Power Simon: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:677] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to have the bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee with a standard 6-month report-back time. 
This bill has been a long time in coming to its first reading. I managed to find in my files a press release dated Thursday 19 October 2000 when the bill was first suggested by myself. That just goes to show that we have now been on this matter for over 5 years. Darren Hughes the junior Government whip would do well to show such tenacity towards a piece of legislation that he cares about and brings by way of a member’s bill to this House. 
This bill allows law firms which must currently practise as sole practitioners or in partnerships to have the option of practising as a company under the Companies Act 1993. It seems that in contemporary circumstances where liability is effectively limited in many partnerships and law firms require equity capital for their expansion it is important to provide options for greater flexibility in structure and ownership consistent with the maintenance of the professional standards that have always applied to the legal profession. Accounting firms currently have the ability to practise in a corporate structure and it is my contention through this bill that law firms should also enjoy such flexibility. 
The bill makes amendments to the Law Practitioners Act 1982 that will permit lawyers to operate legal companies. As I said earlier the bill is neutral as to the model that lawyers elect to use; it simply provides lawyers with another option as to the way they structure their affairs. It puts lawyers operating as companies on the same footing as lawyers practising alone or in law firms operating under the Partnership Act 1908 and it is important to note that there is no change in the ability of lawyers to continue to operate on the traditional basis. I want to make two or three points very clear about that. The first is that the directors of legal companies but not their shareholders will be required to hold current practising certificates and will be subject like partners in law firms to requirements under the Law Practitioners Act relating to matters such as trust account maintenance professional discipline and contributions to the solicitors fidelity guarantee fund. 
The Minister of Justice Mark Burton has indicated to me that the Labour Party will support the referral of this matter to the select committee in the first instance and I am grateful for that opportunity. I understand that pieces of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill may well supersede parts of this bill although my view is that some of the emphasis is slightly different in that bill. I have explained to the Minister that if indeed the select committee makes a determination that one bill renders the other redundant then at that point there would be no point in continuing with the progress of this particular bill. However that is not a decision for me to make. Neither is it a decision quite frankly for the Minister to make. It is a decision for the select committee to make as it begins its deliberations hopefully after the bill makes it to a select committee. 
All the parties I have spoken to in the Chamber tonight—I have not had an opportunity to speak to representatives of the Maori Party—have indicated that they will support the passage of the bill to a select committee. Hone Harawira is now indicating that the Maori Party will also do so. That is very helpful and I thank him. So with that unanimous support this bill will be rushing to a select committee on a members’ evening. After only 5 years in the making it will now speedily make its way to a select committee for a swift resolution and return to the Chamber—by which time Clayton Cosgrove will probably be 65 or 70. Let us hope that the matter moves more swiftly in the select committee than it has in my short time in politics over the 5 years since I issued the first press release on this matter. 
At the time the bill was drafted I wrote to a large number of firms and law societies large small metropolitan and provincial to seek their views on the legislation. The result was from memory quite overwhelmingly supportive of this option being made available to practising law firms. On that basis I will resume my seat and wait for the contributions from other parties in the House which no doubt—like the passage of this bill—will be swift from this point on.