edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1556] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I simply want to draw the attention of the Committee to a proposed amendment in my name to clause 276(5) which relates to the proportion of the interest on the special fund that the banks will retain as payment for their services in administering nominated trust account funds. Members will be aware that for some time the banks have taken a pretty substantial cut of the interest; it has been up to this time 50 percent of the interest. I think that many members when they understand that that is what the bank takes find that pretty astounding. 
The bill as it was introduced originally sought to amend that provision so that the banks would retain 45 percent and the community law centres would receive 55 percent of the interest. In the Justice and Electoral Committee we discussed that further because as the report states we were still not convinced that that was a reasonable amount for the banks to take. Members may be aware that there was some discussion in the committee as to the appropriate proportion for the banks to retain and we had submissions from the Coalition of Community Law Centres of Aotearoa and from the banks themselves. The banks put forward a figure that they claimed was the cost of the service that they provided. That figure was disputed by the coalition and when the select committee invited the banks to substantiate their claim they simply refused to do so. They refused to provide any information to the select committee and acted in what I would call a contemptuous manner actually. 
The question of the true cost of the service has never actually been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction so I am moving to amend the proportion the banks would now retain from 40 percent to 30 percent. The concern about the proportion is that if we get it wrong the banks may cease to provide the service. However it seems to me that the banks would still be retaining a pretty substantial margin in return for the service they provide and 30 percent of the interest on those funds has to be a pretty good whack by anyone’s account. I would encourage members to support the amendment to change that proportion to 30 percent and I hope I have the support of the Committee on that. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to the heading of Part 9 be agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1556] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is seeking leave because he did not realise that the vote had been put. Is there any objection to the member speaking now on Part 9? There is not.
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1556] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson I offer my apologies. I am aware that if the voting has begun then that is the end of the debate so I seek to pre-empt the commencement of the voting by seeking leave for a call.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1556] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to formally aggregate the questions in Dr Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 344 to amend clause 264. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1556] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel has very adequately summarised what Part 9 is all about and from the National Party’s point of view there is no dispute. The heart of Part 9 is clause 273 which as the Minister has said provides that all money standing to the credit of the fund at the appropriate time or times must be paid to the Legal Services Agency for the purpose of funding community law centres. So that really repeats what is already provided for in the Act with the exception of the Law Foundation matter that the Minister referred to. Nothing is really new; it reflects existing practice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question now is—
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1555] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This part renames the New Zealand Law Society’s special fund as the Lawyers and Conveyancers Special Fund. The special fund consists of a proportion of the interest paid by banks on trust accounts. The bill allows banks to retain the remainder of the interest in lieu of fees and charges. Special fund proceeds must be paid to the Legal Services Agency to fund community law centres. This is a change from the current Act which requires funds to be distributed to community law centres and the New Zealand Law Foundation. In practice the community law centres’ funding requirements meant that the Law Foundation seldom received any funding from the special fund. The new provisions reflect current practice. 
The bill as introduced provided for community law centres to receive 55 percent and banks to receive 45 percent of the interest on trust accounts. The Justice and Electoral Committee’s amendments increase community law centres’ share of the interest to 60 percent with the banks’ share reducing to 40 percent in response to submissions made by the Bankers’ Association and community law centres. I know that the select committee again debated this at considerable length. The committee called various parties before it and sought further advice in order to try to find the right solution to what is a balancing act. I commend this part to the Committee.
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1554] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As Dr Worth has said he is currently serving on the Council of Legal Education. I served on it during the 1990s and I do not think it would be inappropriate simply to mention that the Speaker herself served on the Council of Legal Education when she was Dean of the University of Waikato School of Law. So there is some experience of that council around this place. I agree with the Minister that the council performs a very important role particularly in prescribing courses for candidates for admission as barristers and solicitors. Of course it is the Law Society thereafter that is responsible for continuing legal education and for what I hope as I said earlier will be mandatory continuing legal education. 
