Macindoe Tim: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6506. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I am happy to follow Mr Chauvel in the debate in the Committee stage on this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I have listened carefully to his view on the matters that Labour has consistently argued are in its view the most objectionable. 
I just want to make the point that in fact although that is the Labour Party position it is very much out of touch with both the judiciary and the legal profession and I would suggest the public at large. It is worth remembering that Labour abolished New Zealanders’ right of appeal to the Privy Council it abolished the awarding of traditional royal honours such as knighthoods and it abolished the practice of appointing a small number of barristers each year to the rank of Queen’s Counsel. In doing so it described such initiatives and practices as anachronistic and Mr Chauvel has just used the word “archaic” again. And reading from Labour’s minority report they represent “the bland comforts of the past”. As I say we have heard more on that theme in the last few moments from Mr Chauvel. 
But it is worth noting that the previous Government made each of those changes without a mandate from New Zealanders. One has to wonder why if the previous Government was so convinced that these institutions had lost their relevance and appeal in contemporary New Zealand society it was not prepared to test that view by consulting the people. The restoration of the rank of knighthoods and dames by the current Government has certainly been well received and there is pretty clear evidence from the legal profession that the restoration of the title Queen’s Counsel is desirable given that Labour’s creation of the title Senior Counsel in 2008 has devalued the role found little public support or even understanding and fails to reflect the nature and status of a role that is hugely important within the legal profession. 
This change in this part of the bill is about much more than the restoration of a title and status—important as those outcomes are to those who value our inherited traditions from Westminster as much as those other aspects of our blended culture that make New Zealand special and unique. The changes outlined in Part 1 of this bill are designed to protect the essential independence of the Inner Bar. I think that is a matter that Mr Chauvel was not really dealing with. As has been noted Mr Chauvel by the Minister and other Government speakers at earlier stages in this debate the looser rules for eligibility as Senior Counsel which were introduced by that previous Government threaten to dilute the independence of our most senior advocates. 
Queen’s Counsel should be able to advise and represent both law firms and clients who engage them fearlessly and independently without the potential conflicts and pressures of working in a partnership or an incorporated firm. That is why Part 1 of the bill provides that eligibility to be appointed as Queen’s Counsel will be restricted in most cases to barristers sole rather than lawyers in partnerships or firms but the bill does preserve the royal prerogative—and Mr Chauvel was quite disparaging about this—to appoint lawyers other than barristers sole as Queen’s Counsel where that recognises exceptional legal practice. That of course is consistent with a very long-established practice highly recognised and respected within the profession and within the public as a whole and I would suggest to Mr Chauvel something that many many decades of tradition and practice bear out as being of value. The Opposition may think otherwise but this would be the case as reflected widely within the profession. 
So we are restoring something that is about much more than just titles about much more than just history; it is about gravitas and the ability within the profession to strike a correct balance. So with those comments I am very happy to support Part 1 and I look forward to seeing this come to pass.