undermines the very purpose for which the bill says it is there. 
So that is what makes it so disappointing—that not only does it restrict now the number of people and the positions from which they practise their profession and prosecute cases on behalf of those who need their help and who are genuinely deserving of the recognition but also it actually allows the Government of the day to ignore all of that and for its special friends to confer this title. That is simply uncalled-for. 
In the modern age we want the best performers to be recognised. We should not have to impose unnecessary and irrelevant conditions such as that they practise as barristers sole—practise at the Independent Bar. This is the other thing about the Independent Bar—the point I made the other day. There are members of the Independent Bar for whom the independence is nominal. They are embedded in corporations they are embedded in organisations on whose behalf almost exclusively they act. I could name examples but I do not care to. So there is a real question about that. They apparently would qualify for this recognition but those who happen to be in a law firm—top partners in a top law firm who do excellent work for their clients who are excellent counsel and who are recognised by the benches—are disqualified from being recognised in this appropriate sort of way. In the modern age that is unnecessary and uncalled-for. 
For that reason we are opposed to the bill. It will be a great giant leap backwards as the profession starts to take charge of improving its standing and its internal professional regulation and management and we are voting against the bill for that reason.