Shanks Katrina: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill this afternoon. This legislation reinstates the title Queen’s Counsel after Labour removed it in 2008 and replaced it with the title Senior Counsel. You have got to ask yourself why this move happened in 2008 when the Law Society did not ask for it the Bar Association did not ask for it and lawyers themselves did not ask for this change. I was reading the minority report of the Labour Party view and this pretty much hits it on the head. It says: “The last Labour-led Government ended a number of links to our colonial past. These include a final right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comprising mostly British judges and sitting in London; the award of knighthoods and other honours of English origin; and the annual practice of appointing a small number of barristers to the rank of Queen’s Counsel.” If that was the direction that that Government was going in then that is not a reason to change Queen’s Counsel at all. If it is not broken why change it? 
When you think about what this legislation does it just reinstates how it was before 2008. It ensures that there is an independence of the Inner Bar by placing practice restrictions on Queen’s Counsel so that in most cases they will have to be barristers sole rather than lawyers in a partnership. So what we are trying to do is reinstate independence and the perception of independence which is really important for the public to have confidence. 
The big argument that we have had in this House especially during the Committee stage was around transparency of appointments. It is important that it is addressed. Cabinet has made decisions to repeal the provision of the regulations that provide for a selection panel and replace it with an explicit requirement for consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association which is going to give it a lot more transparency than it has had in the past. 
 I also want to talk about the comments about women not being able to become Queen’s Counsel because it is too hard. Well actually we do have women Queen’s Counsel. I think Tim Macindoe made a really good point that we have got more women coming through law schools and more women who are making their way through firms and going out on their own now because there are more women in the pool. That is going to grow and grow and grow. 
Charles Chauvel 
: And now you’re going to stop it. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Charles Chauvel is saying that we are going to stop it. One of his points was that they will not want to be Queen’s Counsel because they will not be able to get maternity leave. Well actually that is not true. They can get maternity leave. 
Charles Chauvel 
: You don’t even understand the point. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I do understand the point. Going out on your own is hard. It is very hard. If you are self-employed you can get maternity leave actually so it does work. At the end of the day it is about women going out there backing themselves and believing in themselves. I think it is absolutely wrong and you put down women if you do not think they can go out back themselves achieve and become a Queen’s Counsel because they absolutely can. 
I believe that the title Queen’s Counsel provides official recognition of excellence recognition that reflects the highest standards of legal advice. I commend this bill to the House.