Mapp Wayne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19379] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill is long overdue. In fact I think it was in 1997 that the Hon Phil Goff moved legislation to deal with conveyancing and at that time it was referred to the select committee for consideration. What an enormous gestation this bill has had over a long number of years. I guess it says a great deal about the attitude and style of Mr Goff. Mr Goff is a Minister who is prone to making announcement after announcement announcements of announcements and announcements to confirm preceding announcements. As a consequence it takes years and years for his legislation ever to be passed. What for instance happened to the legislation on majority verdicts that was announced in about the year 2000? That is nearly 5 years ago and it is still not in law. What for instance happened about the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill? I recall that I made comments about that some time ago—probably in the year 2000 also. It just disappeared into the ether. That is the style of this Minister. 
The extraordinary thing is this: the genesis of this bill was all about bringing competition into the legal sector. There is almost nothing in there now about it; it is almost irrelevant. In fact—and my colleague Richard Worth will be referring to this during the Committee stage—only eight people are even interested. So we have an enormous bill that has hundreds of pages and hundreds of clauses and that has come about all because eight people want to practise as conveyancers. Well if one really wanted to do that a very simple piece of legislation would suffice. I acknowledge that subsequently an opportunity arose to review the entire scope of the legal profession—allegedly a less prescriptive approach and allegedly a more flexible approach. The only comment I would make about that is that the Law Practitioners Act is only a short piece of legislation whereas this bill in the name of deregulation runs to hundreds of clauses and hundreds of pages. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why are you voting for it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is an interesting question. In fact we are voting for it because the Law Society wants progress. The society has been trapped by the Minister’s delaying tactics literally for years. It simply wants to be able to make some degree of progress. 
Stephen Franks 
: They’ve got the Minister where they want him. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I’m not sure I’d agree with that last comment. 
I refer to some of the bill’s important features amongst its numerous clauses. The first point—and I guess this is a form of deregulation—is that district law societies will become voluntary. It is fair to say that the Law Society did not actually seek that at the outset but it has acknowledged that that is the right way to deal with the regulation of modern professional bodies. The Law Society itself is retained primarily for disciplinary purposes although one would wonder why so many pages of legislation are needed for what is in fact a relatively straightforward and for what should be a primarily self-regulating affair. 
The bill has other important features many of which are driven by this Government’s ideology. I refer to one particular aspect. The bill creates the new office of Senior Counsel. I say “new office” because this is not just a renaming. The Government would have the nation pretend that it is simply modernising the terminology bringing it into the 21st century. That is completely false. Firstly it has fundamentally changed the institution. I know for a fact that the vast majority of the independent bar see it as a fundamental devaluing of the office of Queen’s Counsel—and I use the word “office” advisedly here—to allow Senior Counsel to be drawn from the ranks of firms of solicitors. The very essence of the role of Queen’s Counsel is to be independent to fiercely advocate the position of their clients in the knowledge that they are not beholden to any particular cause or purpose. That cannot possibly be said of people practising within firms. By and large firms will have dare I say it—and hopefully from their point of view—a secure client base which they service assiduously. That is how they retain their secure client base. By and large Senior Counsel practising within firms will be providing services to their captive client base. 
Nothing could be further distant from the role of Queen’s Counsel as we have understood it over a long number of years. I well know that people who instruct Queen’s Counsel—I have spoken to a large number of them—look to Queen’s Counsel for a special level of independent advice. Furthermore the bench also looks to them. Whether or not people like it judges give added respect to submissions made by Queen’s Counsel. There is a very good reason for that: those people are in a sense chosen by the profession—endorsed admittedly by the Attorney-General—as being the most able counsel in the land. So whilst they remain as an independent bar they are in fact available to everyone. Cases that not everyone would take—certainly cases that law firms would not readily take—are nevertheless undertaken by those very senior counsel and the courts appreciate and understand that their work and the submissions they make are a kind of gold standard and that they can be trusted and relied upon. To do otherwise would fundamentally devalue the institution. That is the first objection National has to that particular change—taking the role out of the independent bar and putting it into firms. 
Our second objection is the question of the title itself. I heard Mr Dail Jones say that the term “Senior Counsel” is easily confused that the barrister who has been in practice for a number of years is frequently and colloquially called in the courts “senior counsel”. What will judges do now? Will they call those with the formal title Senior Counsel “senior counsel”? I guess that if this legislation is passed that will be the case. What will they call other learned members who have been at the bar for a number of years? It will cause confusion. 
It is part of the secret agenda of the Government. The Prime Minister regularly says that she is a constitutional conservative. As a constitutional conservative this is what she has done so far: she has established the Supreme Court; she is abolishing the rank of Queen’s Counsel; she has her picture not the Queen’s in New Zealand embassies and high commissions; many of the monarchical references on the coats of arms of our armed forces have been removed so to speak; and we have the oath of allegiance of new citizens. In each and every way this Government is trying to shift New Zealand down the path towards republicanism except that it does not want to say that. 
It is simply false for the Prime Minister to say that she is a constitutional conservative. She is a constitutional radical. She has a clear sense of where she wants to take this country. She wants it to be a republic. She is doing every possible thing to force the pace of change towards that. This legislation is an example and I am sure that my colleague Lindsay Tisch will give further examples. The dropping of royal honours—the titular honours—is yet another example of republicanism by stealth. I can see that the Government is acknowledging that. It wants republicanism. It wants it by stealth. This bill is part of its secret agenda.