Wall Louisa: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wall Louisa: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5614. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill which was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee after its first reading and was reported back on 13 April 2011. I will begin by saying that Labour does oppose this bill and I will talk about why we oppose this bill. The objection as outlined by my colleague the Hon Phil Goff is really about Part 1 of the bill and the reinstatement of the title of Queen’s Counsel—Moana and I were just talking actually about whether that is Queen’s council or Queen’s Counsel—within the hierarchy of the legal profession. There is no other profession that seeks to reward certain of its members by giving them an elevated position conferred by a Government process. 
On 17 June 2009 the Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson announced his intention to reinstate the title of Queen’s Counsel. At the time he said: “… the government is taking these steps to protect the essential independence of the inner bar. The looser rules for eligibility as Senior Council introduced by the previous government threatened to dilute the independence of our most senior advocates.” That intention was echoed in the majority report of the select committee but what this bill does is restrict the senior title to barristers sole. Such a move is archaic and not reflective of the modern society most of us now live in. 
Queen’s Counsel as its name indicates is about royal patronage. The first Queen’s Counsel was appointed by Elizabeth I as her legal adviser. That is the foundation of the process that this Government is seeking to reinstate. In 2006 we made significant changes to reflect our own developing legal system which was no longer tied to the systems that had developed in England. A number of cases had recognised that development and the Privy Council in  
Invercargill City Council v Hamlin 
 in 1996 declared that New Zealand law should not be deflected from developing its own course in isolation to England. Why then would we take this backward step of trying to re-tie ourselves to England? 
It kind of does not make sense even to someone who has had nothing to do with this bill up until this point in time. There is no logical or reasonable basis to argue that reinstatement and restriction will result in independence. The title Queen’s Counsel clearly conjures up a connection with the Crown and Government. The title Senior Counsel does not do that. It is what we currently have. It denotes the recognition of people who have attained seniority within the legal profession. It speaks of independence not alignment with one of the Treaty partners. It is a practice followed in a number of Canadian provinces and the Federal Government. Senior Counsel is a title used in Australian states since 1993 albeit we seem to have encouraged however Queensland’s Attorney-General to look at reinstatement too. South Africa Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana all use the title Senior Counsel and Nigeria India and Bangladesh use the title Senior Advocate. 
As to restricting applicants for the senior position to barristers sole that too is not reflective of the wider processes available in law. We have lawyers who specialise in mediation in negotiation and in alternative dispute resolution as well as those in other areas. There are many aspects to giving advice but the suggestion that barristers sole are more independent than those in a firm company or organisation is ludicrous. Most barristers sole have spent a significant portion of their careers in firms companies or organisations before becoming barristers sole. They have the same obligations in terms of giving advice whether they are in a firm or are barristers sole. The public is entitled to that. The public is entitled to be assured that our senior counsel have a range of skills to meet the demands of the position and surely any suggestion that a nominee is not able to fulfil his or her obligations would discount any nominee from appointment. 
So in conclusion there seems to me to be no reasonable or logical basis for this backwards step and for undoing the positive steps taken in 2006 to allow Aotearoa New Zealand to develop its own legal structure and to cast off a title that reflects another country’s history and denies our country our own history that we have developed here in our country. Kia ora.