Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill

Part 5 of the bill provides for the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers and sets out its regulatory responsibilities. In that respect, it mirrors Part 4, which we have just debated and which deals with the New Zealand Law Society. The regulatory responsibilities include overseeing enforcement of the legislation, admission and enrolment of conveyancing practitioners, and implementation and enforcement of complaints and disciplinary processes.

National has an amendment in respect of Part 5, “New Zealand Society of Conveyancers”. It is a simple amendment. It proposes that the whole of Part 5 be deleted. I have had an opportunity to speak very briefly on National’s position towards the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. I will briefly summarise those arguments against the background that National supports, with reservations, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill.

It is a pity, in the context of the Committee stage of the debate, that Labour members have been strangely silent. Sure, it has been the case that the Minister at the start of each part has offered a child’s guide to the content of the part, but there are on that side of the House presently constituting the Government a number of lawyers, including one who sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee and who is strangely silent. That is a pity, because Russell Fairbrother, I am sure, could make a worthwhile contribution to the debate if minded. I express the hope on behalf of members on this side of the House that he will feel free to say at least something, supportive or otherwise, on a bill that occupied a very substantial period of select committee consideration and deliberation. As one looks through the bill, which now runs to 346 pages, it is right to say that on most pages of the bill as it was reported back one can see changes to what was originally sent to the select committee.

Part 5 is in very similar form to Part 4, which is concerned with the New Zealand Law Society. Part 5 is concerned with the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. So why is National opposed to Part 5?

💬 Hon Mark Burton: A very good question.

It is a very good question, as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, says. I have a very simple answer by way of response. The select committee heard evidence from the New Zealand Law Society that there might be five or six people who would be qualified to join the society, and the faint possibility that Australian conveyancers might seek to join the society, although there would be only a few. So the probability was that there might be seven or eight such people in total. That clearly raises questions as to the justification for a highly prescriptive statutory regime, and the impossibility of funding a realistic fidelity fund for such a limited occupational grouping. I suggest that one would have to get up very, very early in the morning to find legislation, other than a private bill, that was enacted for the benefit of seven or eight people. Certainly, it would be unusual, in the context of legislation, to provide such a highly prescriptive regime for those people. In Part 5, in addition to provisions establishing the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers, there are provisions relating to functions and powers. As I have said, they mirror substantially the provisions of Part 4 relating to the New Zealand Law Society.

One of the most interesting clauses from a lawyer’s perspective is clause 79. Clause 79 applies the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 to the constitution of the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. I do not think there is another statutory example, apart from that Act, of the constitution of an entity being made subject to those provisions. I will comment briefly on what I see as being the implications of that particular change. What this is about, in part, is a linking provision to the definition in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives of “regulation” as “a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989”. If one then moves to later provisions in the Standing Orders—I am referring particularly to the provisions related to delegated legislation—it seems, interestingly and, I think, curiously, that the Regulations Review Committee has been given a specific jurisdiction to deal with issues relating to the constitution of the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. That means that those provisions of that constitution will have the status of regulation, and it will open them up to the scrutiny of a powerful parliamentary committee. So people aggrieved by the operation of the constitution of the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers will be able—provided that they can bring themselves within the framework of the Standing Orders—to advance a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee, which can then act, as others have said, as a poor man’s appellate court to do justice to that, presumably, aggrieved conveyancer. That is quite an unusual provision.

As I said at the outset, National is opposed to this part. I welcome a response from Minister Mark Burton, the new Minister of Justice, to say why Part 5 is truly needed.

It is fascinating that all the member could suggest was that Part 5 should be deleted. That follows his practice at the Bar of belonging to firms that were leading the way in specialisation, and in the presentation of the product in such a way that lawyers in the provinces cannot keep up with the pretty packages and named sweets they find littering the table, as they search for prospective clients, in the big firms.

