Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16960] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the Minister the Hon Annette King for making the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) available to New Zealand First—I think it was on 10 June as well—and New Zealand First has responded to the Minister about it. We have made it quite clear that we do not support this legislation. It is absolutely unprincipled legislation. 
When I first heard that the National Party was to support this bill it made me smile a little because it reminded me of the fact that here we have a situation where the trade union movement also known as the Labour Party and the employer groups also known as the National Party are getting together once again to try to do a deal for themselves—because that is what this bill does. It creates a special regime for some trade union groups and for the employers. That is what it does whereas those of us who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee during its consideration of the principal legislation know that this issue was considered by that select committee. 
I have here the submission of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It was rejected by that select committee. This is not a new issue. It was considered over about 3 years and now this House is being asked to rush through legislation just to suit employers and unions. Well that really brings to mind the good old days of National and Labour in the 1970s and the 1980s when employers and unions would get together on the ninth floor of the Beehive over a few light drinks and run the country from up there having said they had had a great fight in the process. As I say this is unprincipled legislation. 
I agree entirely with what Dr Worth has so correctly said in so far as the scope of this bill is concerned. The scope of this bill would allow employers and trade unions to open law firms because they could do all reserved areas of work in the definition of “legal work”—that is legal practice of any kind. They could do traffic cases and domestic violence cases and appear before the High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court—the lot in so far as reserved areas of work are concerned. 
Under the definition of “legal work” which is referred to in the bill and defined in section 6 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act they could give advice in relation to “legal or equitable rights or obligations”. Can members imagine the trade union movement and employers giving advice to their members on legal and especially equitable rights or obligations? They could give advice on the preparation of or review any document that creates or provides evidence of legal or equitable rights or obligations—in other words trust deeds and suchlike—or that “creates varies transfers extinguishes mortgages or charges any legal or equitable title in any property; … mediation conciliation or arbitration services; … any work that is incidental to any of the work described in paragraphs (a) to (e)”. So they could open a law firm. 
Mr Chauvel made the correct point that if employers and unions want to do this sort of work then there is a very simple solution: they can just set up a law firm and the work can be done in that way. It is a simpler solution for employers and a simpler solution for the trade union movement. It is all that they have to do and I am sure that the Law Society would have no objection. I am absolutely sure that the Law Society would oppose this bill entirely because it goes against the principles of the Act on which we worked so hard not a little while ago. 
Of course we must not forget that where section 27(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 refers to all the restrictions and suchlike it states: “Sections 21 22 24 and 26 do not prevent— … (b) any person from appearing as an advocate or representing any other person before any court or tribunal if the appearance or representation is allowed or required—(i) by any Act or regulations; or (ii) by the court or tribunal; …”. That is usually for employment-law type of work with specific rights given to the trade union movement historically to do that work. So people can do that already. 
The practice that had been built up over the years since the 1982 Act—and I was the chairman of the parliamentary committee responsible for that legislation—was totally wrong. People were— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What about the 1955 Act? 
DAIL JONES 
: I practised under the 1955 Act but no I was not here at the time! The practice that had built up was something I was staggered to discover when we were going through the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Almost everyone was somehow getting registered as a solicitor to the High Court paying the levy to the Law Society and feeling that he or she was a lawyer. That was not the intention of the 1982 Act. 
One of the consequences of this bill will be that the members will not have 4 or 5 weeks’ consideration of this bill at the select committee because as Dr Worth knows the committee will have submissions from the New Zealand Educational Institute which made a similar submission. It will have submissions from every accountancy firm in the country because as we know that is what they wanted as well. Firms like Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu PricewaterhouseCoopers the Property Institute of New Zealand the New Zealand Bankers’ Association and everybody else will be in boots and all because if it is good enough for the employers and good enough for the trade unions then it is good enough for them too. Then well the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act may as well go in the rubbish tin. After all what is the point of it? All the hard work that was done by this Parliament on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act would come to absolutely nothing. All we would be left with is a clear distasteful feeling that here we have yet again National and Labour getting together to do a deal for the benefit of employers and the trade union movement. 
Well New Zealand First will have nothing to do with it. This is totally unprincipled legislation and it should have been apparent on the close simplest view that that is what it was intending to do. Dr Worth has hit the nail on the head and I congratulate him on that. I note the National Party has said it will reserve its position until after the select committee process. New Zealand First says that quite regularly so I appreciate the view that the National Party is taking. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Well why are you criticising us? 
DAIL JONES 
: I am criticising National because New Zealand First gets criticised for such a view from time to time. On this occasion the legislation we are amending is not even really law yet and Labour and National are considering allowing employers and the trade union movement to undermine it entirely. 
After all when that legislation was being progressed through the House this is what Phil Goff had to say in the third reading when he was taking credit for that bill: “This bill is a cornerstone of the reforms of legal services being undertaken by this Government. It removes unnecessary regulation from the legal services industry and replaces it with a more efficient regulatory framework that will give the public greater confidence in the legal profession. The bill’s purpose is to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services”—which is being breached by this bill—“to protect consumers and to recognise the status of the professions that provide them. The Government has a vital interest in the regulation of the legal profession as the quality of lawyers’ services is critical to justice and the maintenance of the rule of law. The impetus for reform of the legal profession came from the New Zealand Law Society …”. 
This legislation totally contradicts everything that the former Minister of Justice said. This legislation will reduce totally public confidence in the provision of legal services. I need not say very much more as we come to the end of the day. I just hope that the Justice and Electoral Committee will make the same decision it made after some 3 years of deliberation on the principal legislation and reject the principles contained in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill (No 2).