Wilkinson Kate: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17483] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Yesterday it was revealed that there has been a $29 million spending blowout on the legal aid system. The  
Press 
 further announced that this spending had “rung alarm bells”. Well it is about time that alarm bells started to ring. This is especially important as the Justice and Electoral Committee had some time ago expressed concern that the Legal Services Agency “needed to significantly improve its performance” and that it was disappointed problems it had raised in previous reports had not been addressed. 
A potential legal aid crisis has been looming for some time and it is only now that some alarm bells are starting to ring. When this Government increased the eligibility to legal aid by some 435000 recipients to 1.3 million did it consider the cost or more important did it consider the ability to supply that increased demand? Anecdotal evidence abounded that there were simply not enough lawyers prepared to take on legal aid work. The fact that the number of active family legal aid lawyers dwindled from 2012 to 1017 in 12 months did not ring alarm bells with this Government. The fact that the number of active criminal legal aid lawyers declined from 1084 to 846 in 12 months did not ring alarm bells with this Government. The fact that victims in some areas have to appear in court by themselves without any legal representation at all because they could not get a legal aid lawyer to represent them did not ring alarm bells with this Government. The fact that if the number of people eligible for legal aid was increased then that may just increase the number of legal aid grants did not seem to register with this Government. 
We now have the suggestion that there has been a $29 million spending blowout and the alarm bells are just starting to ring. We have a problem. Yes we do need some answers. We should be able to expect clarification in answers not only in relation to the $29 million spending blowout but also to the questions raised in the 2006-07 financial review. Those questions related to the fact that at the time providers did not meet demand in some areas of the country. That situation continues. What has been done to address concerns about the quality of legal aid providers—concerns exacerbated by the current legal aid system? What has this Government done to address the concerns of the board of the New Zealand Law Society which were first that it had no confidence in the commitment of the Legal Services Agency to address outstanding issues relating to legal aid remuneration; and second that it was profoundly concerned about imminent risks to legal aid services on a national scale? 
What is the Government doing to address the problem of the declining provision of legal aid? On top of that we have had the Serious Fraud Office fiasco and the muddle related to that. If we look at the record of this Government and at the time line we see that it is indeed apparent that it is a muddle. It has been a procession of strategies reports working groups and proposals resulting in delays and unfulfilled promises. In 2004—4 years ago—the crime reduction strategy joint Ministers group agreed that a new Organised Crime Strategy was a priority for 2004. In June 2005 the Ministry of Justice tried to set up a workshop with agencies involved with gangs to establish a task force but that was canned. In November 2006 the Minister of Justice promised to review the number of off-licence liquor stores and nothing happened until June 2008. In May 2007 the Prime Minister said the officials were working on an Organised Crime Strategy which had been due to be completed in about 10 months. In July 2007 the Minister of Justice said the Organised Crime Strategy “is proposed to be completed in the last quarter of 2007”. It was not released until April 2008.