The functions are set out in clause 251 and I have no problem with that. The Minister has referred to the agreement on levies so I will not waste time on that. But I will say something about the Institute of Professional Legal Studies because I am very interested and pleased to see that a power has been included in clause 256 that will enable the council to sell on such terms as it thinks fit the business conducted by the Institute of Professional Legal Studies. My hope is that that sale comes sooner rather than later because at the present time I think the council is in the invidious position of being not only a regulator of professional legal studies but also an operator of one of the two options for professional legal studies. In my opinion that is unfair to the College of Law that runs the competitor system. Generally speaking especially in the 1980s there was in some respects an obsession about dividing organisations between regulators and those who actually operate the service— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Funders and providers. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
:—funders and providers—that sometimes reached absurd proportions. That occurred for example with the Arts Council and the Arts Board but I will not go there; I would rather focus on lawyers and conveyancers. However I think it is appropriate for the Council of Legal Education to operate as regulator and it can sell the Institute of Professional Legal Studies to some other body in such a way that when it is dealing with the College of Law it is able—and is seen to be able—to act fairly and justly as between various providers. 
So I too pay tribute to the Council of Legal Education. I especially pay tribute to Justice Tipping now of the Supreme Court who has been chair of that body for many years and to those lawyers who have given up their time to serve on it as well. They are the only comments I wish to make about this part because generally speaking the council is working very well.
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1553] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Part 8 continues the Council of Legal Education which is renamed the New Zealand Council of Legal Education. I recall that submitters on this part were very grateful to members of the council for making the effort to make direct submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The functions and powers of the council have been aligned more closely with current practice. The council’s functions and powers include regulation of the education of candidates for admissions and the recognition of foreign legal qualifications. The work the council does is absolutely imperative to the quality of the legal profession in this country and I am very pleased to be supporting this part. 
I should note that Government Supplementary Order Paper 289 will change the arrangements for funding the council. I recall that the select committee debated this at some length. It seemed to be a vexed question. However it is a vexed question that has now been resolved by agreement between the council and the New Zealand Law Society. That agreement is reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper which states that the levies paid to the council to fund its annual budget shall not exceed an aggregate of 5 percent of the practising fees paid by lawyers. Should the 5 percent be insufficient any dispute between the council and the New Zealand Law Society is to be referred to the Minister who may set an amount above 5 percent. 
I pay tribute to both parties for coming to a sensible arrangement and I commend the part to the Committee.
Hartley Ann: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1553] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate includes debate on schedule 5.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1553] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 289 and 324 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 7 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1553] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that all the amendments to Part 7 on Dr Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 344 be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to Part 7 be agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1552] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 First I thank the Minister Lianne Dalziel for explaining the rationale behind the Legal Complaints Review Officer. That was very helpful. I had not quite finished what I wanted to say about the jurisdictional aspects. I said that on page 214 a couple of points dealt with the jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Appeal. Clause 245(1) appears to have been changed. The word “Summary” has been omitted by majority and the word “inherent” substituted. Also—and in my respectful submission rather strangely—the phrase “and powers” has been included. As I said in my earlier intervention the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction but does not have inherent powers. Inferior courts have inherent powers although they do not have an inherent jurisdiction. So if someone could explain to me exactly why that change was made I would be most grateful. 
Subclause (2) talks about the High Court in the exercise of its summary jurisdiction which does not quite tie up with what is in subclause (1). Then and it appears to be totally otiose clause 247 states: “Except as provided in this Part nothing in this Part limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.” but we do not know whether it is the summary jurisdiction the inherent jurisdiction or whatever. If the Minister in the chair could explain those points—the interrelationship between clauses 245 and 247—I would be most grateful.
Fairbrother Russell: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1552] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Having heard that speech made by the previous member who wanted to argue that his side is bigger than ours I feel obliged to rise to my feet. I am one who has appeared as counsel on a number of occasions for various law societies and the New Zealand Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and can only say that I welcome the change that consolidates all complaints going to a centralised authority and that a standards committee will oversee those and set the procedures and protocols. Part 7 is really the powerhouse of the change and it is one to be welcomed. 
