Chauvel Charles: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17436. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I want to make just a couple of brief comments in reply once the familial dispute across the House between Mrs King and Mr Finlayson has finished. I was interested to hear the speech made by Mr Worth and I want to address two major points that he sought to make.  
The first was the issue of scope and the explanatory note of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2). Mr Worth seemed to suggest that the explanatory note which referred to the provision of services being connected to or arising out of employment-related services would somehow cause some difficulty in the construction of the legislation. But of course that is not the case. An explanatory note as all first-year law students come to learn is only ever prayed in aid in litigation when there is any doubt as to the meaning of the substantive provisions of the legislation. And of course that is not an issue here. It is quite clear that the legislation applies in principle to all legal services. So the bodies covered by the legislation will in principle be entitled to have lawyers employed by them to provide all of those services. The words of the explanatory note as far as they might have limited the principal Act simply do not apply.  
The second important point to make is that this legislation makes litigation much less likely as opposed to much more likely. So the prospect of any litigation over argued or contended uncertainty raised by Mr Worth is again a shibboleth here. We have a situation that has been a practice over many years—20 to 30 years—where notwithstanding what is said about the provisions of the earlier legislation which the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will replace the fact is that unions and employers’ associations have employed lawyers directly to provide legal services to their members for many many years. Those legal services have been conducted responsibly and within the ambit of the particular rules of the union or the employers’ association. No evidence was heard by the Justice and Electoral Committee that that practice has been abused that there has been any irresponsible provision of legal services or that the members of the unions or the employers’ associations have in any way been unhappy with the services that they have received.  
In fact to seek to permit the principal Act to pass in its current form would result in a great unfairness because it would irregularise the position of those lawyers currently employed by employers’ associations unions and others who are providing a very valuable service at the moment with no complaint and with no evidence that the service is being provided in any sort of inappropriate way. Passing this amendment in order to clarify the existing position and to permit it to continue to occur will minimise the risk of litigation rather than maximise it. It will prevent the Law Society from going to the High Court and seeking a declaration that unions and employers’ associations should not under the principal Act be allowed to employ lawyers or make it clear that they can. The argument about the creation of uncertainty in reference to the explanatory note is quite moot and indeed I suspect it is quite mischievous.  
The other point that was made by Mr Worth is that somehow this legislation is thought to be inimical to the interests of consumers. I want to dispose of that very quickly. I was—as the Minister in charge of the bill Annette King said—employed by a union for a number of years. It was in fact my first substantive legal job. I was acting for union members in a blue-collar union the Service and Food Workers Union during the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act which was a difficult time for those members. I can tell the House quite clearly on the basis of my own experience that it is not an easy job to do. It is not necessarily a glamorous job but it is an important job. One can help out people who need a hand and cannot afford expensive lawyers in big firms QCs or barristers-at-law but who none the less need decent advocacy if something goes wrong in their workplace. The same applies for small businesses that rely on employers’ associations around the country to provide them with legal services when they get in a jam in the workplace. They cannot afford expensive lawyers; they need the services that this legislation will allow them to continue to provide. Frankly the same goes for the health professionals’ organisations which the committee also decided to include in the legislation.  
I do not intend to say anymore. If the National Party is somehow now opposed to this legislation I look forward to National members saying so but more important I look forward to hearing them tell Business New Zealand to whom they have given assurances as to their support that that is the case. I certainly hope it is not.