Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1534] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am most grateful to my friend Mr Fairbrother for his explanation of clause 104. Unfortunately however I remain unconvinced that there is any meaning to the clause as it is currently drafted. If it refers simply to the powers privileges duties and responsibilities that barristers have at common law then why have it? Why not simply dispense with it? It is an otiose clause as drafted; it makes no sense. The way that I have suggested it be redrafted reflects the fact that New Zealand and Australia are really part of one legal market now. We should be looking west as I see it not north. 
I will come back to clause 105. In an earlier call I addressed the fundamental need for Queen’s Counsel to be independent of any firm so as to be able to give impartial independent—sometimes brutally so—legal advice to keep law firms and their clients on the straight and narrow. I have a real concern that if Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel are able to be partners in law firms that rigorous independence will go. I believe that that is the fundamental flaw with this new procedure that is proposed to be adopted. 
The other aspect of the clause that really gives me concern is that large law firms in particular as Mr Parker would know from his days at Anderson Lloyd Caudwell are very competitive organisations. I can see situations whereby partnerships will find themselves in a lot of strife. The first point is that the Chapman Tripps the Bell Gullys the Minter Ellisons and the Russell McVeaghs will want their quota of Senior Counsel. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Simpson Grierson. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: And Simpson Grierson—I apologise to Dr Worth for omitting his firm. They will all want their quota. I can see a situation developing whereby a junior partner who is perhaps known to the Attorney-General and who is perhaps active in the Labour Party gets the nod ahead of a more senior person who is a member of the National Party or who is independent. I can tell members now that that will be a recipe for strife. In my respectful submission I maintain that the independence of Senior Counsel is what gives them value. It is not some kind of bauble or prize to be awarded to the most senior person or the most favoured person in a law firm; it is a mark of someone’s independence and strength as a practitioner. That independent element is to be very closely safeguarded. 
The second point about the appointment of Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel relates to the amendment in the name of Mr Peter Brown. I will have a good look at it over the dinner adjournment. I must say that I am quite attracted to the concept of the name being retained as I have said. I am also attracted to the idea as raised by Mr Tanczos in relation to an earlier part that Queen’s Counsel should be appointed after consideration between judges the Law Society and the Bar Association. I do not see any reason why the State should be seen to confer some kind of monopoly privilege on people; I think it is time the State stepped back from it. 
I know that Mr Parker will find that applications for this year’s Queen’s Counsel round close today and he will have to deal with that over the next few months in reliance on the advice of the Solicitor-General and having consulted with the Chief Justice and taken soundings from throughout the Law Society and so on. I am sure this Attorney-General will do his job in an honourable and decent manner but whether one could say that about others is a matter for debate. The fact of the matter is that I cannot see any reason why Queen’s Counsel need to be appointed by the Attorney-General. I think it is a better approach for the State to step back from the appointments process and leave it to the judges the Law Society and the Bar Association. I am sure they will come up with a perfectly acceptable list of Queen’s Counsel. 
In conclusion I emphasise the need for independence from the law firm. We need truly independent minds to be able to give the kind of advice that often needs to be given to law firms and their clients. I really do worry in these competitive times that if we allow Queen’s Counsel to be partners in law firms it will be a cause of internal jealousy and nastiness within firms and that that very important element of independence will not be there for partners in law firms.