Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7389] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to make a long speech this evening on this bill. I want to indicate that the Green Party supports this bill at this first reading and in going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The various provisions in this bill have been well canvassed by previous members so I will not go into great detail about them. I understand this to be a large bill as was pointed out by Mr Franks. It is a highly technical bill— 
Stephen Franks 
: Just weigh it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Ha ha! I understand that there has been significant consultation on the bill and that it has had broad support from the profession. I look forward to going over it in detail at the select committee— 
Stephen Franks 
: I don’t believe you. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Ha ha—because I have such erudite colleagues to assist the committee in that regard. I am not a lawyer so I am not able to speak with the level of experience and erudition of some of the members who have spoken this evening but I hope that I can bring something to the committee as a non-lawyer. I think that that perspective is useful. 
In general I understand this bill to be a substantial review of the law relating to legal practice including a restructuring of the New Zealand Law Society the establishment of the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers which is new and the ending of the statutory status of district law societies. The bill makes provision for how practice rules will be set. It opens up the real estate industry by enabling lawyers and conveyancing practitioners to sell real estate. It establishes a new complaints procedure and allows the formation of the incorporated societies that Stephen Franks referred to earlier. 
The bill continues to provide for the special fund used for the funding of community law centres and I am pleased to see that continue. The underfunding of community law centres has been of great concern to the Green Party for some time. We have attempted to address that in previous years by means of Budget initiatives negotiated with the Government to provide some extra funding for community law centres. We believe that those organisations provide a crucial role in terms of making the law accessible to some of the most underprivileged members of society. It is very much an access-to-justice issue and at the select committee I have queried a number of times why banks have always kept 50 percent of the interest generated by that fund as banking fees. I have always thought that that was a bit extortionate. I am pleased to see that the percentage kept as banking fees has been reduced by 5 percent to 45 percent so at least there is a minor gain there. 
The other thing I would like to touch on before I finish is the provision to establish a new rank of Senior Counsel to replace that of Queen’s Counsel. Dail Jones queried the Green Party’s position on that provision and it will be no surprise to the members of this House to learn that the Green Party is totally in support of it. We believe that the title of Queen’s Counsel is a colonial vestige and that it is high time it went. We find it quite bizarre that Mr Jones should think that changing the name of those senior practitioners from Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel would somehow make them less intelligent or less able. That seems quite a bizarre notion. 
Simon Power 
: It’s obvious. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Well he said that we would see a reduction of the quality of representation that people are entitled to. That is quite bizarre when we are talking primarily about a change of title in terms of that provision. 
Dail Jones also made the point that people will go to Australia to get a QC to represent them in New Zealand so that they can go and boast about it to their friends at the pub. I would suggest to Mr Jones that people do not pay the significant fees of a QC in order to boast about it at the pub; they pay the money because they want to get the best representation that they can. Whether such a person is called a QC or a Senior Counsel he or she will still be the best representation that is available so we support that provision wholeheartedly. 
We support the bill going to the select committee and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see whether it needs amending.