Collins Judith: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6719. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill amends the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. It is wonderful to be so wanted by the Opposition to constantly be here and I have to say the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill is an excellent bill to remind the Opposition that this Government has brought to Parliament a bill that has been asked for by the profession. 
Part 1 of the bill restores the title of Queen’s Counsel to the office currently known as Senior Counsel and in general restricts eligibility to that rank to barristers in sole practice. The first New Zealand appointments of Queen’s Counsel were made in 1907. From 1915 to 2008 each Queen’s Counsel was required to practise as a barrister sole. In the Government’s view the restoration of the Queen’s Counsel title reflects the public purpose and the status of this position while the return to the key eligibility criteria of practice as a barrister sole protects the independence and objectivity of Queen’s Counsel. Those people who were appointed Senior Counsel in 2008 may retain that title or convert to the title of Queen’s Counsel. In addition Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel may continue their practice arrangements including practising as a partner in a law firm established between 2008 and the commencement of this legislation. They will not be required to change to practise as a barrister sole. The bill also preserves the power to appoint other lawyers including litigators in law firms as Queen’s Counsel in recognition of extraordinary contribution to the field of law. 
 Part 2 of the bill contains a number of comparatively minor technical amendments to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. These amendments cover incorporated law firms and conveyancing practices they address the circumstances for the exercise of a power of attorney that could arise when a sole practitioner is an undischarged bankrupt and they clarify the time requirements for lodging an application seeking a review of the decision of a standards committee by the Legal Complaints Review Officer. 
During the Committee of the whole House five further amendments were added to Part 2 of the bill. Most of these amendments address improvements proposed by the chairperson of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal and I thank the tribunal for these proposals. The additional amendments to the provisions for the disciplinary tribunal clarify that lawyers who surrender their practising certificate during a complaints procedure continue to be subject to the disciplinary regime of the Act. The amendments streamline the notice requirements for decisions on complaints while ensuring that relevant parties are given notice of these decisions and they reduce the quorum from five to three members when considering interim name suppression applications. A separate amendment enables the dean of the law school at the Auckland University of Technology to join the deans of the other law schools as a member of the Council of Legal Education. This is a welcome addition to the council. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee received and heard six submissions from professional organisations interested groups and individuals. I thank the submitters and also thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its examination of this bill. 
This bill has received quite a lot of condemnation from members opposite based really on the return to the name Queen’s Counsel. This is actually a move that has been made because the profession asked for it. I have to say that when the name change to Senior Counsel was first made by the previous Labour Government it was done despite the concerns of the profession at the time. In fact it was a petty and childish change which the previous Labour Government thought was part of its republican movement. Frankly nobody else cared about it except the people who had the office the Queen’s Counsel who took their position and their obligations very seriously. They did not ask for it to be changed. This Government has listened to them along with other parties in the House who are supporting this bill and what we have said is that actually there is something much greater and more important here. 
One of the parts that is so important is that the Queen’s Counsel must be independent. They must be independent from firms wherever possible. Of course there is a grandfather or grandmother clause in this particular situation and that is because every small law firm every small litigant and everyone who is not a big corporate client should be able to access the very best legal representation they can. Quite often that is going to be found with the Queen’s Counsel. It should not be the preserve of only large law firms to be able to get in the best legal counsel. Every small litigant should be able to access it no matter how or where they come across it. They should not all have to go to big law firms to get the legal advice they need. 
I understand that some members might think that it is all right to have only big law firms who can access the top legal providers. Well I do not think it is and nor does this Government. It is part of access to justice to have the Queen’s Counsel independent from firms so that in fact every litigant should be able to get the very best professional advice they can rather than to have to go through a big law firm. 
Charles Chauvel 
: As long as they can pay $900 an hour. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Chauvel says that lawyers are charging $900 an hour as Queen’s Counsel. Actually that is true. There are also lawyers who are doing work pro bono as Queen’s Counsel and they do. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry that Mr Chauvel does not think they do. But actually big law firms also do that. Many big law firms will charge at that rate for particular work. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How would you know? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Chauvel asks how I would know. Well I understand that that is how Mr Chauvel liked to charge when he was in a big law firm. So he should know well about that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Nobody ever complained about me Judith. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: He says nobody complained about that. Well I am not so sure and I am sure there is the odd department around that might be able to find the odd complaint. I see a former Minister of Corrections sitting over there and laughing about it and so he should. Mr Chauvel has rights to raise these points but actually this is not the way in which to bring about republicanism. We must make sure when we make changes to institutions that we are doing so for a good reason. I would say to Mr Chauvel that it was a childish thing to do to come down to the House and say they have to change the name because it is going to become more of a republic. What a silly thing to do! What about the tradition of law? Why is it that only some traditions are sacred? How about other traditions? Next thing Labour will be trying to get rid of the prayer in Parliament because people want to change the tradition. How about traditions in other cultures? Do we do that? No we should respect them wherever we can. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It would be better if you lived up to the words of the prayer. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: But having said that I think that Mr Goff is right. People should live up to the words in the prayer as much as they can and I am sure that he wants to be able to do that now. But anyway I commend this bill to the House. I thank the parties that are voting for this bill. I thank the select committee. I think this is a good bill. The profession will be very pleased with it. They have said to me that they have been looking forward to this. They want to make sure that the independence of the Independent Bar is maintained. They were very concerned that it was going to be put at risk by the fact that only big law firms would be able to access the best and the brightest and be able to get that assistance for their corporate clients. I think it is important. It is an access to justice issue. 
I commend the bill to the House. I believe it is an extremely important proposition that all clients all litigants should be able to get the best. They should not have to go through big law firms and put up with the outrageous fees that I have seen coming from them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I would like to advise members that electronic devices not used in debate should be placed on the drop-down work surface so that they do not interfere with the Speaker’s view of the House—the member on my right.