Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1519] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak not to the bill as a whole because I think the Green Party’s position has been stated quite clearly in previous readings but to an amendment in my name to clause 57 introducing new clause 57A. The amendment addresses an issue that is primarily dealt with in clause 106 in Part 6 but I rise to speak to it now because these two amendments are in conjunction and I thought I should speak at the earliest opportunity. 
It relates to the issue of Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel. It is an issue that has been contentious in previous readings of the bill and there has been a lot of discussion about it although now that Dail Jones has gone the conversation might calm down a little bit. The Green Party supported the move away from the language of “Queen’s Counsel” towards “Senior Counsel” because we saw that terminology as being of more relevance in Aotearoa today in the 21st century. However during the discussions at the select committee I began to question the value of the grade at all. We heard a number of arguments for and against the idea of having either Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel. Some people were of the view that being appointed as a Queen’s Counsel simply meant one could put one’s fees up. The point was made that there occasionally were honorary appointments as Queen’s Counsel as well. But I think it is also true that by and large it is genuine recognition of seniority and expertise so it does have value in that sense. 
The other point we heard is that it is not necessarily a fair measure in that although only very good lawyers become Queen’s Counsel or if this bill passes in its current form Senior— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This particular member is speaking about Part 6 and in particular the provisions relating to Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel in that part but we are currently working our way diligently through Part 4. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Dr Worth is quite right. The member did signal when he opened that he was going to go a bit wide but we are going through the bill in parts and we should be confining ourselves to each part. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I point out that if Mr Worth had read my proposed amendment he would understand that it is an amendment to this part but it relates to the issue of Queen’s Counsel— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: It’s the wrong part. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: —as the member would understand if he either read the amendment or did me the courtesy of listening to my speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Nandor Tanczos to continue. As you were. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Although only good lawyers become Queen’s Counsel the point has been made that some people who would be very deserving of that status do not get recognition for various political reasons. The strongest argument I heard for having the status at all is that it is a protection for the independent Bar and that while it is available only to barristers sole it gives a status that is sought after and valued and lawyers will leave firms in order to make themselves available for that status. The argument is that to extend it to lawyers practising in firms would weaken the independent Bar. So maybe this bill actually gives us the worst of both worlds in a sense. 
It seems to me that there is value in recognising seniority and expertise but that that is not the role of the State. So I have proposed new clause 57A which makes it clear that it should be one of the regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society and an amendment to delete clause 106 which has it as a function of the Governor-General. The point is that it should be up to the profession to determine status in its own profession and to recognise seniority and expertise and it should not be the role of the State to confer State patronage on lawyers. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to those lawyers who have already received that grade but it seems to me inappropriate that it should be a function of State patronage to award that status when it is a matter for the profession. It is the profession that is in the best position to evaluate candidates to make such recommendations and through its own regulatory function—the New Zealand Law Society—to decide on those matters. 
I have brought this matter up in the debate on this part because it relates to proposed new clause 57A. I hope the Committee will support the amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to Part 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
57APower to prescribe guidelines in relation to Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel 
(1)As from the commencement of this section the New Zealand Law Society is responsible for prescribing— 
(a)The process by which candidates may be recommended for appointment as Senior Counsel: 
(b)The fees to be paid by candidates for appointment as Senior Counsel: 
(c)The privileges and duties of Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel: 
(d)The conditions on or subject to which Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel may practice their profession: 
(e)The precedence that Senior Counsel are to have in the courts of New Zealand: 
(f)Such other matters as may be necessary in relation to Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel: 
(g)Such other matters as may be necessary in relation to Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel. 
(2)The New Zealand Law Society may also issue guidelines in relation to both the qualifications and experience that should be possessed by candidates for appointment as Senior Counsel and the process by which such candidates may be recommended for appointment. 
(3)A person who holds the rank of Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel ceases to hold that rank if— 
(a)he or she is suspended from practice as a barrister; or 
(b)his or her name is struck off the roll. 
(4)If the Sovereign for the time being is a King every reference in this section or in any guidelines made under subsection (1) to “Queen’s Counsel” is unless the context otherwise requires to be read as a reference to “King’s Counsel”.