Genter Julie Anne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill which the Green Party will not be supporting for many of the same reasons that have been articulated already by the Hon Phil Goff and Mr Charles Chauvel who I thought made an excellent contribution to this debate contrary to what Tim Macindoe suggested. I am not going to speak much to the second part the bill which we thought included primarily sensible uncontroversial amendments that we would have been able to support if it were not for Part 1 of the bill being such an anathema. 
Back when Labour originally legislated to switch the title of Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel on the basis that it was an inappropriate colonial relic we supported that change. We thought it was a progressive change one that really supported the independence of New Zealand. I realise that as an American by birth some of the members in this House might be inclined to assume that I have an innate dislike of the monarchy but that is not really what this is about. Although New Zealand maintains its links to the United Kingdom we have a distinct national culture and some unique constitutional arrangements. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act passed in 1947 and more recently the Constitution Act of 1986 stand out as practical and symbolic measures from which we have set out to enhance our independence. Though we still retain the Queen as our head of State—a position that is not uniformly supported in this House or by the public at large—the momentum of our country has been like many other Commonwealth countries as has been mentioned one of embracing a destiny that is uniquely New Zealand in nature. Such was the reasoning behind our acceptance of the Labour Government’s changes in the area of titles. The title of Queen’s Counsel is a colonial relic. It does not reflect the distinct character of our cultural identity. 
One reason that the Government has advanced for a change is that there is supposedly a reciprocal relationship between the Queen’s Counsel and the Crown one that is derived from ancient English origins. But this is not a relationship that exists in name only. This relationship continues whether the lawyers concerned are titled Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel. All the important qualities of the position remain untouched. Their independence seniority and credibility are not put in question by a change in the title. Indeed because most Queen’s Counsel in New Zealand rarely or never act on instruction from Solicitors-General or Crown solicitors I think they represent a wide range of private individuals and groups. Changing the name to Senior Counsel actually imbued a broader sense of serving the community at large with skill and independence much better than whatever vestige borrowed by an outdated colonial title might do. 
Perhaps the more interesting arguments that we considered in the Justice and Electoral Committee and in the debates around this bill were those considering eligibility. Labour originally legislated to allow the full profession to be considered as potentially worthy of having the rank of Senior Counsel bestowed upon them rather than uniquely barristers sole which had been a tradition up until that point. This widened the pool of eligibility from a narrow selection comprising only a few hundred to 12000 or so wider practitioners. 
I have to say that the reasoning for the change back has not been sufficiently articulated by the Government. I actually thought the Minister of Justice’s comments that somehow this was a move towards increasing access to justice were completely confusing. I cannot see how the move of restricting this to a small group of barristers sole is going to increase people’s access to justice. That argument simply was not made by the Minister. It was an interesting diversion I think on her part to try to imply that the Opposition is opposed to access to justice which is really laughable when you look at what this Government is currently doing to access to justice through increasing the fixed fees to access the Family Court through the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill which I have grave concerns about. 
During Kennedy Graham’s call on the first reading of this bill which we did support to select committee because we were interested in the provisions in Part 2 of the bill and we were hoping we could ameliorate the proposals in Part 1 he made reference to Simon Power’s statements when the original changes were made that opening up eligibility would capture senior lawyers who undertook substantial commercial work for the Government. This could at least advance the argument on the part of the Government that this would limit independence. But I do not believe that that argument has been proven to occur to such a degree that the integrity of the position had been called into question. 
Another change that we have come to disagree with in this bill as a regressive step is in regard to the selection process. This bill removes the selection panel for QCs and replaces it with a requirement that the Attorney-General consult with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association. This seems very ironic in light of the Government’s purported concerns around independence because the selection process that is being implemented now seems to open up the process to political influence more rather than less. It is just another example of complete and total inconsistency on the part of the Government. 
In short this bill does not seem to engage with a discussion of legitimate arguments around the best way to make the role of Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel more effective and independent but rather it is an ideological knee-jerk reaction. I think the Hon Phil Goff very clearly made a compelling argument that in fact what this is really about is privileging a small group of very well-off lawyers. It is another example of the Government doing the exact opposite of what it says. It says that it is for competition and for the market but actually what is happening is that the Government is reducing competition and by doing so it is privileging a small group of people by creating this small monopoly on who can be Senior Counsel. 
I think that it is really unfortunate that the Government is taking this step. The Green Party will not be supporting this regressive move and we hope that in the future New Zealanders will be able to embrace new traditions and put our own stamp on the ones that we do wish to keep hold of. Thank you.