Bennett David: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Bennett David: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2225] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at Part 2 “Transitional provisions” we think they look pretty simple and pretty effective. Clause 43(2) basically says that past applications will not be affected by the legislation but clause 43(3) says that new ones will be dealt with by the legislation. It reminds me that a couple of weeks ago we had a similar situation in regard to the P endorsement for licences. The Labour Government was unwilling to make a distinction at that time between two tests that involved exactly the same question—rules for old ones and rules for new ones. 
The Government was not willing to make that distinction then but it is now. We cannot see any consistency in its lawmaking between the way it approached that situation and the way it is approaching this situation now. That is something that very much should be looked at unfavourably by members of the community and also by the Opposition because we are not seeing consistency in government. 
I also note the word “transition” and ask members what that means. Is transition the stage between Government and Opposition—like New Zealand First—or is it a period between a blip in an economy and a slight dip in economic growth as Michael Cullen would have us believe economic growth is? Or is it the period between a Minister’s plans for Waikato roading needs in a pre-Budget announcement and a joint officials group for the Waikato? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What’s this got to do with the clause in the bill? 
Darren Hughes 
: Nothing. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Or is “transitional” ultimately what the current member for Otaki stands for? 
The New Zealand Law Society in its submissions made some very good points in regard to clause 44. Society members went through section 68 of the principal Act as substituted by section 31 and made some very good points—such as the proposed section 68 retains and to some extent extends the existing liabilities of legal aid providers. They stated that both the proposed and the original provisions failed to recognise that lawyers cannot compel their clients and that lawyers should be liable for clients’ actions only where they have taken a positive step to assist clients in undermining the interests of the agency. Some very good points were made in that submission from the New Zealand Law Society. 
In regard to clause 32 by which new section 72A is inserted—and which we also see in clause 44(2)—society members made similarly good points. They said that the section would authorise the agency to suspend temporarily the listings of providers who are charged with an offence or who are subject to disciplinary procedures under the Law Practitioners Act. The society felt that a fundamental tenet of our legal system was that natural justice should be observed and a person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty so it opposed the original section. 
The New Zealand Law Society made some very good submissions in regard to this bill and that is something we need to take into account as we look forward at the transitional provisions. Those provisions in themselves look very honest and genuine. They take up only a page in what is something of a lengthy document in regard to this bill but they provide a very good system where there can be both a new and existing process. That is something we tried to encourage this Government to do a number of weeks ago yet it would not listen. It would not take that on board; it knew better. Yet within a day it was in the newspapers that the Government had made a mistake in regard to the P endorsement legislation. We will be facing that situation again in this Parliament. The transitional provisions show an approach that should have been used in that case. It is easy to make that distinction and we should have made it the other day. We are willing to make that distinction now but we were not then. What is the difference? 
Anne Tolley 
: There is no difference. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: There is no difference. The Government should have made that distinction then. It is common sense and it is consistent with our lawmaking approach around the country. So let us move in that way in the future.