Power Simon: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19497] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I follow in the wake of a member of the Bar in New Zealand who has had a long and distinguished career as a solicitor. In the final years of the time before Richard Worth arrived in Parliament he was the chairperson of Simpson Grierson New Zealand’s largest law firm. So he comes to this debate with a unique perspective on these matters not only as a practising lawyer but also as somebody who rose through the hierarchy of district law societies and the New Zealand Law Society to become the treasurer of the New Zealand Law Society for some time. I served merely as a humble member of the social committee for the Manawatu District Law Society. I look forward to working our way through the 11 parts plus the schedules title and commencement clauses of this bill. 
It is worth recognising one issue right upfront. It relates to clause 3 “Purposes”. Clause 3(1)(c) states that one of the purposes of the bill is: “(c) to recognise the status of the legal profession …” but more important clause 4 sets out the fundamental obligations of lawyers. Clause 4(b) states that a lawyer has: “(b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:”. During the second reading of this bill I indicated that I have grave reservations—as do many members in this Chamber—about the removal of Queen’s Counsel from the legal profession. I have them for this reason: Queen’s Counsel have a job to do in maintaining the independence referred to in clause 4(b) particularly at a level that involves taking on the State or the establishment as it were on behalf of a client. I would have thought that members of the Labour Government would think that that was a noble cause for a lawyer to undertake.  
 The thing that worries me about that particular aspect of the purposes clause and its effect on QCs is that if we are now to have the designation of Senior Counsel bestowed upon lawyers in large law firms that act for corporate clients or more particularly large Government departments Crown entities and the like one has to question—at least in a superficial way—the independence of those lawyers and the overall context of their relationship with the Government where the Government provides a number of larger clients to those law firms. The whole point of having Queen’s Counsel was that a senior member of the Bar could stand aside from any of those perceived conflicts that may have arisen by him or her being in a big firm that acted for big Government departments Crown entities and the like. By removing QCs this bill actually undermines the obligations contained in clause 4(c). That worries me because Queen’s Counsel have always had a special role in maintaining the independence of their advice and representation on behalf of clients who do not have the backing of the powerful State—which is becoming more powerful these days I must say—and they do not have the backing of big law firms that act for those types of clients. I think it will be a grave loss if this part of the legislation passes through this House. Having said that there are aspects of this bill that the National Party strongly agrees with and we will work our way through those aspects. 
I must say that I am concerned about the number of late amendments particularly around the definition of incorporated conveyancing firms—a controversial area that is part of this legislation. When we glance at the Table we can see 16 different amendments and Supplementary Order Papers that have been placed on it at the last minute. One would have thought that after the length of time that this bill has been in the Justice and Electoral Committee and the length of time that Phil Goff has put his heart and soul into getting this legislation through the House the select committee might have got it right and that we would not need these last-minute amendments and Supplementary Order Papers filed on the Table. For an issue like the regulation and statutory framework of the legal profession those people who access it—whether that be accessing Queen’s Counsel large legal firms or community law centres—deserve better from lawmakers than these scrappy last-minute attempts by way of amendments and Supplementary Order Papers laid on the Table. Some of them like those tabled by Dail Jones and Richard Worth will no doubt have their merits but the Government has had this legislation in its hands for a long period of time. It should do better by the users of legal services in New Zealand than to table amendments and Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute. So we will look closely at those definitions as we work our way through this legislation. 
I will finish my first of four contributions on Part 1 by saying that members should remember that the point of regulating the legal profession is to protect the client. For that reason the removal of silks from the legal profession—in my view and in the view of many members of this House—undermines the clients’ ability to access quality independent legal advice that is not in any way tarnished by the relationship a large firm may have in acting for clients that may be Government departments ministries Crown businesses or the like. That is a fault in this legislation and I am determined to see that point put on the record under my name. 
I look forward to contributing in a small way to the contributions that have been made by my far more learned colleagues Dr Wayne Mapp Dr Richard Worth and Georgina te Heuheu all of whom have legal experience in one forum or another—whether it be the Waitangi Tribunal a major law firm or a university in Dr Mapp’s case—that far outweighs my own. All I offer to the debate is a humble 5½ years of practice in criminal courts and some commercial and property work. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed that short period of time. But that does not undermine in any way the weight or seriousness that I place on the amendments coming before the profession or more important what it will mean for their clients.