We have a bill that already has five or six people indicating they want to be conveyancers. Of course, this bill will not be law for lawyers; it will be law to ensure that lawyers and conveyancers provide a service to the public. So it is fallacious for my learned friend to argue that the bill provides for only five or six people. In fact, this legislation will bring conveyancing back to the public and to each of the 4 million people in this country, who will be able to engage conveyancers at a price they can afford for that specialised service. So as the major firms have led the way in specialisation, this bill follows by bringing the specialisation of conveyancing back to the people of New Zealand. Clearly, my friend is misguided in his mischievous proposal to delete Part 5. He is surely not trying to protect the ivory towers and glass towers of Queen Street; he surely wants to provide ample conveyancing to the mums and dads of this country, who are finding it increasingly expensive to ride in the high-powered lifts in those towers—once they make it to Queen Street.

I argue for, and this Government supports, bringing the practice of law, and the conveyancing associated with mums and dads buying houses, back to the people who can afford it, by providing a specialised service that is relevant to the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. I therefore support this bill wholeheartedly.

We have just heard the Labour line from the former member for Napier, and, frankly, I do not think the public is really interested in some sort of inter-fraternity, legal tit-for-tat and cheap shots that that member is dealing out there to members with respected legal minds who know quite a substantial amount, and who have spent their careers focusing on the legal profession. National, actually, has brought some excellent legal minds to bear on this whole issue.

It is a pleasure to be talking at the Committee stage of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill 2003. The legislative history of this bill has been well outlined by my colleagues who have preceded me. They have spoken to the various parts, and, indeed, National is supporting much of the bill, especially those parts that deal with the regulation of the legal profession. But when we turn to Part 5, which I am about to address, we have some serious concerns. That part will establish the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers, but I think that any sensible person would agree that there is really very little need for the establishment of such a society. Conveyancing work, as lawyers on the benches over there will tell us, is already well covered by the legal profession.

The public are well serviced in that arena, and conveyancing is hardly a matter of public complaint or issue at the present time. I have not exactly been inundated with constituents coming in to complain about the issue of conveyancing. In fact, I would have to say that Part 5 is really not on the public radar, and, quite frankly, should be extinguished before it ever has the chance of seeing the light of day.

The reasons for professional regulation are well known to many members of this Committee. When a body is going to be professionally regulated, there is a clear objective, and the regulator is trying to establish a set of professional standards by which that body will be regulated and the members of that profession will be answerable to their peers. In fact, many would say that we could do with such a body in this Parliament.

The reality is that professional societies do not become established just for any old reason, but it seems quite clear that with Part 5 we will be establishing a new professional body, the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers, for the benefit of seven or eight individuals. Apparently, we might even have one or two join from Australia. So we will have a totally new system of regulation that will involve perhaps 10 practitioners and, frankly, that seems to be almost a waste of parliamentary time. I mean, I can see the need for establishing a professional body for the medical profession. We have the Medical Council of New Zealand—

💬 Brian Connell: Why is that?

Well, the medical profession needs regulation. There was a programme on last night called Rogue Gynaecologists. I doubt whether we will be watching a programme called “Rogue Conveyancers”. We have those bodies for when there is an actual need. Conveyancing is already firmly covered by the legal profession. A professional body has to set the ethical guidelines within which its members will operate. The Law Society already establishes those guidelines as they relate to conveyancing and the legal profession.

In the medical profession in New Zealand there are about 2,500 general practitioners. When we are talking about trying to self-regulate—

💬 Russell Fairbrother: What clause deals with that in the bill?

Well, Mr Fairbrother should have a read of the bill. If he had been in the Chamber he would know where we were up to.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Where’s the medical profession in the bill?

If the member just had a listen, he might find out the relevance. The point is that a certain body of people is needed—a critical mass of numbers—to self-regulate a profession. If there are only seven or eight people, who on earth will hear the disciplinary procedures for conveyancers?

I am rising, obviously, to speak to this part, but I am amazed at the suggestion that it will bring conveyancing back to the public—and that is a suggestion from a former criminal lawyer. I suggest that we need to ensure that this part does not take the public back to the lawyers, for negligence claims. There was also a suggestion that conveyancing was becoming increasingly expensive, but I suggest that if the anecdotal evidence was read and looked at, that would be seen to be incorrect. The fees now are proportionately less, and the responsibility is more, than they were previously.

