Parker David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14473] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I take much pleasure in following the Dennis Denuto of the National Party Paul Quinn. For anyone who has ever had the pleasure of seeing  
The Castle 
 a wonderful Australian comedy that was not a compliment. 
Sometimes this Parliament really is a Bleak House—it really is a bleak house. It is most often a bleak house when we turn back our clocks 200 years as we are doing now and go back to Dickensian traditions—Dickensian traditions that are born of a judicial system in the United Kingdom that does not allow solicitors to appear as barristers in the higher courts. That is what this tradition arose from and that is why it was right that it was tossed into the bin of irrelevancy a couple of years ago. 
Provincial areas have very few Queen’s Counsel but they have a lot of good lawyers. I am a lawyer; I used to practise in Dunedin. I know that the leading lawyers down there many of the best advocates were both barristers and solicitors. These were leading counsel—leading counsel—and I will name just a few of them. They happen all to be men because of the virtue of their age. The people in the legal profession ahead of me in the senior positions were men as a consequence of its being a very male-dominated profession in those times. They were people like Neville Marquet Bruce Robertson and Kelvin Marks who was a leading counsel. He was the counsel in the case involving civil aviation and MacKenzie which was the case that distinguished between absolute liability and strict liability. He was a barrister and solicitor in Dunedin. He should have been made a Queen’s Counsel but could never be so because he acted as a barrister and solicitor. In provincial towns there is not the wealth available to be spent by Government departments and major corporates that there is in Auckland and Wellington which can support a separate bar. The best advocates in the provinces are often found—not always but often found—in the firms of barristers and solicitors. Alf Jeavons was another one. Jim Guthrie is another man who comes to mind. 
But if that is not a good enough example let us think of our current Supreme Court. Amongst our leading jurists Justice Tipping would never have been a Queen’s Counsel. He is one of our leading judges in New Zealand and no one would dispute that. He was a partner in Wynn Williams. He could never have been a Queen’s Counsel but he should have been able to be made a Senior Counsel. Is that an exception? No it is not. How about Bruce Robertson on the Court of Appeal? He is another leading jurist in New Zealand. He was always a barrister and solicitor in a firm rather than a barrister sole. He could never be made a Queen’s Counsel but he should have been made a Senior Counsel. Members might think that that is only a couple of examples but I ask about Justice McGrath. Justice McGrath is another of our Supreme Court justices. He could never have been made a Queen’s Counsel while a Crown solicitor but he is on the Supreme Court. Before that he was the Solicitor-General. Earlier he was a Crown solicitor in the Crown solicitor firm in Wellington; he could never have been made a Queen’s Counsel in those days. What about our leading prosecutors in Auckland in Meredith Connell? They can never be made Queen’s Counsel. Members might think that those are only a few examples so I thought about Justice Blanchard. He is another of our leading jurists in New Zealand. He could never have been made a Queen’s Counsel because he too practised as a barrister and solicitor not as a barrister sole. That is what makes this such an absurd law. 
I feel as if I should be here with my fingerless gloves and in a black suit. No doubt everyone will be required to put on their wigs again when they go to court. I saw an article about that in the paper. Here we go; we are heading back— 
Lynne Pillay 
: Hair shirts. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No they do not like hair shirts; they like silk—they like silk. But this is a nonsense. 
An exception is being made for people who were appointed during the recent period when we did have the ability to appoint Senior Counsel to continue in that role. So they have an exception for Jack Hodder—I do not know how many other people like Jack Hodder were made Senior Counsel—and so they should make exceptions because he is one of the most capable senior court advocates in the country as well. This is absurd law. 
What have other countries done? That might be illustrative. Are we following the trend or are we lurching to the past on our own? Well Australia as my colleague Charles Chauvel has already said except for one state has moved to Senior Counsel rather than Queen’s Counsel. Canada has done away with Queen’s Counsel completely—it sees that as an irrelevance an old-fashioned concept that has done its time—and so have most of the other countries of the Commonwealth. 
This is an absurd change. It is not based on principle. As I said I do not mind the status that attaches to senior people in a profession whether it concerns scientists being appointed to the Royal Society of New Zealand or senior lawyers being made Senior Counsel. I think recognition of excellence is a good thing; I believe in that. I just do not think that we should make artificial distinctions that are not made on the basis of quality but on the basis of some strange historical tradition inherited from the UK which has no relevance to New Zealand.  
I agree that we should celebrate our Senior Counsel. I agree that we should do that; I just do not think we should artificially exclude on some spurious basis those people whom I have listed who come from firms of barristers and solicitors. It is as if those people are inferior because they are in a firm of barristers and solicitors and as if they somehow have lower standards of ethics. What a nonsense! If they had lower standards of ethics they would be up before a disciplinary tribunal for breaching their duties to their clients. In fact the fact that these people have not been so proves that they are not doing anything wrong so this change is just an absolute nonsense; I cannot bring myself to vote for this bill even thought the second part of it is reasonably sensible as others have already said. 
I do not think there is much more to add really. I think the arguments in respect of this legislation are pretty simple. I think that Nathan Guy has been handed a bit of a hospital pass because the Attorney-General does not want to have to come to the Chamber and argue the case for the bill. He obviously likes the name Queen’s Counsel instead of Senior Counsel. I do not have anything particularly against the title other than the fact that it is an anachronism. The more important point of principle for me is this ridiculous return to the general position that those who are currently called Senior Counsel and are soon to be called again Queen’s Counsel can be appointed only if they are barristers sole rather than barristers in legal firms where they practise in a partnership of barristers and solicitors. 
Paul Quinn 
: Move a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We will do that and I invite the member to vote for it. Maybe reason will prevail on the other side of the House with members having heard the superior contributions from this side. With that piece of arrogance I would probably be entitled to be appointed a Queen’s Counsel but not a Senior Counsel so I should decline on that basis of course. I will not say anything more; the arguments have been well traversed by Charles Chauvel.