Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17516] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I was hoping that the Hon Rick Barker would take a call on this important legislation but it seems we are to be denied the benefit of his attentive and close reading of this amendment bill. 
Mr Finlayson has been laudatory of the Government in connection with this amendment now that we see the Supplementary Order Paper but perhaps he is being over-laudatory because there is a most unsatisfactory history I would say in connection with the course of events that have led to the Supplementary Order Paper. The starting point of course is that the explanatory note of the bill confined its scope to an “integrated prevention and advice service connected with employment matters.” Those are the words that appear in the general policy statement. But when the drafters came to translate that planned intent into action they failed miserably. I was not a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee for the hearing of submissions on this amendment bill but I was present at the briefing when the chairman of that committee said this was a technical change and reflected an oversight that had occurred when the substantive legislation the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was going through the House. 
Both of those statements are completely and utterly wrong. It is not technical—it makes a substantive change—and moreover it was not overlooked because as others have said in earlier debates the precise issue that is now before this Committee tonight was the subject of detailed submissions by a number of parties including the trade union movement and also the New Zealand Law Society. It is very unsatisfactory when the chairman of a committee misleads members as to the purport of the material that was before the committee. 
Of course in the result the select committee made no substantive change to the bill at all and the error in the bill continued to fester. Now we have a circumstance where led by people like Mr Jones and Mr Finlayson this glaring error has been discovered. 
Hon Annette King 
: And Mr Chauvel. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: He is seeking to add his name? Well it is fair enough if he wishes to add his name although when I made comment at an earlier point on these issues— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not seek to say anything; I do not know where the member got that idea from. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The suggested name was in fact added by the Minister— 
Hon Annette King 
: Be generous; everyone else has been. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Well it is important to be generous. But the slip continued and now we come to resolve it and that is an excellent outcome. We come to resolve it in the context of I think three alternative drafting styles that have been put up and this one is clearly the Government’s—clearly the most satisfactory one. The intent is that what has been a longstanding arrangement in respect of lawyers employed by unions and employers’ associations—that they can provide legal advice in limited circumstances—will continue. It was never on in terms of the bill as it was originally introduced that employees in unions and associations who were legally qualified should be able to give advice on drink-driving charges be able to give advice on drafting family trusts be able to give tax advice on business structures and be able to give advice on leasing proposals for personal investment. 
If we look at the explanatory note which has perhaps the best explanation of what the impact of this change is we see that the change is now confined to the stated intent that appeared on the face of the explanatory note. So there is an ability now for the legally qualified to give advice on legal services that relate to a person’s rights obligations or liabilities in his or her capacity as a member an employer or an employee; to give advice of a legal nature that relates to any matter concerning or arising out of an employment relationship; and to give advice in respect of claims or actions under an enactment specified in section 236 of the Employment Relations Act. There are a whole lot of enactments there—the Equal Pay Act the Holidays Act the Human Rights Act the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act the Minimum Wage Act the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act the Police Act the State Sector Act and the Wages Protection Act. That will restore a position where someone who is employed by a union or an employer association and who is qualified as a lawyer can as an employee in that structure provide added-value service on those issues. That will be of substantial benefit to members. 
So now we will see in the context of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act—an Act that was passed some time ago—what we hope will be the final change to that legislation to enable the substantive Act to come into force on 1 August with all the benefits that the legislation is intended to confer.