Fairbrother Russell: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1533] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to take issue with several of the matters addressed by the last speaker and also by Dr Richard Worth. 
First of all I refer to clause 104 which relates to barristers. Given that the member has practised at the Bar I find incredible his argument that he does not know what the term “barristers have at law” may mean. The clause equates it to the High Court which of course has an inherent jurisdiction. That means one cannot prescribe it by statute but it has the jurisdiction to do what is right. Barristers have a unique role in being officers of the High Court and their responsibilities must coincide with the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The relationship of a barrister to the High Court is inherent in the way our common law and in fact our statute law have developed. It is inherent in the way in which our courts operate. It is inherent in the responsibilities that fall upon the shoulders of barristers and those responsibilities can in fact be onerous. One needs only to peruse the findings of the New Zealand Law Society or the Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal to understand how the tribunal has dealt with that inherent relationship between obligations to the court and barristers. If my friend who has just spoken does not understand that term then he alienates himself from the movement of responsibilities of barristers in Britain and in Australia and the emerging jurisprudence and development of the role of barrister. 
On the one hand my friend minimises the role of barrister; on the other hand he laments the loss of the status of Queen’s Counsel. The reform of Queen’s Counsel to a Senior Counsel description is long overdue. Queen’s Counsel originated in Britain. They were obliged to accept the instruction of the monarch who of course no longer instructs counsel in New Zealand. As we move to competent and experienced litigators who prefer to spend most of their lives practising in the larger firms it is totally artificial to try to identify leaders at the Bar and separate them from leaders at the Bar who remain in our law firms. Long gone is the distinction between barristers and solicitors. The more accurate distinction is litigators. Thus moving to Senior Counsel which applies to litigators no matter in what form they practice is the way to go. In fact I foresee in the not too distant future—when the Law Society grapples with the realities—an amendment to this legislation that will remove the fused Bar. Then the contradiction that my friend from the National Party just sought to argue will no longer even appear on paper. 
Finally the clauses in this part of the bill that really stand proud are those relating to indemnity. Dr Richard Worth attempted to tackle this argument but of course the practice rules on indemnity really provide a form of group insurance. It also provides a further form of discipline to practitioners. The cost of insurance may be met across the Bar and across lawyers because of the low standards of some of the members. So there is a further incentive on all lawyers to act in a collegial way to ensure that all perform to the highest and safest standards. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: That’s naive. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Dr Worth may feel that is naive but the reality is that it is a collegial Bar still. It is still a Bar where as Mr Finalyson lamented the senior practitioners are duty-bound to assist junior practitioners in order to help them to gain the experience that is so often not passed down because of the pressures of time recording. 
This is a bill that recognises the evolving legal profession in New Zealand. It recognises that barristers have a unique relationship with the High Court and it recognises that the collegiality of the Bar is one of the important characteristics of that relationship. I support this part of the bill.