Goff Phil: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6724. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 That speech from Tim Macindoe perhaps reflects the weakness of the changes proposed by this Government to the role of Senior Counsel in that it lacked any rationality it lacked any hard facts or evidence and it relied solely—relied solely—on emotionalism. He is absolutely wrong of course that the Labour Party rejects Westminster traditions. We are proud of our Westminster traditions but we believe that the laws of this country should reflect the 21st century and not the 16th century. 
You know there are three things that Labour is opposed to in this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I want to go through each of them and invite the next National speaker to perhaps bring some facts to the argument instead of the nonsense that we have heard. 
 This bill is about privilege and snobbery. It is not about Westminster traditions. It is about exclusivity. This National Government which is always attacking trade unions does not attack some of the strongest trade unions in this country which include the Bar Association and the Law Society. Because there are so many lawyers on that side and they are looking after their mates they bend over backwards to protect the trade-restrictive practices of that profession. That is what the member is doing. It is OK if you are Federated Farmers or the Law Society. Those are good trade unions and those members will protect the privileges of those who are the best off. It is only the unions that protect the poor in this country that they attack. 
We are against the change in title because the title the Government wants to go back to is anachronistic. We are against having an exclusive pool of people who can become Senior Counsel because that is a trade-restrictive practice. And we are against its aversion to a system of selection for Senior Counsel that is not shrouded in secrecy and is not prone to the old boy network looking after itself. I want to elaborate on each of those three points. 
The changes that we made in relation to the title back in 2006 were in line with the trend of every other Commonwealth country that has a common law system. The Australians do not talk about Queen’s Counsel; they talk about Senior Counsel. They are proud of their Westminster tradition but they want a title that reflects what we are actually talking about. The term Queen’s Counsel was quite appropriate in the 16th and 17th centuries. That is perhaps where Tim Macindoe would have felt more comfortable with life when people respected their betters and the aristocracy. In those days Queen’s Counsel were counsels to the monarch of the day and it was quite appropriate to call them that. Today most Queen’s Counsel most of the time are not representing the Crown. They are representing business they are representing the private interest sector and occasionally they might be acting on the instruction of the Solicitor-General or a Crown solicitor. But that is the exception rather than the practice. 
If we want to have a title that is accurate about the role we will call them Senior Counsel and not Queen’s Counsel. What is so wrong about what the Canadians or the Australians are doing that that is condemned by the National Party and it wants to go back to the term Queen’s Counsel? It is purely about status. It is purely about snobbery. There is no other rational justification and from the Minister and the first speaker of the National Party we have not even had an attempt to give a rational explanation as to why they are making that change. 
You know when the Justice and Electoral Committee was doing the hearings on the bill it was attracted to the comments by a person who is very respected in the legal profession Jack Hodder who himself is a Senior Counsel. Actually Jack Hodder said we should really wonder whether there should be such a rank as Queen’s Counsel. What other profession he challenged the select committee across the country apart from lawyers—you know people like accountants or engineers—have a title or ranking that they give to a select group within it that enables them to charge a lot more for their services? 
I do not go as far as Jack Hodder. I think it is appropriate that you should recognise excellence within the profession. But I want to say this. If you are going to recognise through the use of a title excellence in the profession then it should be done on merit across the profession. It should not be restricted to a tiny minority group of barristers sole but done across the whole profession. 
One of the contradictions of this legislation is that the Government semi-acknowledges that. It first of all places the restriction that it should be only barristers sole and then makes a provision that excellence can be reflected occasionally from across the majority of the profession. 
If the National Government really believes that the argument for restricting it to barristers sole is that only barristers sole can be independent then that would have been a total rule laid down. But it has acknowledged the weakness of its own argument by saying that the Governor-General can appoint from other areas of the profession. 
The fact is that in every other regime including in the home country of the Westminster system itself England they allow appointments from across the profession. England did it in 1995. I want to say to Tim Macindoe or to any other person in the National Party who addresses this bill to bring up some evidence that extending the appointments to across the profession has caused a breach of independence or a lowering of standards. Not one instance has been given to this House. Not one instance was given to the select committee. They have done it in Australia they have done it in Canada and in the home of the Westminster system in England they have been doing it for 18 years and they have been doing it without any problem at all. 
I believe this restriction is because the value of the title is that you can double your fees— 
Charles Chauvel 
: At least. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —at least double your fees. We heard from the Minister of Justice that $900 an hour is not unreasonable. Well it might not be unreasonable if you are receiving it but by God it is unreasonable if you are paying it. I believe the only reason they have done this is to narrow the group of people who can carry that rank and to increase the payments that a small and select group can take. That is a bad ground for any legislation of that nature. 
There is every reason to maintain the ability to draw on excellence within the profession from across the profession. There is no valid reason that I have heard from any Government member as to why the restriction imposed in 1915 should be put back in place when there is no evidence that that restriction is needed. Every lawyer takes an oath and is obliged under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act to be independent in representing the interests of their clients and to be independent in terms of the duties that they owe to the court. The argument of independence for restricting it to barristers sole simply does not exist. 
I want to come to the third change which is a very negative change being proposed by the Government and that is to go back to an old system of appointment to the rank of Queen’s Counsel that is based on who you know and the old boy network looking after itself. In 2006 we made the change to replace opaqueness with a transparent system. We had a panel. The Solicitor-General and representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Society were on the panel and everything was clean and above board. Why was it necessary to change that? 
I have heard not one word from the Minister not one word from the National Government that justifies going back to a system that enables the Government to look after its own in conjunction with a few select people within the judicial system. It is in the interests of transparency and democracy in this country that appointment to a rank like Senior Counsel be done in an open clear and transparent way. 
Mr Speaker to wind up as you are suggesting I should there are three reasons that we are opposed to this: the title the National Government is going back to is anachronistic the system of appointing from a very narrow group does not recognise excellence across the system and a system of appointment that is not clear open and transparent is open to abuse. This is a bad bill. Labour will oppose it and will reverse it when it gets the chance.