Speeches Page 3 

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : In my first reading speech on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) I commended the bill to the House, but I did observe that one of the potentially desirable amendments to it might involve a narrowing of the scope of the legislation. I think, from memory, that I was the only member speaking at the time who made that observation.

The bill was duly referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, so ably chaired by my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay. Mr Worth attended the select committee, as did Mr Jones, and we heard evidence by invitation from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand, and the New Zealand Law Society. By the agreement of the select committee, submissions were restricted to those three bodies.

Very little, if any, evidence was heard at the select committee to merit limiting the application of the bill. I had wondered aloud during my first reading speech whether that might be desirable. In particular, no evidence was tendered to the select committee that, over some 20 to 30 years, the practice of unions and employers associations employing professionally qualified legal staff to provide access to justice for their members when they needed it had ever been abused. Indeed, the evidence was quite to the contrary-that the professionalism of these people and the dedication that they had displayed in common with their employers was able to be relied upon and counted on. We were told that if matters got too complicated or came outside the scope of the training or experience of legal officers employed by unions or employers associations, it was invariably the practice to brief the work to a barrister or to a law firm so that it could be dealt with at the appropriate level.

None the less, during the second reading speeches on this legislation Mr Jones and members of the National Party signalled their intention to move amendments to confine the bill-that is, to legislate for the voluntary restraint and professionalism already displayed over many years by the legal officers who will be affected by this legislation. I and other members on this side of the Chamber do not want this legislation to pass by a narrow majority. The regulation of the legal profession, and, indeed, of professions in general, should not be a matter of partisan politics. So, working with our exemplary Minister of Justice, Annette King, I was glad to conduct some consultations with the Council of Trade Unions and with Business New Zealand. We worked up the substance of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has been pleased to table in her name.

I pay tribute to Mr Jones for the generosity that he has displayed by withdrawing the majority of his proposed amendments, except for the amendment to section 107(1) of the principal Act, to which I will turn in a moment. I also pay tribute to Ms Turei, to Mr Harawira, and to representatives of other parties in the Committee who have agreed to expedite the passage of the amendments that we are considering tonight, so as to allow the passage of the amendment bill in time for 1 August 2008, which lets it take effect at the same time as the principal Act. That is surely a desirable thing, and it is nice not to see game playing or silly procedural points being taken over something as important as this.

As Mr Jones has said, his amendment to insert a clause 10 into the amendment bill-his only effective surviving amendment-is before us. It was argued for by the New Zealand Law Society in the select committee. It is a sensible amendment; it should have been included in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill when it was considered by this Parliament. It is clearly proper that incorporated law firms-a new beast permitted by the legislation-should be able to be correctly regulated under the practice rules. Accordingly, Labour members are supporting Mr Jones' amendment to section 107(1) of the principal legislation.

I say in conclusion that although I am happy to support the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper, and proud to have assisted in its creation, I made it clear in my introductory comments-and I do so again-that I am supporting it only in the interests of multi-partisanship. I do not think that this legislation is necessary. The professionalism and the restraint shown by legal officers in unions and employers associations have been exemplary for many years. There is no reason to suppose that we might not continue to be able to rely on their exemplary professionalism, but there is no harm in providing that we should make rules to codify the excellent professionalism that they have shown. For that reason, and that reason alone, I support this amendment.

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US