The talk of an ombudsman of course is talk from someone who does not really have an appreciation of the nature and quality of complaints that arise from the various disciplines and more. Litigators particularly criminal litigators attract all sorts of sundry complaints. Those who deserve to be in prison complain the most. Those who do not deserve to be in prison are normally kept out and they complain rarely. So we get the malcontents and those who are discontent hogging the time of the Ombudsman. If we brought that into the field of lawyers we would have a bureaucracy that even the political correctness investigator would find appalling. 
I endorse Part 7. It is the powerhouse of the bill and it will set the standards by which lawyers can judge themselves. There should be an objective set of standards that will be readily promulgated to the whole profession.
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1549] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I feel that the member has contributed in a way that requires a response. He asked how somebody who was not a lawyer could be appointed as a Legal Complaints Review Officer and indeed when we look at the criteria for appointment we see that all the attributes of a lawyer are what we would look for. However a lawyer under this legislation means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor. That means I would be qualified for the position as I no longer hold a practising certificate. I do not know whether the member still holds a current practising certificate but if he does not he would also be qualified for that position. I imagine there would be retired judges and others who would also be eminently qualified for those positions. So the member can be reassured that there will be no shortage of people available to undertake that role.
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1547] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call on Part 7. This part is significant because it creates the new three-tier complaints and discipline system. I congratulate the Justice and Electoral Committee on the excellent work it did on this part and indeed on all parts of the legislation. Professional standards committees will be run by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. An independent legal complaints review officer will provide oversight of standards committee decisions. A New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal will hear and determine any charges against practitioners and any application for restoration of a practising certificate. 
I noted comments made earlier about whether charges would be laid in cases of fraud. I refer members to page 2 of this morning’s  
Press 
 where indeed it is reported that a member of the local law society is up on charges for I think precisely the reasons expressed by a previous speaker from the National Party. Disciplinary processes are essentially a quid pro quo for professional status and the restriction placed on others doing work in this area. It is not an alternative to the consequences of the criminal law but additional to those. I commend this part to the House.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1547] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 106 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 106 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 106 and substitute the following clause: 
106Regulations as to Queen’s Counsel 
The Governor-General may from time to time by Order in Council make regulations prescribing— 
(a)the method of appointment of Queen’s Counsel: 
(b)the fees to be paid by them: 
(c)their privileges and duties: 
(d)the conditions on or subject to which they may be appointed or may practise their profession: 
(e)such other matters as may be necessary in relation to Queen’s Counsel. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 289 324 and 347 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1546] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 272 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 105 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 105 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 272 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 106 be agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1545] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 86 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 87 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 89(2) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clauses 90 and 92 are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision on clause 87. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 94 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 96 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 102 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 103(4)(d) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 104 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “have at law” and substitute the words “have in the Commonwealth of Australia”.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1545] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the amendments to the following clauses on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth be aggregated and taken together: clauses 83 and 83A 86 87 94 96 102 and 106. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clauses 83 and 83A be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 85 be agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1540] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to Part 6 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. It is a major change and is of major significance. There are some areas that I would really like to highlight particularly around the rules. The rules around eligibility for a practising certificate; payment of the practising fees levies and subs; and a register of practitioners all seem to me to be of extreme significance and paramount importance. Also having read through Part 6 I feel it is appropriate to mention the professional conduct that is required whether from a sole practitioner someone in partnership or otherwise. 
There are certain practice rules. We heard earlier this afternoon about some of the people from Australia who could be interested in coming here and getting into conveyancing in this country. We need to be mindful of the foreign qualifications and education of those people. 
Another significant point around Part 6 relates to indemnity insurance which needs to be approved by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. That is extremely important. 
