Goudie Sandra: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14480] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I also applaud the speech made by Paul Quinn who was rightly acknowledged as an egalitarian down-to-earth solid good guy—a gentleman—by the Opposition. He recognises the need for excellence and that everything should not be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. This issue is not about fairness and justice it is not about colonialism it is not inappropriate and it is not cultural cringe as previous speakers would have us believe. 
This is about recognising excellence and giving people the opportunity to make the choice between an ordinary lawyer and a Queen’s Counsel—and there is a difference. One has a greater capability than the other. It may not necessarily always be the case that a lawyer cannot achieve what a Queen’s Counsel will achieve but we can be certain that in just about every case a Queen’s Counsel will give us the outcome that we seek. This has been demonstrated time and time again. This bill is not about cultural cringe. It is highly ignorant of the role of a Queen’s Counsel and of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill to suggest that. Once again the Opposition has not done its homework. At least the Green Party did its homework and had a contribution of some substance to make but it was not so with the Labour Opposition. 
I am delighted to see that we recognise the excellence and the different standards of lawyers we are able to engage to represent us. I for one always say that if one wants to win one’s case then one should employ a Queen’s Counsel. If people want their case over and done with in as short a time frame as possible they should employ a Queen’s Counsel. 
I had some friends who were going to challenge Environment Waikato on a policy and a regional statement. I suggested to them that they employ a Queen’s Counsel. They were of the same mind so they did. The Queen’s Counsel came from Dunedin. There were a number of submissions in favour of this particular policy and only one against which happened to be mine—no surprises there. I never spoke to the Queen’s Counsel until after the event but to my surprise he said that the first thing he did was read the one submission opposing the statement rather than all those for it. He felt that the substance was in that submission and he won the case. Once again it highlighted the capability of a Queen’s Counsel; we might take a risk if we employ an ordinary lawyer. 
I have no hesitation in supporting the bringing back of the position of Queen’s Counsel and acknowledging their excellence and different degree of capability. That is what this bill is about. We would not expect every single contestant at the Olympic Games to get a certificate would we? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Labour would. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes the Opposition would. Labour members do not like to see anybody achieve above the parapet. They just like to chop the heads off tall poppies. From the Opposition’s perspective it is about dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite do not like it do they? This legislation is part of their legacy. It is the way in which they governed. I am delighted to support this bill.