Bishop ChrisLAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS (EMPLOYED LAWYERS PROVIDING FREE LEGAL SERVICES) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingCHRIS BISHOP (National): I move That the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Just to give members the brief background to this this was a bill introduced in the last Parliament and it was sent—I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying—to the Justice Committee where it's been being considered for quite some time.The genesis of this bill came from a New Zealand LawTalk article that I was reading—this is slightly embarrassing but I'll say it anyway—over summer on holiday in Mexico three years ago on the beach in Tulum. It was an article written by a lawyer who had been proposing to the New Zealand Law Society the liberalisation of the rules made pursuant to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act around employed lawyers doing pro bono—free—legal work and I thought Well that's a good member's bill because the law does not make any sense at the moment." As he pointed out in the article the law is frequently breached without people actually knowing about it without sanction—but we should still change laws even if things aren't enforced. It actually does have the effect of stopping people from doing real legal work that would make a difference for people who are in need of access to justice in the community. So the bill was I think unanimously supported at first reading sent to the committee and has been considered since.It looks unlikely that the bill will proceed beyond this point which I think is regrettable unless the Labour Party has had a somewhat different view—the whip is shaking her head so no it looks like the bill is going to fail well that's a shame. This is a genuine opportunity to improve the law it really is and it is disappointing that we're not going to make any progress on it.I suppose the first point I want to make is: the law as it currently stands disenfranchises employed lawyers from doing pro bono legal work and that has the effect to quote the Community Law Centres of Aotearoa Inc. "That disenfranchises 8000 lawyers from participating in pro bono work through Community Law's pro bono clearing house." So just so we're really clear what we're doing: this bill will allow 8000 employed lawyers to do pro bono legal work through Community Law's pro bono clearing house Te Ara Ture which we talked about a lot at the committee. They are currently explicitly prevented from doing that work. As Community Law told us there are lots of lawyers who want to do that work. This bill will fix that and it looks like we're not going to proceed with it. I think that is a real shame.The bill—let's be very clear—will enfranchise employed lawyers 8000 or so and provide greater access to justice for many people. The law at the moment stops employed lawyers from doing free legal work outside of their employment. The only exception is through community law centres or Citizens Advice Bureau but the legal work that Te Ara Ture does through the Community Law Centres of Aotearoa Inc. falls outside that ambit. So we need to change the law to include those lawyers within the ambit of the free legal work.Now the current law is widely breached so let's be very clear what it means. It means that lawyers employed by Government departments—of which there are you know hundreds in Wellington—can't do legal work for their local tramping club. So if you're the secretary of your local tramping club you've got change the constitution for a variety of different reasons—members will be able to think of any number of innumerable examples in which people are on boards of trustees incorporated societies whatever the residents' associations which are very active in the Wellington - Hutt Valley region. Anyone in need of legal assistance—you could be a Government department you could be working for a Government department: you can't do any legal work. You can't and I think that's wrong.There are some people who turned up to the committee and said "Well how do we know that if we liberalise the law people will do the right work?" Well in a funny sort of way the right work is self-defining. The right sort of work is whatever work people decide to do where there is an unmet legal need.I mean by definition if you do legal work for someone pro bono there is a legal need there by definition. It might not be exactly what members here would want them to do but there is clearly an unmet legal need if you're doing work. Not to take the analogy too far it's like when willing buyers and sellers in the marketplace engage in a transaction. By definition that is good because if it wasn't good people wouldn't make the transaction.When I go to a dairy and I buy a can of Coke Zero the dairy owner is saying to me "I will sell you the Coke for $2.50 or whatever" and I will buy it and if I don't want to buy it I wouldn't and if they don't want to sell it to me they wouldn't. The fact that the dairy owner sells me the can of Coke and I buy it makes us both better off. If it didn't make us both better off we wouldn't do it. And it's a bit like that with legal need. If I decide as a Government department lawyer to do some legal work for my local tramping club and the tramping club wants me to do it and I do it and they are happy with it by definition that makes us both better off.Mark Cameron: Get a real Coke! Two dollars fifty for a Coke?CHRIS BISHOP: What's that? Mark Cameron's saying "Get a real Coke!" Well I don't know how much they cost down your way mate. I don't drink Coke anymore it's just an example anyway. I don't it's very bad for you.Hon Member: They'll be after you now!CHRIS BISHOP: Very bad for you. I'll have the—Coca-Cola Amatil New Zealand's going to be writing me correspondence.Anyway my point is this: by definition it is legal need that is being met here. So there is a real effect on the legal needs of people. It will improve access to justice. By definition the bill will improve access to justice and I've already made the point around how the bill disenfranchises 8000 lawyers from participating in pro bono legal work.Look the view of members opposite I think is that the bill is not perfect and therefore we should just kick it out. We did have a discussion around some amendments that could have been made to the bill. For example one of them was—and this was a point of discussion in the committee—requiring it rather than leaving it optional for the Law Society to make rules for employed lawyers and directing the Law Society as to the matters that they should look at such as the appropriate level of professional experience and the appropriate limits on practice areas. Those were suggestions made by Community Law to the committee. We could have put that into the bill but there was unfortunately not a lot of interest in doing that.There were other amendments that could have been made to make the bill a bit tighter because—I don't want to make perfect the enemy of the good I was prepared to accept some tightening of the work that people could do in order to advance the bill because at the end of the day getting something is better than nothing. But unfortunately that's not met with the favour of members opposite.It is a real shame because at some point Parliament is going to have to come back and revisit this issue and I just repeat again: the current law is widely breached and nonsensical and other countries have recognised this. We are way out of step with other countries. The law does not allow people who are employed lawyers rather than lawyers in a law firm but employed lawyers—people who work for a Government department or people who work for a corporate like Contact Energy for example or Genesis Energy whatever the law does not allow those people to do legal work outside of their employment and pro bono legal work outside of their employment.As Te Ara Ture has pointed out that means 8000 lawyers cannot participate in pro bono legal work through that through the pro bono clearing house that Te Ara Ture has specifically established because there is such demand from the profession for people to do pro bono work. So let's be very clear about that. And if you go to the Te Ara Ture website it has a checklist for if you can participate in pro bono legal work. You've got to tick off the various things and then right down the bottom it says: "Unfortunately if you are an employed lawyer you cannot currently do this." I think I think I'm right in paraphrasing—it says something like "Regulatory steps to improve this are underway." Well this is the regulatory step; that's the bill that I introduced to Parliament that is now going to fail.So I'll make a prediction: at some point the law will be fixed and it will just come later than it otherwise would have. We could use this bill as a vehicle to improve the situation. Members opposite unfortunately aren't interested in that. It's a real shame. So with that I regrettably and I proudly commend the bill to the House."