Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1697] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker fairly and fully summarised the merits of the legislation. He also noted its drawn-out legislative history. It is coming up to 3 years since the bill was introduced to Parliament. That from any point of view is a long period of lawmaking. 
The bill was introduced on 24 June 2003 had its first reading a month later then was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee where it was the subject of substantial submissions. I would like to pay tribute as the previous speaker did to the work of the select committee and also to the quality of the submissions that were made. It came back from that committee not within the customary 6-month time frame but a little later than that—in fact something just short of a year. It had its second reading on 29 March 2005. It is fair to say that the Committee of the whole House on the bill was much delayed. Despite efforts by a number of us to see the legislative programme advanced more quickly that seemed in vain so it was not until this week that the Committee stage was completed. That is a pity because the delay caused quite a lot of tension. It created difficulties for the Government and for the Opposition and it created tensions within the New Zealand Law Society and probably I surmise within the various districts. But here it is and tonight we will see the legislation progressed. 
The previous speaker referred to the purposes of the bill but not completely. I will start by dealing with that aspect because the purposes of the bill are framed within the provisions that are to be enacted this evening. First they are to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing services. Second they are to protect the consumers of legal services and conveyancing services. And third they are to recognise the status of the legal profession and to establish the new profession of conveyancing practitioner. The bill is called the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill because of the significant emphasis in the legislation—as the previous speaker said—in the setting up of the new conveyancing practitioner profession. 
I would not be true to the cause on behalf of National if I did not note that we harbour a degree of reservation about the legislation. That said we have supported it throughout its passage. The bill comprises 350 clauses and seven schedules so it is weighty legislation on any basis in terms of the legislation that comes to Parliament. Although National supports the legislation I would like to note briefly some of our reservations. Those reservations are expressed in the bill as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. However in the way the parliamentary process works that commentary has now gone and will likely never be revisited. Certainly the copy of the bill that is before Parliament today—the copy that is available to politicians to make comments on—is not preceded by the commentary. I will therefore indicate the key matters that have been of concern to us. 
First are the aspects relating to the preservation of the fidelity fund. I have always thought it strange that one should subsidise one’s fraudulent competitors in business. So it has been the case that a number of occupational groupings have been persuaded—and have been able to persuade this Parliament—that fidelity funds should no longer continue. We have seen the fund abolished for most other occupations including chartered accountants motor vehicle dealers and sharebrokers. Just as the fund has gone for them so it seems to me that it should be gone for lawyers. The reason for that view is that the fund had its place when lawyers were actively involved in mortgage lending. That practice is pretty much gone. It is a rarity to find lawyers involved in the advancing of sums of money by way of second or third mortgage through their trust accounts to other clients. That is the first matter we would like to have seen changed in the bill in these closing processes. 
The second point—and it will come as no surprise either to the current Minister of Justice or to the previous Minister of Justice—relates to the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. It is not an issue about opening up the so-called conveyancing monopoly—it is not really about that at all. It is more about the issue—as we heard in the evidence offered to the select committee—that the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers might comprise say 10 people. I truly doubt the justification for a highly prescriptive statutory regime for such limited numbers. Of course there is the very real aspect that it will be impossible for a fidelity fund to be provided from such a small occupational grouping. It will not be achieved by way of insurance; it certainly will not be achieved by way of contributions from various members. 
A third point is that National had concerns about reserved areas of work but I think that that issue has now been set to rights with the skill of parliamentary counsel and in particular of Mr Iles who has been engaged on this mammoth task. We were and remain completely unpersuaded about the new complaints and discipline structure but I am bound to say as the previous speaker also said that what has been done represents a significant improvement on the present system. I had the opportunity in the Committee stage to suggest what National believes would have been a better system and also to accentuate something that I do not think sufficient is made of—that is the role that lawyers have as officers of the court with obligations to the court. I think it was a retrograde step to rank arrangements in respect of obligation which has seen officers of the High Court I would say downgraded. 
There will always be practical aspects to the implementation of legislation and National remains concerned about those rule-making power provisions. We remain concerned that issues such as compulsory legal education and the indemnity regime are to be left to rule-making powers. It is of course to be the case that the Minister of Justice will be involved in such rule-making powers. I am not aware of comparable powers held by a Minister of State in respect of other professional organisations and it is not to be assumed that the Minister will have any better view than the New Zealand Law Society on rule-making issues or that he or she will be better able to strike a balance between the interests of the legal profession and the interests of the consumer. 
The previous speaker referred to a number of people who had made substantial contributions to this legislation including officials within the ministry. That is quite proper but those he listed would not represent an exhaustive list of contributors who will see this legislation passed. He was right to identify past presidents of the New Zealand Law Society but these issues go back far beyond Mr Haynes. Perhaps they start with people like Judith Potter a president of the New Zealand Law Society who is now a senior judge. It is very much correct though to acknowledge the contribution of Mr Ritchie who has had to deal with district law societies in his unflagging and conscientious way to produce an outcome that basically sees those districts lose their statutory status and assume another—and we hope equivalently effective—form. So I too commend this legislation and its passage on behalf of National.