Browning Steffan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Browning Steffan: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5607. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill because it is an issue that the Green Party held strong curiosity in as it was heading to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We voted for it to progress to that stage because we wanted to hear some more of the detailed arguments around the reasoning behind the proposed changes. I will not speak much to the second part of this bill except to say that they are primarily sensible uncontroversial amendments that we probably would have been able to support had Part 1 lived up to our hopes of reasonable discussion. Unfortunately we have not been suitably convinced that the amendments contained in Part 1 of the bill had proceeded from a rigorous contest of ideas. Rather they seem to hail more from a quaint—indeed anachronistic—state of mind. It is a state of mind that does not recognise the strong independent streak that runs through New Zealand culture. It is from these concerns that our opposition stems. 
In 2006 the Labour Government replaced the title of Queen’s Counsel with Senior Counsel which still allowed for recognition of exceptional performance without harking to the monarchy for validation. Although New Zealand maintains links to the United Kingdom we also have a distinct national culture and some unique constitutional arrangements. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act passed in 1947 and more recently the Constitution Act 1986 stand as both practical and symbolic measures from which we have set out enhancing our independence. Although we still retain the Queen as our head of State—a position that is not uniformly supported in this House or by the public at large—the momentum of our country has been one of embracing a destiny that is uniquely New Zealand in nature. Such was the reasoning behind our acceptance of the Labour Government’s change in the area of titles and the title of Queen’s Counsel is a colonial relic that does not reflect the distinct character of New Zealand’s cultural diversity or identity. Although we cannot deny our colonial past—indeed it would be harmful to do so—we have the potential to walk into the future with the assurance that we are staying true to ourselves in Aotearoa. 
One reason that the Government has advanced for the change is a supposed reciprocal relationship between the Queen’s Counsel and the Crown. It is one that is derived from ancient English origins but this is not a relationship that exists in name only. The relationship continues whether the lawyers concerned are titled Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel. All the important qualities of the position remain untouched. The independence seniority and credibility are not put in question by a change in the title. Indeed because most Queen’s Counsel in New Zealand rarely or never act on instruction from the Solicitor-General or Crown solicitors and in fact represent a wide range of private individuals or groups changing the name to Senior Counsel actually imbues a broad sense of serving the community with skill and independence better than whatever vestige bestowed by an outdated colonial title such as Queen’s Counsel might do. 
Perhaps the more interesting arguments are those concerning eligibility. Labour legislated to allow the full profession to be considered as potentially worthy of having the rank of Senior Counsel bestowed upon them rather than barristers solely which had been the tradition until that point. 
Darien Fenton 
: “Coun-sel”? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: That is what I say—“coun-sel”. I have been caught plenty of times. 
David Bennett 
: It hasn’t done you much good. 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: On the right side. It was rather than barristers which had been the tradition until that point—just pop into the Environment Court I say to everybody. This widened the pool of eligibility from a narrow selection comprising only a few hundred out to 12000 wider practitioners excepting the bush lawyers I must admit. Once again the reasoning for the change back is not sufficiently articulated. Vague allusions to a threat to the independence are made but not well substantiated. 
Kennedy Graham during his call in the first reading of this bill made reference to Simon Power’s statements when the original changes were made that opening up eligibility would capture senior lawyers who undertook substantial commercial work for the Government. This is potentially a reasonable concern but it is not one that has been ostensibly proven to occur to such a degree that the very integrity of the position has been called into question. The original shift was made in a seemingly egalitarian spirit that removed enjoyment of commercial privilege to only a select few and allowed meritorious practitioners from a variety of backgrounds to be considered eligible. Objections such as Mr Power’s would need to be sufficiently demonstrated before slimming eligibility back down. 
 Another change that we have come to disagree with is another regressive step this time in regard to the selection process. This bill removes the selection panel for the Queen’s Counsel and replaces it with the requirement that the Attorney-General consult with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association. Ironically in light of the Government’s concerns around independence this seems to open up the process to political influence more rather than less. Although this is hardly the stuff that tabloid controversy is made of conceptually it is certainly inconsistent. 
In short the bill does not seem to engage with the discussion of legitimate arguments around the best way to make the role of Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel more effective and independent but rather is an ideological knee-jerk reaction. Of course this is perhaps partly true in the reverse too but the key point of difference is that the original changes made were done so with a progressive view to engage with our unique New Zealand perspective which has increasingly sought to distinguish itself from the leftovers of a colonial heritage. The way to forging a national identity that is true to our multifarious heritage and incorporates a diversity of perspective in this country is not to cling desperately to the relics of the past but to embrace new traditions and put our own stamp on the ones we wish to keep hold of. Thank you.