Connell Brian: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1560] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am somewhat surprised by the argument that has been mounted by my colleagues regarding the issue of fidelity funds. But I am also somewhat persuaded by them having listened to the arguments that have been put forward. The profession relies very much on the quality of the advice it provides to clients and in the market place the position in which our legal profession is generally held is one where that quality of advice is what people depend on before they make very serious commercial decisions. So my original position as a layperson was that some protection in law would have been appropriate. However having listened to some of the arguments put forward I can see that it is probably an issue that over time and through an education process we can start to move away from. In the meantime though the legal profession might just have to accept it. Picking up on Dr Worth’s point I say that this might be at a cost to sales in the short term. 
My real concern—and I am addressing these concerns to the Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel—is that we are at risk of making this law an ass before the ink is dry. In particular I am thinking about the requirement on the conveyancing body to have a fidelity fund. In principle I totally agree with that but I wonder whether it can happen in practice. I wonder whether we are actually setting up this new body for failure before it even starts. To my mind that is not sensible lawmaking. The New Zealand Law Society when it made its submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee was at pains to point out that it thought that only seven or eight people would be incorporated. When we start to do the maths using the argument that Dr Mapp used and when we start to leverage that across that number of people we can see that it is going to be nigh on impossible for them to put funds aside to meet their obligations under the law that we are busy debating. 
The point that I am making—and I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time making it—is that this is the opportunity and the time to agree that there will be a flaw in the legislation. Let us work collectively to address that issue and leave here tonight with a sense that we did the right thing. It is OK to have positions but at the end of the day we as lawmakers are charged with making good law and I propose that we are putting ourselves in a position where we simply will not be able to do that. I have made the point which has been made by others and is quite right that when this is leveraged across four five six or seven eight or nine people—let us be generous and call it 20—those people will just not have the ability to pay. That will create all sorts of different pressures and might lead to some shortcuts and improprieties simply because people will have to find ways of funding this to meet their legislative requirements. That strikes me as a silly way to proceed. So I leave the Committee with that view. It is very much from a layperson’s perspective but I see it as a possible stumbling block that I believe needs the attention of the Committee.