Another important point to pick up on is the consultation that is required under clause 87. The rules can be made with the approval of the Minister and that seems extremely logical to me. Of course the rules have to be consistent with the international rules that apply to New Zealand. The Minister may amend those rules in consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers which seems very appropriate. 
We also need to look at the investigation of affairs and practices as they need to be examined as well. Of particular concern—and this has been highlighted by the previous two speakers Dr Worth and Dr Coleman—is the whole change of Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel. I have QC KC SC— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: It’s a shambles! 
NATHAN GUY 
: You are right Dr Worth. You talked about just how loose— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Dr Worth talked about how Senior Counsel is a very loose term. 
Moana Mackey 
: Dr Worth? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Is the member a doctor? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I am! 
NATHAN GUY 
: He is—brilliant! I thought he was. I think it is extremely important that we do not lose sight of our ties to Britain. We need to be very mindful of just how important—Mr Finlayson talked about this earlier on—the brand and the mana around the term Queen’s Counsel is. We need to have a serious look at that provision in particular. Otherwise National is supportive of Part 6.
Hayes John: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1536] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill but I do have some reservations about Part 6 for the reason that it makes professionals—professional lawyers and the profession—look incompetent. The Minister seems to retain the right to determine practice rules and it seems to me that that will encourage the Law Society to engage in political toadying instead of a force for an independent profession to protect individuals against the State. I think that is really important. I am also fearful that disciplinary procedures will make people vulnerable to legal ambush. 
Clause 85(1)(a) requires conveyancers to provide educational criteria and it gives no further guidance. That seems to me to be an example of over-regulation of our industry and seems to set up the potential to establish a cabal or anti-competitive behaviour. 
But clause 85(1)(b) sets up a requirement to recognise foreign qualifications. I commend the Minister for that provision because so many New Zealanders—660—are leaving this country every week to go to Australia. No New Zealanders will be left to engage in this work—we will have to rely on foreigners and their qualifications to come here to help us with our conveyancing. 
 I would like now to go to clause 96. I notice that the Law Society—and I speak as a non-lawyer; just a Joe Blow citizen—is allowed to appoint someone to look at irregularities for example high fees and accounts. Surely this is a faulted concept. Why should the poacher also be the gamekeeper? When I go on to read clause 101 it seems to me that a duty is put on practitioners of the law to ensure that funds earn interest. This is yet another example of what I was trying to say in an earlier call: we are writing legislation to give the pretence that people are being protected. There is no mention here of anything about market rates. Provided someone paid 0.25 percent or 0.5 percent interest I would presume that person is in keeping with the law even if he or she is ripping off people. I would like these elements to be considered in this legislation.
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1536] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Attorney-General has resumed his seat too quickly. I invite him to make comment on the issues relating to professional indemnity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been here for a considerable amount of time. He knows that that is not a point of order and that he is actually trifling.
Parker David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1535] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I will just respond briefly on the Senior Counsel replacement for Queen’s Counsel point. I disagree with the points made by the last speaker Chris Finlayson. I know that they are held not just by him but also by a number of members of the Bar but I hold the contrary view that was espoused by Mr Fairbrother—that Senior Counsel are as likely to be found in a law firm as they are at the separate Bar. I do not agree that they have lower standards of independence. They owe the same duties to the court as lawyers practising at the Bar. They owe the same duties of care to their clients—indeed the duties of care of solicitors in some instances are broader than those of barristers. 
In terms of some concern that we will see an undermining of the standard of representation of clients we need only look at what was the status quo some 20 or 30 years ago before the separate Bar proliferated. Many of the senior practitioners in the times of personal injury litigation actually sat within firms of solicitors and not at the separate Bar. They were unable to have the title of Queen’s Counsel but they did the work of senior practitioners. Some of the most senior practitioners in this land such as Mr Jack Hodder who is editor of  
The Capital Letter 
 and a very very senior practitioner sit within a law firm—in Mr Hodder’s case Chapman Tripp. I have no doubt that he and people like him would be suitable candidates for the position of Senior Counsel. I think it is unfair that we keep that privilege from them. 