The perception that conveyancing is expensive is typical of the commonplace perception that conveyancing is a rubber-stamping exercise. As I said before when speaking on Part 4, conveyancing is not just a case of ticking the boxes and hoping for the best; it is becoming more and more complicated. Conveyancing is not just concerned with residential housing but also with commercial properties, which can have their own complications. One needs to be aware of fire regulations, and fully conversant with the Employment Relations Act and all the various amendments that are passed through this Parliament—including the latest suggestion that vulnerable workers will become protected. Members can imagine the situation that if they were doing the conveyancing for a hotel related to the hospitality industry they would have to be totally acquainted with those new employment rules. Then there are intellectual property issues, trademark issues, zoning requirements, and the scrutiny of leases. There is an ample field for negligence, and if we have under-qualified conveyancers doing that work without the necessary standards of experience and qualification, then it will be quite true that the public will be going back to lawyers for negligence claims.

This part of the bill deals with the establishment of a New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. It is a new society that is to be especially set up for the group of so-called licensed conveyancers, which probably only a handful of people are eligible to belong to at the moment. One has to wonder whether this new layer of bureaucracy, and the extent of it, is really justified. Should we be forward-thinking and allow for the possibility of a long line of legal executives and landbrokers queuing up for membership? I do not know whether we should be.

Not only do new rules and regulations have to be made for the small, elite group of licensed conveyancers but also somehow those licensed conveyancers have to set up a realistic fidelity fund. That could be a huge problem for the small group of elite conveyancers. For a start, the fidelity fund will have to be sufficient to ensure the confidence of clients is maintained. It will be starting from scratch. The lawyers have had a fidelity fund for many, many years. That fund has been used on occasions, and its history is well known. Lawyers are not starting from scratch, as are the licensed conveyancers. In order to put the matter on a level playing field, the fidelity fund of licensed conveyancers has to be sufficiently comparable to the lawyers’ fidelity fund. That will be a huge barrier for the small group of licensed conveyancers.

Because of the two separate fidelity funds—and I am not suggesting for one moment that the conveyancers should take advantage of the lawyers’ fidelity fund—lawyers run the risk of being tainted by an inferior fidelity protection provided by licensed conveyancers. So it is vital that the two funds are comparable. The integrity of the whole legal profession is at stake, as, indeed, is the integrity of the soon-to-be-formed conveyancing profession. One bad apple is all it will take to damage that integrity.

I am concerned that there are simply not enough members of the conveyancing profession for them to properly carry out the regulation and representation functions. For example, the code of ethics for barristers and solicitors runs to some 135 pages, and that is for a membership of thousands, not just tens. The rules of both professions must, to a certain extent, run parallel to each other in order to justify the creation of the conveyancing profession. They must dovetail, to ensure and maintain the integrity of, and the confidence in, both professions.

I rise in support of Part 5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. We have heard some pretty superficial criticisms of Part 5, including comments that we do not need to have conveyancers and that conveyancers cannot be relied upon.

Let us reflect on the fact that New Zealand’s system of land registration is the Torrens registration system, which is the system devised by Mr Torrens and first implemented in South Australia. South Australia has operated for more than 100 years with land brokers or conveyancers who are not members of the legal profession, and it does not seem to have too many problems in doing so.

If people other than lawyers are being allowed to convey interests in land, then there is a need for a regulatory regime, because we do need to protect members of the public when they undertake what for most of them is the most important financial transaction in their lives. We do not want them to lose their life-savings. Accordingly, there is a need for regulation of conveyancers and, as the previous speaker, Kate Wilkinson, pointed out—and I agree with her—there is a need to make sure that they have similar obligations in respect of fidelity funds.

I will make one more point. We as lawyers ought not to be too precious that lawyers do not err. I am one of the lawyers—and I sure Mr Worth is another—who remember a $10,000 bill that lawyers faced as a top-up to the fidelity fund, following the collapse of Renshaw Edwards and the defalcations that occurred within that firm. Lawyers had to put their hands in their pockets to the tune of $10,000 each to make good the losses that people who had been using that firm had suffered. The lawyers did so, for which they ought to be congratulated. It is necessary to have some level of regulation so that we can have a similarly effective fidelity fund for conveyancers. I support this part of the bill.

I was not intending to take a call when I came to the Chamber, but I was so intrigued by the arguments that have been put forward that I felt I should take up the challenge of trying to put a layperson’s interpretation on these proceedings.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Tell us what you think.

