Macindoe Tim: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6723. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a disappointing contribution that was from Mr Chauvel—and I will explain why—for a number of reasons. I will begin with one of the points that he was speaking about right at the end and that was the fact that he regretted that his amendment had been voted down. The reason his amendment was voted down was that the officials advised us that it was an amendment that would have caused contradictions with regulation-making powers and for that reason it would hardly be an appropriate thing to write it into the law. 
Disappointingly Mr Chauvel began with a really outrageous attack on the Minister of Justice. He then launched a snide broadside at the Attorney-General before making a pretty silly and totally inappropriate and sexist remark about the member for North Shore. I think he also said something about the Minister for Social Development but I did not pick it up and I know that she is sufficiently bouncy to let that go. 
The really important thing is that he studiously avoided engaging with the purposes of this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. He made the point that he feels that this bill is a setback for women. Well I want to make the point that in recent times we have seen many very talented women in New Zealand appointed to senior positions on the bench and that is a trend that will clearly continue. I am renowned for having taken a very long time to complete my law degree. I must admit that when I began it I was in classes that were typically dominated by men. By the time I returned to Waikato University and completed it there were far more women in the classes than there were men. So I am absolutely convinced that over time we will see not only many more women in all positions in firms and on the bench but also a vast number of women appointed to the role of Queen’s Counsel. 
Labour dismisses as archaic anything reflecting our Westminster heritage. Labour equates proven benchmarks of quality with snobbery. Labour members refuse altogether to acknowledge the widespread support for this bill within the legal profession because of course that would mean they would have to acknowledge that they got things wrong when Labour was last in office. 
The “we know best” attitude which is so typical of the Labour Party was constantly reiterated by the member for Christchurch East when she spoke on Part 1 during the Committee stage of this bill on Tuesday afternoon. I listened to her carefully. She lamented that National was reversing some of the changes made by the last Labour Government and argued that we should not do so because that would force a future Labour-led Government to reinstate the changes. Her speech that afternoon could be summarised as “Be reasonable. Do it our way.” 
Well we are not doing it Labour’s way; we are doing it the way that the profession and legal commentators recommend. That is very inconvenient for Labour and those supporting it on this bill because it runs contrary to its ideological addiction to social engineering and scrapping all vestiges of the Westminster traditions that have served this nation so well whether in our legal system our democracy or so much of our culture. There is nothing snobbish or anachronistic about the title Queen’s Counsel. Not only does it overcome the ambiguity and lack of meaning of Labour’s preferred title Senior Counsel but it serves a very useful purpose in being immediately recognisable and widely understood. And that is the major reason why the profession has argued for its reinstatement. 
A lot has been said about the bill. To summarise I want to make just a few final points. I repeat very clearly that the bill has been requested by the profession. It is not a National Party whim. The bill strikes a balance in the way appointments as Queen’s Counsel will be made. The bill contains a number of amendments recommended by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. That input is welcomed by the Government as constructive and appropriate. Certainly it is not anachronistic or unnecessary. 
Finally the bill reflects a Government that listens a Government that is looking to the future needs of our legal system while valuing and celebrating our heritage and a Government that is in tune with the electorate. But the bill is opposed by an Opposition that is obsessed with social engineering and its continuing astonishment that it was thrown out of office in 2008 by an electorate that must have been mistaken—because Labour surely could not have been!