Fairbrother Russell: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1757] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 In the very short time available to me before this matter goes to the vote I want to touch on a couple of matters briefly. First of all legal aid is not just for the benefit of the client; it is also for the benefit of the court. I was fortunate enough to train under some very skilled lawyers and judges welcomed those skilled lawyers in court because they cut down the sitting time by their ability to manage a case very well. So the purpose of lawyers in court is not just to defend or advocate the interests of a client but also to serve their obligation to the court to see that the court’s business is disposed of efficiently promptly and as honestly as is possible. That is an argument often forgotten but it is one that should be remembered. 
Secondly I want to address the issue of legal aid rates. Members have heard some fatuous comments from the National side from people I otherwise respect considerably and the fallacy of their comments is shown when they refer to the disparity of rates between Crown counsel and defence lawyers. Yet the same legal aid scheme allows for equality of rates between plaintiffs and defendants. The reason we have a different regime for criminal legal aid is as articulated in a series of cases in the High Court where the quantum of legal aid has been argued and sufficiently answered. In short there are two reasons: first a Crown warrant obliges the Crown solicitor to accept every instruction from the Crown or from the police to prosecute a case. So inherently the Crown warrant is limited to income to that of scale. However a defence lawyer is free to accept instructions from whomsoever. Accordingly the decision made by a lawyer whether to accept legal aid is often for ethical reasons or for social responsibility reasons and is not entirely monetary. 
The other argument—which was touched on in perhaps a flamboyant way by Mr Mark—is that the issue is not really about legal aid rates being too low but about the expectation of the legal fraternity to earn too much money from what is really a social good in the profession. Lawyers are getting to the stage where their incomes are unwarrantedly high for much of the work done. Sure there are cases that carry an enormous responsibility and warrant a good fee—as there are in civil law in conveyancing and in other areas of law. But too often lawyers assume that because they have a ticket to practise they also have a ticket to automatic wealth. That is not the case and that wealth should not be gained from the public purse. So I agree with some of the comments made by Mr Mark although not his character assassination of David Ruth a very competent lawyer in Christchurch who serves the law very very well and who limits his income by his decision to practise for the social good on legal aid. 
It is an honour to follow Hone Harawira in his speech. He makes a sound argument for reading from a computer given the quality of his speech compared to those of some others who did not avail themselves of the current asset which may well have enhanced their contribution to this debate. I support this bill.