Before I do so, I have to say that when the previous speaker, David Parker, said that he felt some of the arguments were superficial, I thought I was going to be educated. But he took the word “superficial” to new heights—I thought his argument was superficially superficial, if I could put it that way. I am still waiting to understand exactly what points he was trying to make; they have not yet registered with me, but I am sure that speakers with legal training could put his speech in some kind of perspective.

From a layperson’s perspective, I cannot understand why the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, has been convinced to support Part 5. I ask the Minister what in the submissions convinced him that we need to create in legislation a special place for four, five, eight, or nine people. That seems to me to be highly irregular. The Minister said that he took advice from colleagues. Well, Minister, you are in the chair now, and I would expect that you would be—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I apologise for bringing the Chairperson into the debate. I would expect the Minister to take a call to elucidate why he feels it is so important to support this legislation.

The previous speaker gave the Committee the view that if conveyancing was not done through this conveyancing body, then our conveyancing practices would be put at risk. I have to say that I have been totally satisfied with the conveyancing experiences I have had through the legal people whom I have retained. From time to time I have a small concern about some of the fees that come my way, but that is an issue I take up with the people concerned. I certainly do not think it is necessary to put in place new legislation when there is no problem to remedy. Who in the Chamber would want anyone who is not competent to handle his or her conveyancing matters? I am not at all convinced that the bill would provide that certainty. I say again that the Minister in the chair should get up and take a call to convey that he is comfortable that that certainty can be provided.

When my colleague Kate Wilkinson was on her feet she made a very, very good point that conveyancing these days is not just to do with residential conveyancing. Some of it is very complex. I would like to take comfort that the conveyancing structures have been put in place, and that the professionals who are handling conveyancing—particularly in my own affairs, if I can use that example—are giving me the very best advice possible.

💬 Hon Member: Tell us about your affairs.

I am not sure that I want to tell the Committee about my commercial affairs, or anything else in that regard, but I am concerned that if I require my conveyancing affairs to be dealt with, then I want them to be attended to in the very best way.

What is the recourse if things go awry? The first thing people will do is see their solicitor. I do not believe that it is possible to have a body of eight or nine people who self-regulate. It simply cannot be done. It is just a matter of scale, and the scale will not be there to enable that to happen. The New Zealand Law Society gave the very best submission on the matter when it said that it simply is not necessary to do this. Why does the Government feel that it can ignore that advice and bring to the Chamber, as part of a bigger piece of legislation, Part 5, which represents six or seven people? I say to the Minister that he has some explaining to do, and when he gets the opportunity to do so I will be very appreciative, because I believe that this is becoming quite a significant issue. National will support other parts of the bill, but Part 5 is a concern.

Ever so briefly, I must refer the member—he may not have been in the Chamber at the time—to what I said at the beginning of the debate on Part 5. The pertinent thing is that the content of this part mirrors the statutory regulations and responsibilities of this group of people that apply to lawyers under Part 4. I think the provisions and protections are precisely the same provisions and protections that are referred to in Part 4.

As to the other matters, I certainly do not want to waste the time of the House, because we are making such good progress. I simply refer the member to the comments made by two of my colleagues on this side of the House. I fully endorse, in particular, Mr Fairbrother’s view that this provision is actually for 4 million New Zealanders, not for 6, 7, 8, or however many it turns out to be over time.

I am not a lawyer but, like many New Zealanders, I have used the services of lawyers. And, like the odd Kiwi, I have been ripped off. In one case my lawyer was sent to jail. Ho-hum—ever tried to recover money from a fidelity fund? So I come to this issue with a certain cynicism, reinforced by the comments of the two Labour speakers in the last quarter of an hour, Mr “Fairweather” and his colleague over there.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s name is Fairbrother.

I am so sorry—Mr Fairbrother.

💬 Brian Connell: You should know that—he’s the former member for Napier.

Yes, the former member for Napier—and I commend the people of Napier for their very good judgment. I say to Mr Chairperson and the Minister in the chair that you have been down this road before with the Retirement Villages Act. You think you have—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate. By using the word “you” the member is bringing the Chairperson into it.

