Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17438. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 That was a very interesting speech. Mr Chauvel limited himself to incidents in the workplace. New Zealand First ultimately after discussing this matter has no difficulty in limiting this bill to matters that take place in the workplace. For that reason New Zealand First will propose an amendment to section 9 in clause 6 by adding the following paragraph to subsection (1A)(a): “(iii) legal services to a member of the organisation that do not relate to employment issues relevant to the member.” If we read subsection (1A) in clause 6 in the bill we see what that does in the overall context. It states: “Despite subsection (1) a lawyer is guilty of misconduct if in the course of his or her employment … (b) by a union he or she provides—(i) legal services to a person other than the union or a member of the union;”.  
So they can give advice on employment issues; that is fine. But when they give advice on matters that are not employment issues that is not appropriate. That proposed change is exactly what Mr Chauvel just said he wanted and that is what New Zealand First proposes. He wanted that so I expect that Mr Chauvel when it comes to the Committee stage will vote for the issue he wants to see in the bill. I am sure that Mr Chauvel does not want to see these people appearing in drunken driving cases. I am sure he does not want to see these people giving advice on trustee law. I am sure he does not want to see them giving advice on leases. But New Zealand First supports the ability of the trade union movement and Business New Zealand to give advice on employment-related matters. We will support that and I hope that Labour will as well.  
I am looking forward to the comments from the National Party and other members of the House who are interested in protecting the workers’ movement and Business New Zealand jointly. It is a simple issue. That is what the explanatory note said was it not I say to Mr—I am sorry; the member’s name is just too complicated. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Auch-in-vole. 
DAIL JONES 
: Thank you. That is what the explanatory note said and that is what the amendment from New Zealand First proposes to do. 
I think it would be most dangerous if the trade union movement was suddenly known to be available to give advice to its members on all the extraneous matters. What will happen once the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) becomes known to everyone is that the lawyers in the trade union movement will be contacted by members who will say that they understand that lawyers can give them advice on matters. Those members will ask the lawyers to give them that advice as the lawyers are being paid good money to do it. That is what it boils down to and on all the other issues as well. I am glad that in the short space of barely half an hour we have come to the nuts and bolts of these issues as lawyers hopefully are prone to do.  
I think Mr Auchinvole as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee grasps what I am saying. I had the privilege of being at the select committee. Although I am not a regular member of it the Standing Orders allowed me to be there. I hope that Mr Chauvel is now confirming that the amendment I have in mind will work satisfactorily and that on Tuesday we will have tidied up this issue. We will also be moving an amendment to give further effect to it—legal services and suchlike—and another amendment to clause 10 which was put forward by the Law Society.  
It is great to be able to achieve this. I was very critical the other night. This bill has been before Parliament for only 4 working days—if as long as that. The select committee had its time for submissions curtailed—it was given virtually 1 day to hear submissions. The Minister said the majority of submissions supported the bill. Well that was a bit of a long bow to draw; after all submitters were given only 48 hours to make submissions and one of them had 350000 members. That is pretty hard to beat! So I would have to agree with the Minister but in practice it was a bit of a long bow to draw. Everyone loves a trier and the Minister of Justice is doing the best she can in the circumstances but I do hope she takes the suggestion into account.  
The law was very well stated by the New Zealand Law Society in its original submission to the select committee and we had the opinion of Douglas White QC on the matter. We had no doubt as to what the law was as a result of hearing that submission. What was being done by Mr Chauvel and others in the union movement was as he said “the practice”. It was a nice way of saying that they were breaking the law but that that was the practice. We had a good look at it as Dr Worth has said and we turned it down. I must commend Dr Worth for his speech; he set out the matter very clearly. I believe I have suggested the solution which is envisaged by the explanatory note. This is really just a technical matter as Lynne Pillay said. We have identified the mischief and the technicality we have now come up with solution and I do commend it to the House. I will not take any further time because I appreciate that the trade union movement and Business New Zealand want to get this matter on its way. I will be putting forward the amendment on behalf of New Zealand First I believe on Tuesday next week.