In terms of concerns about whether this bill doles out monopoly privileges I think there are concerns that if we have too few Queen’s Counsel we elevate their value in a way that is inappropriate and actually confer upon Queen’s Counsel close to monopoly or oligopoly privileges. One way we can ameliorate that concern is by having recourse to some of the very able and senior counsel who sit in law firms.
Woolerton R Doug: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1534] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First intends to support this bill. We take issue with only one part of it. We have an amendment in the name of Peter Brown on an issue that was followed through by Mr Dail Jones in the previous Parliament who spoke with some heat on the matter if his  
Hansard 
 is a true and correct record—and I am sure it is. We believe that the changing of Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel is along the lines of Mr Finlayson’s and Mr Worth’s contributions more of a politically correct statement than anything else. We believe that the term Queen’s Counsel has long been recognised and should be retained. We feel so strongly about it that we are proposing an amendment to that effect. 
I have been asked—and I cannot see for myself whether he is in the gallery now—to recognise the President of the New Zealand Law Society Mr Chris Darlow who is here or has been here taking a vital interest in this bill. 
Apart from clauses 105 and 106 in this part concerning Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel New Zealand First will support the bill. However we will be supporting the amendment in the name of Mr Peter Brown to those clauses.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1530] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 6 provides for the development of practice rules by the respective societies the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers which we have just dealt with during Parts 4 and 5. Those rules cover matters such as conduct trust accounts and indemnity insurance—and trust as well I would imagine. The rules must be the subject of consultation with the relevant professions and they also require approval by the Minister. 
This part also contains provisions based on the existing Law Practitioners Act and Solicitors’ Trust Account Regulations relating to the trust accounts that must be kept by practitioners who receive money for or on behalf of others. It also provides that regulations may be made relating to the rank of Senior Counsel which will rename the office of Queen’s Counsel. I note that my colleague Mr Worth has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 272 which seeks to replace the words “Senior Counsel” with “Queen’s Counsel”. It will come as no surprise to him of course that the Government will oppose that Supplementary Order Paper— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Will oppose it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed it will. There is also a Government Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff—that extends eligibility to employee lawyers to be appointed as Senior Counsel.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1530] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1530] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1527] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to follow on from Dr Worth’s comments about Part 5. National supports most of this bill but it does not support Part 5 as it stands this evening. 
I would like also to follow on from some of the comments Mr Parker made earlier. He referred to those of us including me who feel we are protected from having our own solicitors do our own conveyance and would have concerns about the half-dozen or so who may be allowed to do conveyance under Part 5. I feel that this legislation adds just another layer of bureaucracy and more regulation. 
It is interesting that conveyancers will have to meet the criteria set out for a fit and proper person. I refer the members here this evening to clause 73A which concerns those criteria—whether the conveyancer is of good character has previously been bankrupt has had any previous convictions and so on. This is all very well but who will monitor it? The more frameworks this legislation sets up in more areas about people being fit and proper the more someone has to measure whether these people actually are fit and proper. 
Another area of concern in Part 5 is training monitoring and ongoing assessment. I believe that we have to keep the crossbar on the goalpost extremely high and my concern is that in allowing this to go through we would be seen to be lowering it. If I particularly wanted some conveyancing done I would prefer to see my solicitor to ensure it was done in a proper practical fashion. 
Clauses 79 and 80 of Part 5 talk about practising fees and levies the regulatory functions around them and their compulsory nature. Clause 81 talks about the ongoing subscriptions that conveyancers will have to pay to the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. 
National members have concerns about Part 5. A lot of other speakers on the National Party side who have a wealth of experience in this area are happy to support the bill but have real concerns about Part 5.