Sorry—I was referring to the Minister. The Government has brought in the Retirement Villages Act, which professes to set up a whole network of care for our elderly people. The legislation before us—particularly Part 5, which we oppose—is just like the retirement village legislation. It sets up the illusion of protecting people. It sets up the illusion of competition. In fact, it establishes protective and restrictive trade practices. I ask members to look at the State-owned Public Trust and the very high fees it charges, supposedly for looking after the aged in our community.

On the other hand, I support the involvement of conveyancers in conveyancing work, because I believe in free competition. Membership of an entity is good for looking after conveyancing activity. But this legislation strikes me as being hugely unnecessary and hugely complicated, and more conducive to the establishment of an anti-competitive cabal. The Law Society has pointed out that at the very most we can expect eight of its members to join this organisation. It will be totally impossible for this organisation to set up a realistic fidelity fund.

Overall, I think the legislation is unnecessarily prescriptive. It is cumbersome and, accordingly, poor law. Part 5 plays into the hands of those who promote anti-competitive behaviour under the guise of protecting our community. It looks to be promoting free competition, but that is absolute rubbish. This is B-grade legislation setting up a B-grade entity in comparison with the Law Society. This part of the bill should be eliminated.

I rise to follow on from Dr Worth’s comments about Part 5. National supports most of this bill, but it does not support Part 5 as it stands this evening.

I would like also to follow on from some of the comments Mr Parker made earlier. He referred to those of us, including me, who feel we are protected from having our own solicitors do our own conveyance, and would have concerns about the half-dozen or so who may be allowed to do conveyance under Part 5. I feel that this legislation adds just another layer of bureaucracy and more regulation.

It is interesting that conveyancers will have to meet the criteria set out for a fit and proper person. I refer the members here this evening to clause 73A, which concerns those criteria—whether the conveyancer is of good character, has previously been bankrupt, has had any previous convictions, and so on. This is all very well, but who will monitor it? The more frameworks this legislation sets up in more areas about people being fit and proper, the more someone has to measure whether these people actually are fit and proper.

Another area of concern in Part 5 is training, monitoring, and ongoing assessment. I believe that we have to keep the crossbar on the goalpost extremely high, and my concern is that in allowing this to go through we would be seen to be lowering it. If I particularly wanted some conveyancing done, I would prefer to see my solicitor, to ensure it was done in a proper, practical fashion.

Clauses 79 and 80 of Part 5 talk about practising fees and levies, the regulatory functions around them, and their compulsory nature. Clause 81 talks about the ongoing subscriptions that conveyancers will have to pay to the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers.

National members have concerns about Part 5. A lot of other speakers on the National Party side who have a wealth of experience in this area are happy to support the bill, but have real concerns about Part 5.

As other National members have already laid out, the fundamental point about Part 5 is that it is just an expansion of bureaucracy. It is a case of more Government regulation in an area of legal administration that is already perfectly well regulated. People actually want less unnecessary regulation in our society and on the statute book. But here we have, effectively, a de facto professional body that the Government is seeking to establish under the guise of a new profession.

I argue that there are very set, strict definitions of what constitutes a profession and a professional body. Certainly, professional status should not be conferred lightly. Something like this, I feel, opens a gateway in a wide range of areas of New Zealand public life—such as those related to the health-care professions and the health-care industry, perhaps—that, frankly, serves no good public purpose.

Also I think that the establishment of a New Zealand Society of Conveyancers debases the work that the legal profession does. The legal profession is one of the world’s oldest. There is no question that the profession, and the principles upon which it is founded, have a long history. The legal profession has not sprung up overnight; it goes back hundreds of years. Our legal system, which is based on the British legal system, serves New Zealanders well. Property conveyancing is actually a relatively straightforward and simple matter, and it is handled well by local solicitors. The job a local solicitor does is based on trust. It is based on a relationship that one builds up with that professional.

What we do in Part 5, if we let it go through, is just say that anyone can carry out conveyancing—anyone is free to handle the most important financial transaction of a New Zealander’s life. Where will that lead us? We have heard today that there will probably be eight or nine people in the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers, and I just ask members here to consider how on earth that body will self-regulate—because self-regulation is one of the key functions of a professional body.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: They will all be on the committee.

