Power Simon: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7390] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is not often that I rise in the House to agree with Nandor Tanczos. In fact I think that in the time we have been in this House together which is nearly 4 years this is probably the first time that I have done so. It could be the last time too. But I agree with him that it is odd to say that having a QC is a good thing to brag about in the pub. Perhaps Mr Jones could take a call from Labour fill 10 minutes and explain that position to the House a bit further. 
I come from I guess a slightly unique position in the sense that— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You can’t be “slightly unique”. It’s either unique or it’s not. 
SIMON POWER 
: Thanks. I appreciate that outburst from the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. It was a more substantial contribution than she has made towards the reading of this bill so I thank her very much for that. I practised law for 5½ years before coming into the House as a member and I think that a number of the things that are proposed in this bill make reasonable sense. As my colleague Judith Collins has said members of the National Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee for what I consider to be an initial look at how these provisions are to be enacted and at how those within the profession view them and the effect they will have on their ability to deliver quality legal services to their clients. 
However National does have some grave reservations about this bill particularly with regard to the issues surrounding the abolition of the rank of Queen’s Counsel. Unlike my colleagues who have spoken previously I do not necessarily hold a view on the weight associated with that title in terms of colonial vestiges and hangovers as Mr Tanczos suggested nor do I agree with Mr Jones’ view that it is a title that one can brag about in the House. However I am extremely concerned about that particular title being removed from the profession—not for the reasons that my colleagues on the Opposition side of the House have outlined but for this reason. I say to Mr Tanczos who will be sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee that the role of a Queen’s Counsel as an independent member at the bar is to hold an office that allows him or her to challenge authority Governments and those who conform to the rules of our society in a way that gives him or her a certain degree of independence from such conformity. 
I am worried that the way in which it is proposed that the rank of Senior Counsel will replace that of Queen’s Counsel could easily see senior members of legal firms that are involved primarily in the area of Government work end up with the title “Senior Counsel” next to their name. I direct my comments to Mr Tanczos when I say that what worries me the most about that is that it will remove the independence of a senior member of the bar to challenge the police and the Government and to challenge any other arm of what I guess could be called the last conservative vestiges of the State through that appropriate avenue for the taking of such action. 
I am worried that the role of Senior Counsel will be too readily available to those members of the profession who practise in large law firms and who undertake substantial commercial work for the Government. They act on behalf of the Government in those roles. The idea of a Queen’s Counsel is to lift an individual barrister above the mire so that he or she is able to take on the unpopular cases that other barristers and solicitors turn down and is able to hold without fear the view of a client whom all others in society may view as having committed wrongs—be they civil or criminal—well ahead of the time that a judge or jury has to make those decisions. 
I say to the Green Party that it should think very carefully before it votes to remove that last vestige of barristers’ independence at that level and to replace it with a label that could easily be assigned to any senior lawyer in any firm. Many of the large firms in New Zealand do large amounts of commercial work for State-owned enterprises Crown entities and other Government departments and in my view that is where the real concern lies in relation to the removal of the rank of Queen’s Counsel. 
This bill is intended to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and to provide protection for consumers. Who would have thought that Mr Dempster would cause all this? Who would have thought when Mr Dempster decided to try to register as a conveyancing agent that it would lead to the monster bill that is about to go before the Justice and Electoral Committee? I am sure he did not think for one moment that this would be Parliament’s answer to his quandary with regard to carrying out conveyancing as a person who has not been admitted to the Bar as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court. 
I am not particularly concerned about some of the issues that Mr Smith from the United Future party has raised in respect of ethics integrity and the way that lawyers or conveyancers carry out their duties. There is a combination here of clients who are not silly working out who does and who does not do a good job. People who need surgery do not go to someone who might like to try to be a surgeon; they generally work out the best place to go to for an operation and it is the same when seeking legal services. I am convinced that the practice of law in New Zealand has reached a level of maturity where self-regulation and competition in that paradigm will make the practise of law perhaps a little more exciting to be in than it has been in previous years. The right of lawyers and conveyancers to sell real estate is an interesting concept. As Mr Smith has said it has been tried in various forms by various solicitors around New Zealand over time. Frankly I have never met a lawyer who has been a particularly good salesperson and I think one will probably find a situation where again the separation between those who sell property and those who provide legal services will pretty much find its natural equilibrium after a period of time. 
I return to the point I made initially which is the grave concern that the National Party has over the issue surrounding the removal of silks from our system. What concerns me the most is that the level of independence available to those who wish to challenge the State the police and those in authority who make the laws will be seriously undermined by replacing the high level of independence that Queen’s Counsel enjoy in New Zealand with a far more politically muddied appointment to the rank of Senior Counsel. During the select committee process the National Party will be monitoring that very carefully indeed and I place on record our reservations about that issue. As I said in the first instance we will be supporting this bill going to the select committee notwithstanding the reservations that I have outlined.