Hayes John: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1527] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am not a lawyer but like many New Zealanders I have used the services of lawyers. And like the odd Kiwi I have been ripped off. In one case my lawyer was sent to jail. Ho-hum—ever tried to recover money from a fidelity fund? So I come to this issue with a certain cynicism reinforced by the comments of the two Labour speakers in the last quarter of an hour Mr “Fairweather” and his colleague over there. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s name is Fairbrother. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I am so sorry—Mr Fairbrother. 
Brian Connell 
: You should know that—he’s the former member for Napier. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes the former member for Napier—and I commend the people of Napier for their very good judgment. I say to Mr Chairperson and the Minister in the chair that you have been down this road before with the Retirement Villages Act. You think you have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate. By using the word “you” the member is bringing the Chairperson into it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Sorry—I was referring to the Minister. The Government has brought in the Retirement Villages Act which professes to set up a whole network of care for our elderly people. The legislation before us—particularly Part 5 which we oppose—is just like the retirement village legislation. It sets up the illusion of protecting people. It sets up the illusion of competition. In fact it establishes protective and restrictive trade practices. I ask members to look at the State-owned Public Trust and the very high fees it charges supposedly for looking after the aged in our community. 
On the other hand I support the involvement of conveyancers in conveyancing work because I believe in free competition. Membership of an entity is good for looking after conveyancing activity. But this legislation strikes me as being hugely unnecessary and hugely complicated and more conducive to the establishment of an anti-competitive cabal. The Law Society has pointed out that at the very most we can expect eight of its members to join this organisation. It will be totally impossible for this organisation to set up a realistic fidelity fund. 
Overall I think the legislation is unnecessarily prescriptive. It is cumbersome and accordingly poor law. Part 5 plays into the hands of those who promote anti-competitive behaviour under the guise of protecting our community. It looks to be promoting free competition but that is absolute rubbish. This is B-grade legislation setting up a B-grade entity in comparison with the Law Society. This part of the bill should be eliminated.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1526] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Ever so briefly I must refer the member—he may not have been in the Chamber at the time—to what I said at the beginning of the debate on Part 5. The pertinent thing is that the content of this part mirrors the statutory regulations and responsibilities of this group of people that apply to lawyers under Part 4. I think the provisions and protections are precisely the same provisions and protections that are referred to in Part 4. 
As to the other matters I certainly do not want to waste the time of the House because we are making such good progress. I simply refer the member to the comments made by two of my colleagues on this side of the House. I fully endorse in particular Mr Fairbrother’s view that this provision is actually for 4 million New Zealanders not for 6 7 8 or however many it turns out to be over time.
Parker David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1525] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I rise in support of Part 5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. We have heard some pretty superficial criticisms of Part 5 including comments that we do not need to have conveyancers and that conveyancers cannot be relied upon. 
Let us reflect on the fact that New Zealand’s system of land registration is the Torrens registration system which is the system devised by Mr Torrens and first implemented in South Australia. South Australia has operated for more than 100 years with land brokers or conveyancers who are not members of the legal profession and it does not seem to have too many problems in doing so. 
If people other than lawyers are being allowed to convey interests in land then there is a need for a regulatory regime because we do need to protect members of the public when they undertake what for most of them is the most important financial transaction in their lives. We do not want them to lose their life-savings. Accordingly there is a need for regulation of conveyancers and as the previous speaker Kate Wilkinson pointed out—and I agree with her—there is a need to make sure that they have similar obligations in respect of fidelity funds. 
I will make one more point. We as lawyers ought not to be too precious that lawyers do not err. I am one of the lawyers—and I sure Mr Worth is another—who remember a $10000 bill that lawyers faced as a top-up to the fidelity fund following the collapse of Renshaw Edwards and the defalcations that occurred within that firm. Lawyers had to put their hands in their pockets to the tune of $10000 each to make good the losses that people who had been using that firm had suffered. The lawyers did so for which they ought to be congratulated. It is necessary to have some level of regulation so that we can have a similarly effective fidelity fund for conveyancers. I support this part of the bill.
