Genter Julie Anne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6509. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 I would like to rise to take just a very quick call on Part 1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill to go through some of its constituent parts and to restate the Green Party’s opposition to this bill. It is clause 4 that sets out the main purpose of Part 1 which is itself really the main purpose of this part of the bill. It tells us that the bill seeks to amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act to reinstate the title of Queen’s Counsel and to restrict eligibility to that title to barristers sole. I have to agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Mr Charles Chauvel who spoke earlier on this. It is a very retrograde act. It is a move to reinstate an anachronistic title that seems to limit New Zealand’s independence and send us back half a century at least to the days when we were solely reliant on the British Crown for validation which is a bit embarrassing frankly. 
 Although one could imagine different practical considerations around the procedure for appointments as set out in the provisions of new section 118 in clause 6 we have not really heard a sound practical argument for the title of Queen’s Counsel itself to make a comeback and one really has to ask oneself is this the single biggest priority in the justice area that this Government should be dedicating time to? It seems that New Zealand is facing all sorts of challenges and yet what the Government comes up with is returning this anachronistic title—a throwback to the monarchy. It just seems a little bit irrelevant and frankly I think that the New Zealand public could expect a little bit better from this Government than simply dedicating time to a small group of privileged high-paid—an exclusive group of lawyers who for some reason are going to be given this title Queen’s Counsel which simply is not moving us forward in the direction of an independent New Zealand one that is not so focused on these ancient hierarchies. 
There is simply no call to amend sections 118 and 119 in the principal Act and although the Law Society submission pointed out that there was an original lack of clamour for the change in the first place it was a policy decision one that came from a proud assertion of New Zealand as independent and willing to embrace a future where we no longer rely on Britain for authentication. It was not a particularly radical policy in the first place but I think that it was important and symbolic. Similarly clause 6 in amending sections 118 and 119 to bring back the title of Queen’s Counsel is light on clamour but strong on symbolic policy. I accept that the Government members probably feel strongly about this but I doubt that the public of New Zealand really sees this as a priority and I think that it is a bit unfortunate that we are taking up time in the House for this legislative ping-pong game between the poles of independence and a return to the monarchy. 
I would also just add one other point which is that I appreciate the endeavour that Mr Chauvel has made to open up the process of appointment and make it less exclusive and more transparent and for that reason although the Green Party is not supporting the bill we will be supporting the amendment put forward by Mr Chauvel. I thank him for his contribution to this because I think it is a positive contribution in what is otherwise a pretty sad pathetic old sort of bill that is taking up our time.