Exactly. All the conveyancers will be on a committee with their mates. So one of them will appear on a disciplinary matter, and it will be a case of that person having a mate on the committee who is asked to discipline him or her, and maybe even recommend legal procedures. I can tell members that no profession with that few people involved can seriously be expected to regulate itself. So, to be honest, establishing a New Zealand Society of Conveyancers is just another unnecessary level of bureaucracy.

Another area that professional bodies handle is continuing education. I ask the Committee to consider how on earth those members of the Society of Conveyancers will keep up with developments in law. Quite simply, they will probably have to call in the legal profession to come and help them with their continuing education. Quite frankly, this new profession will need rigorous professional standards attached to it, and I think we will find that its members are so busy muscling in on lawyers’ traditional work that they will not want to sit on a committee and listen to disciplinary cases. They will not be interested in establishing a new profession and in drawing the boundaries within which that profession operates.

I read in the bill about gathering subscriptions from this profession. I would be surprised if the new Society of Conveyancers had an annual subscription higher than $500—they will not have much money.

I would like to examine in a bit more detail the issue of the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers. Whilst I am on my feet, I would like to thank the Minister in the chair, Mark Burton, for taking a call and satisfying my earlier concerns. But I have a couple of other concerns I would like to raise.

In particular I am looking at clause 68(2)(a), which states: “The New Zealand Society of Conveyancers is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, and, except as provided in this Act, has and may exercise—”—and here is the part that concerns me—“(a) all the rights, powers, and privileges, and may incur all the liabilities and obligations, of a natural person of full age and capacity;”. But when I turn the page I see clause 69, “Membership”, which states: “but membership is voluntary and does not of itself—(a) impose on the members any liability in respect of any contract, debt, or other obligation made or incurred by the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers;”. It strikes me, I say to the Minister in the chair, that there seems to be a contradiction. Maybe the drafting of this passage is not right, because in one section we are saying that there will be obligations and liabilities, and in another section we are saying that there will not.

The other issue I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is clause 70, “Regulatory functions”. Again, I raised this matter in my last call, and other speakers have also raised it, but it is still something that does not satisfy me. How will this body self-regulate when, essentially, it will not have enough members to do so? It is a fundamental issue, for which I have not heard a satisfactory answer thus far. The issue has been raised, but how does a body do it? It just seems to be an impossibility. The spectre of someone coming before the disciplinary committee of this body—they will almost be judge and jury. They will be sitting there at the table and someone who raises an issue will probably then have to race down to the other end of the table to fill the chair and answer the question. Now I am taking it to a bit of an extreme, but when we have six or seven, or eight or nine people only on this body, I see that as a significant issue.

Another colleague raised the issue of what is a fit and proper person.

💬 Nathan Guy: It was me, Brian.

Mr Guy raised it. He is an outstanding member for Ōtaki, and he nearly brought about the upset of the century when he nearly took a very safe Labour seat from a reasonably incompetent and inexperienced member of the Government. But next time, I am sure he will complete the act.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: He will.

I am sure he will.

The issue I want to raise concerns clause 73A, “Fit and proper person”. Paragraph (a) of subclause (1) states: “whether the person is of good character:”. It is OK to write that into legislation, but who will test that? Who will determine that? Mr Guy raised that as a concern. The Minister has said nothing about it. Mr Fairbrother, who took a call, did not answer that question. The former member for Otago did not answer that question when he took a call.

Paragraph (b) of subclause (1) states: “whether the person has, at any time, been declared bankrupt …”. Who will check that? Unsuspecting members of the public, when they are engaged in what for most of them will be the only conveyancing activity in their life, will put their trust in those people, yet the public will have no prior determination as to whether those people can be trusted. The legislation, as it is drafted, does not call for those checks and balances. We have already been told, when I raised this issue in relation to clause 68, that the body corporate of conveyancers will not impose any liabilities or obligations. The Minister in the chair will have to get to his feet and deal with that issue yet again. Paragraph (b) goes on to state: “or been a director of a company that has been put into receivership or liquidation: ”. They are easy things to say but they go to the core of credibility. How will we know that these checks and balances have been done? It remains a major issue of concern.

I move, That the question be now put.