Fairbrother Russell: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1522] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is fascinating that all the member could suggest was that Part 5 should be deleted. That follows his practice at the Bar of belonging to firms that were leading the way in specialisation and in the presentation of the product in such a way that lawyers in the provinces cannot keep up with the pretty packages and named sweets they find littering the table as they search for prospective clients in the big firms. 
We have a bill that already has five or six people indicating they want to be conveyancers. Of course this bill will not be law for lawyers; it will be law to ensure that lawyers and conveyancers provide a service to the public. So it is fallacious for my learned friend to argue that the bill provides for only five or six people. In fact this legislation will bring conveyancing back to the public and to each of the 4 million people in this country who will be able to engage conveyancers at a price they can afford for that specialised service. So as the major firms have led the way in specialisation this bill follows by bringing the specialisation of conveyancing back to the people of New Zealand. Clearly my friend is misguided in his mischievous proposal to delete Part 5. He is surely not trying to protect the ivory towers and glass towers of Queen Street; he surely wants to provide ample conveyancing to the mums and dads of this country who are finding it increasingly expensive to ride in the high-powered lifts in those towers—once they make it to Queen Street. 
I argue for and this Government supports bringing the practice of law and the conveyancing associated with mums and dads buying houses back to the people who can afford it by providing a specialised service that is relevant to the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. I therefore support this bill wholeheartedly.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1521] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 5 of the bill provides for the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers and sets out its regulatory responsibilities. In that respect it mirrors Part 4 which we have just debated and which deals with the New Zealand Law Society. The regulatory responsibilities include overseeing enforcement of the legislation admission and enrolment of conveyancing practitioners and implementation and enforcement of complaints and disciplinary processes.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1521] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1519] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As we have heard Part 4 deals with the New Zealand Law Society. I am not a lawyer but to me as a layperson it is very important that I have confidence in the workings of the New Zealand Law Society. I do not care about the details but I do need to know that there is a regulatory body that will provide benchmarking for good legal practice in order to control the quality of lawyers and that I can therefore rely on the professionalism of any lawyer whom I employ. As Joe Public I support the work of the Law Society in developing professional standards and practice notes that are consistent across the whole country. I will feel more secure in my choice of a lawyer because of the Law Society’s issuing of practising certificates and a database of those who have practising certificates. My lawyer may or may not choose to belong to the Law Society; that does not concern me—although I can see the benefits of that for lawyers—but I will feel more comfortable knowing that my lawyer is subject to the regulations of the Law Society.
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1515] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 4 makes provisions for the New Zealand Law Society. It significantly changes the society’s structure and sets out its regulatory responsibilities. Those regulatory responsibilities include overseeing the enforcement of the legislation the admission and enrolment of law practitioners and the implementation and enforcement of complaints and disciplinary procedures. The New Zealand Law Society will have to carry out a range of governance and constitutional tasks to bring this legislation into force. Until the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers is established when Part 5 comes into force the New Zealand Law Society will regulate conveyancers.
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1515] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the Minister said Part 3 replicates what is already contained in the Law Practitioners Act 1982. It deals with the admission and enrolment of barristers and solicitors and there can be no objection to this part. Clause 40 deals with the right of every person who has satisfied the educational criteria and is of good character to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor. It is important to note that even if one chooses to practise as a barrister only one is admitted as a barrister and solicitor. Clause 41 deals with the three categories of person who qualify for admission. The following clauses deal with evidence of qualifications and suitability. 
Indeed the only clause that is new to this part is clause 46A which attempts to define who is a fit and proper person eligible for admission. The most important provision in that clause is paragraph (a) in subclause (1) which states that the Law Society can take into account whether the person is of good character. That term is not defined nor can it reasonably be defined because in many instances as the case law has indicated in the past determining whether a person is of good character depends obviously on the particular circumstances. 
With those brief comments in mind I do not think the time of the Committee need be detained any further. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.