CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I am delighted to see that parliamentary history has been made this afternoon. That would be the first coherent speech the boy wonder from Ōtaki has ever made. I congratulate him on that excellent speech, even if it was written out for him.
As the Minister observed, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) is a small but important bill, and it concerns, as I said in the Committee stage, certain people in trade unions and members of business organisations being able to get access to legal advice. The problem has been canvassed in both the second reading and the Committee stage, so I do not think I need to dwell on it. I will make relatively few comments in this third reading speech, because in a sense it has all been said.
It is important that we get this measure through the House this afternoon. I do not know when it will be signed into law, although I note that clause 2 provides that the Act will be deemed to have come into force on 1 August 2008, and that is important because the substantive legislation finally comes into force on that date after a 2-year transitional period. Some people may not realise that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act comes into force then, and that the Law Practitioners Act 1982 will finally be deemed to have been repealed tomorrow.
The purpose of the legislation is to enable lawyers who are the employees of employer organisations and trade unions to be able to give a certain class of legal advice to members of unions and members of business associations. It is important to note that it is the clear parliamentary intention that those persons are not able to give general legal advice. For example, lawyers employed by a trade union will not be able to give free-ranging advice on conveyancing transactions, proceedings commenced under the Family Protection Act, or mergers and takeovers; nor, might I add, can they give advice on matters related to the dreadful Electoral Finance Act, even though at the moment they may be deemed to be third parties.
What they will be able to advise their members on is a carefully defined series of matters, and they are set out in clause 6. It is entirely reasonable that members of trade unions, for example, should be able to contact the lawyer employed by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Dairy Workers Union, to ask for urgent and inexpensive advice on a matter relating to, for instance, the Employment Relations Act, and to obtain that advice. We have no problem with that. As I said in the second reading, everyone agreed with the principle; it was a question of making sure the words were right.
It was interesting to observe that initially the Government was not very interested in having a Supplementary Order Paper to try to deal with these issues. Indeed, the matter went through the select committee process very quickly indeed. The bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 25 June, dealt with immediately, and reported back on 7 July. I have no complaint about that. However, I did say, on behalf of the National Party, that we may have wanted to look at a Supplementary Order Paper if we thought there were issues of detail that needed to be addressed. That is why I was so pleased that, during the Committee stage, the Minister Annette King gave notice of her intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. The work exemplified by that Supplementary Order Paper is contained in the amended clause 6, and I think it is a good piece of work.
So I thank the Minister of Justice for being open—on this occasion, at least—to the possibility of having a Supplementary Order Paper to address the concerns of various organisations. I also congratulate Mr Dail Jones on his work on this matter. He was a good member to work with on this issue, which is one not of partisan politics but of getting the words right. I conclude by also congratulating Mr Jones on managing to persuade the Government that section 107(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act needed urgent amendment. That is what clause 10 of this bill is all about. Quite sensibly, we dealt with that issue during the Committee stage, as well.
All in all, I am satisfied that the legitimate interests of all the various players are properly addressed. I, too, congratulate those members who have worked very sensibly on this bill, and I also thank those outside Parliament—in the Council of Trade Unions and the various unions, in other organisations like Business New Zealand, and in the New Zealand Law Society—for the good work they have done. With those relatively short comments, I indicate that the National Party will support the third reading of this bill.
It is important that we get this measure through the House this afternoon. I do not know when it will be signed into law, although I note that clause 2 provides that the Act will be deemed to have come into force on 1 August 2008, and that is important because the substantive legislation finally comes into force on that date after a 2-year transitional period. Some people may not realise that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act comes into force then, and that the Law Practitioners Act 1982 will finally be deemed to have been repealed tomorrow.
The purpose of the legislation is to enable lawyers who are the employees of employer organisations and trade unions to be able to give a certain class of legal advice to members of unions and members of business associations. It is important to note that it is the clear parliamentary intention that those persons are not able to give general legal advice. For example, lawyers employed by a trade union will not be able to give free-ranging advice on conveyancing transactions, proceedings commenced under the Family Protection Act, or mergers and takeovers; nor, might I add, can they give advice on matters related to the dreadful Electoral Finance Act, even though at the moment they may be deemed to be third parties.
What they will be able to advise their members on is a carefully defined series of matters, and they are set out in clause 6. It is entirely reasonable that members of trade unions, for example, should be able to contact the lawyer employed by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Dairy Workers Union, to ask for urgent and inexpensive advice on a matter relating to, for instance, the Employment Relations Act, and to obtain that advice. We have no problem with that. As I said in the second reading, everyone agreed with the principle; it was a question of making sure the words were right.
It was interesting to observe that initially the Government was not very interested in having a Supplementary Order Paper to try to deal with these issues. Indeed, the matter went through the select committee process very quickly indeed. The bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 25 June, dealt with immediately, and reported back on 7 July. I have no complaint about that. However, I did say, on behalf of the National Party, that we may have wanted to look at a Supplementary Order Paper if we thought there were issues of detail that needed to be addressed. That is why I was so pleased that, during the Committee stage, the Minister Annette King gave notice of her intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. The work exemplified by that Supplementary Order Paper is contained in the amended clause 6, and I think it is a good piece of work.
So I thank the Minister of Justice for being open—on this occasion, at least—to the possibility of having a Supplementary Order Paper to address the concerns of various organisations. I also congratulate Mr Dail Jones on his work on this matter. He was a good member to work with on this issue, which is one not of partisan politics but of getting the words right. I conclude by also congratulating Mr Jones on managing to persuade the Government that section 107(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act needed urgent amendment. That is what clause 10 of this bill is all about. Quite sensibly, we dealt with that issue during the Committee stage, as well.
All in all, I am satisfied that the legitimate interests of all the various players are properly addressed. I, too, congratulate those members who have worked very sensibly on this bill, and I also thank those outside Parliament—in the Council of Trade Unions and the various unions, in other organisations like Business New Zealand, and in the New Zealand Law Society—for the good work they have done. With those relatively short comments, I indicate that the National Party will support the third reading of this bill.
