Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6507. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Mr Chairman thank you very much. I presume your emphasis on the word “Honourable” in calling me talks about the fact that we keep certain titles for ourselves in this Parliament beyond our holding the particular rank that might be attributed to them. 
I think the comments that we have heard from the Government member who has just resumed his seat Tim Macindoe really do sum up the difference between National and Labour very very clearly. Although the words that came out of his mouth talked about threatening to dilute independence I actually heard preserving exclusivity I heard preserving privilege and I heard preserving the capacity to charge whatever they like for the advice because of course that is the reality of the QC ranking when it is restricted simply to members of the Bar. 
I think the framing of this issue as one around independence actually does not stack up when one looks at the nature of the advice that somebody would be seeking. I thought the transfer from the concept of Queen’s Counsel and our tie with the past to the concept of Senior Counsel actually talked about the capacity for somebody to provide advice at a very senior level and that really does not depend on their being taken from purely the Bar. Why they would have to remove themselves from the legal firm where they are associated in order to become Queen’s Counsel I believe represents one of the problems of the past and does not actually bring forward all of the people whom one would want to have available to provide that very senior level of advice. The Senior Counsel concept did seem to me to resolve some of those problems. 
As my colleague Charles Chauvel has stated under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill only New Zealand the UK and a handful of tiny former colonies will retain the rank of Queen’s Counsel. When the member was running through the litany of changes that Labour had brought about in this area I was saying: “Well yes that is great. That is fantastic. We got rid of appeal to the Privy Council.” How many countries in the world have retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council? I think there is about three or four left in the world that have retained it beyond the UK. 
Andrew Little 
: Bahamas is one. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Bahamas might be one. But the point that I am making is that— 
Tim Macindoe 
: Major constitutional change. You didn’t go to the people. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was a constitutional change. The point that I am making is that these were positive changes and a break with the past and I think the sooner that we do actually talk about the serious issues in relation to whether this country should become a republic the better. I think a lot of people are starting to ask that question. Why are we not going out to the public with a positive position in order to engage the public in this most fundamental of reforms? 
I believe that going back to Queen’s Counsel now creates a worse problem than existed before it was changed because it means that there is going to be a to-ing and fro-ing. Every time there is a change of Government we are going to take it forward and if National becomes the Government it is going to take it back. I do not believe that that is actually in the interest of developing our own independent status as a nation. I believe that it is really important that we do try to see our way forward into the future. 
The thing that I was concerned about and that my colleague seems to have addressed in his amendment to add section 119C(3) is the question of the appointment process itself. The appointment process of course once it goes back to the way that it was before naturally shuts it down. I think the member Tim Macindoe himself said that it creates you know confusion in the public—that the public have no idea that they know what a QC is but they do not know what a Senior Counsel is. I think that is nonsense. I think the person on the street has no idea what a QC is compared with any lawyer either other than that a QC charges a humungous amount of money and you might as well have one on your side if you are being sued for defamation by somebody who has got one representing them on the other side. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Judith! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I presume that certain Ministers do actually use QCs in order to support themselves whether they are defending themselves against a potential defamation or whether they are promoting the idea that some comments might be regarded as defamatory when I think they are the only people in the country who would think that. But that is by the by. There is a significant element of exclusivity and privilege I think associated with this whole question of Queen’s Counsel. 
There are a number of counsel at the moment who do not actually want to go back to the old way of doing this. They do not want to go back to the old definition of Queen’s Counsel or King’s Counsel as it will be I think some time in the future. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In Gerry’s case KFC. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not think I will repeat that Mr Cosgrove but thank you for your amusing interjection. I think it will find itself now recorded in  
Hansard 
 without my having to repeat it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The clansman. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: If you think of any more I am happy to call upon the— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The big chief of the highland games. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not think we will talk about the clansman because that is probably a bit unfair. 
But leaving that aside the point I am making is that what the honourable member Charles Chauvel is attempting to do is to make sure that with the amendment that obviously the Government is going to push through—with our maintaining our opposition throughout—we do not wholly do away with the question of preserving the openness in the appointment process. I think that my colleague makes the point that whether the appointment is statutory or a prerogative process our requiring the existing open procedure required by regulations and guidelines to continue to be followed with necessary modifications really does state for the public that the process that was put in place by our Government will be the one that will still prevail. I believe that that is a small amendment that we can make to an otherwise unfortunate change that the National Government wants to put upon us. 
I do think there ought to be better debate around these sorts of issues as well because when one looks at where New Zealand stands in the world and whether these issues are going to be truly debated I do not think I heard anything from the Government side as to why we should restrict the appointment of Queen’s Counsel to the Bar. I think that if the Government truly believes that that is in the best interests of ensuring that our Queen’s Counsel are broadly representative of the legal profession as a whole—which of course has changed over the years since I was admitted to the Bar. I think it certainly has changed in terms of the greater number of women obviously who have been admitted to the Bar. But again when you look at different elements of the profession women are still underrepresented. When we look at barristers sole we find that it is a male-dominated element of the profession. 
By pushing back to Queen’s Counsel or reverting to Queen’s Counsel and moving away from the concept of seniority I think we do a great disservice to those who will be looking for the quality of representation that one would expect from Queen’s Counsel. I think it is a retrograde step and I do believe that we are in danger of seeing important constitutional issues becoming this political football—pro anti pro anti. When National is in Government it gets reverted back to the way it was; when we are in Government it gets promoted to the way it should be. I think we have got to really seriously think about whether the legal profession would want to see that continue to happen. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the quality of the work that we are all saying we are seeking to achieve to have this to and fro arrangement. 
I believe that our Government very firmly stood for making sure that we could stand alone as an independent nation. We did not have to have the final right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comprising mostly British judges and sitting away on the other side of the world in London. We did not need to have the award of knighthoods and other honours of English origin and of course that annual practice of appointing a small number—