Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I wish to participate in this part of the debate on the title and commencement clauses of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill that we have in front of us. I participated in the debate on Part 1 of the bill and I made a couple of points that I would like to reiterate in the sense that where this legislation has its commencement date does in fact relate to the specific proposals in respect of the title of Queen’s Counsel. 
I think that the disappointment that we have expressed on this side of the Chamber actually relates to the fact that the date that the legislation itself is due to come into force is presumably by way of Supplementary Order Paper 136 updated from 1 July 2010 which was the date that it was intended to take effect when this bill was actually originally referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It has obviously been at the select committee for some time as Supplementary Order Paper 136 now has the bill coming into effect on 3 December 2012. 
I thought this was quite interesting because when the legislation was originally—in actual fact I think it is the clause by clause analysis of the bill that is incorrect. Oh no no—Part 1 was always due to come into force on 1 July 2010 but clause 2 in Supplementary Order Paper 136 requires that we replace 1 July 2011 with 3 December 2012. I am just wondering whereabouts one can replace the words “1 July 2011” if they do not appear in the legislation. I wonder whether that is correct or incorrect. 
Charles Chauvel 
: The Minister in the chair will know. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector perhaps could get some advice from her officials and perhaps respond to us because the way that it reads at the moment in the commencement clause is that it says in clause 2 that “Part 1 comes into force on 1 July 2010.” That has not been amended at the select committee. The Minister of Justice’s Supplementary Order Paper 136 says in clause 2: “In clause 2(1) replace “1 July 2011” (line 5 on page 2)…”. Well line 5 on page 2 says “Part 1 comes into force on 1 July 2010.” on the copy I have got so maybe I have lost something. Maybe I have got the original copy—oh yes I have got the original copy. It has been updated since it was referred back from the select committee so it has obviously been at the select committee for a long time. Obviously my colleague—my very honourable colleague Charles Chauvel—has handed me an old copy of the bill and not the reported-back version from the select committee because I see that it is in the name of— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Nathan Guy. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —Nathan Guy who is presumably not the Minister who is taking this through now is he? Is it back in the name of the Minister or— 
Louise Upston 
: Are you on the right bill? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Hmm? Do we know whose name the bill is in? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Collins is moving the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is back with the Minister of Justice so it has been diverted back to her. 
But anyway the question that obviously the select committee had to deal with at such a—oh yes here we go. Now we have got the copy of the bill that was reported back from the select committee. It says “Part 1 comes into force on …” and “1 July 2010” has been struck out and replaced with “1 July 2011” and now this is being replaced by Supplementary Order Paper 136 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins with “3 December 2012”. That of course is not very far away and no doubt that is why we are seeing this bill passed into law through Parliament at this stage. 
The bill is though I guess a particular shame and disappointment to this side of the Chamber. We think that in modernising the way our legal system operates we could create a distance from our traditional past in the UK. Seeing the previous position of Senior Counsel being replaced with the reinstated position of Queen’s Counsel is I think a retrograde step. I think it is very disappointing that Parliament is having to deal with this in this way.