Mapp Wayne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19504] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I know the previous speaker is forthright in his views as to why this is bad legislation and he has moved numerous amendments. One of the interesting things about this legislation is that there are rather a large number of amendments on the table covering a wide variety of issues. 
I want to refer to two in particular that have been moved by my colleagues in particular I would like to acknowledge Dr Worth who was a managing partner of one of New Zealand’s largest firms. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Judith Collins who is the vice-president of the New Zealand Law Society. I know that Mr Franks might feel it is rather excessive that I do but I do so for quite a deliberate reason. We are voting for this legislation and we are doing so because frankly it is the right thing to do. It may not be a perfect bill and I acknowledge that but it is the bill we are actually confronted with and have to deal with. It has been in gestation—as has been well acknowledged—for many many years. I know the select committee worked long and hard to improve it in many particular ways. The two issues I wish to refer to are noted in clause 3 in particular and in clause 6 in relation to conveyancing. 
I know that the genesis of this legislation by Mr Goff was actually to get the conveyancing profession regulated to be permissible. But as time has gone on and a lot of time has gone on now—nearly a decade—the reality is that there is actually no real demand. I think that is acknowledged not just by my colleagues but by the Government itself. It is passing legislation for conveyancers notwithstanding there being no realistic demand any more. There might have been a few years ago but there is not now. The field is fundamentally more competitive and it has reduced any potential demand for the roll. So that is why it is now fundamentally misplaced to pass legislation about conveyancers when what we are really trying to do is to deal with the legal profession and to make sure that the rules around the legal profession are correct. If there is a need for legislation around conveyancers then I would have to acknowledge that the correct way to do that now would be the way suggested by Mr Dale Jones which was essentially to have a separate piece of legislation. I suspect there would be no real demand or expectation for that. What seemed a worthy motive nearly a decade ago simply does not stack up now as a realistic approach for the future. 
I noted with interest the very knowledgable comments made by Mr Franks around incorporation. I think those issues do have merit and I would advise the Government to think seriously about incorporating those amendments into the legislation. The Law Society wants the opportunity of incorporation. This is surely an opportunity to harmonise our law with that of Australia. One of the goals of legislation under CER—and it was just the 20th anniversary of that last year—is in fact to harmonise legislation. If it is the case—and I know Mr Franks has done a great deal of study on this—that all Australian states are adopting a simplified approach then now is the opportunity to do the same here in our own legislation. 
I know that Mr Franks is going to say that even if that happens we should still be voting against the bill. I think that would be unrealistic—totally unrealistic. 
I acknowledge to Mr Franks that the legislation is not ideal. It has significant deficiencies. My colleague Dr Worth has moved many many amendments because of that. I know that Mr Franks has also moved many many amendments because of that. Many of them do have merit and I suggest we pass this bill for the benefit of the profession.