te Heuheu Georgina: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20645] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2). As my colleagues have indicated National will support this bill going to the select committee largely because we realise that this area has been in need of a bit of an overhaul for some time. I think that the current Minister Phil Goff when he was campaigning to get into Government used to promise to address this area quite quickly. I guess that 6 years is quick enough for him—but I would not have thought it was. 
National certainly understands the need for provisions that make sure that those who deserve to be legally aided in respect of their court actions are so aided. There need to be some clear rules that set out eligibility for legal aid and also some very robust provisions for the repayment of legal aid where that is proper. Overall we should ensure that people who deserve legal aid receive it but on the other hand we should ensure that people who for a variety of reasons ought not to have legal aid do not receive it. 
The explanatory note puts much emphasis on the issue of access to justice being the underlying theme for proper legal aid provisions. In a way National certainly agrees with that. In our democracy none of us would want to think that when people had a legitimate claim or case to bring they would be debarred from doing so because they had no means. 
It seems a little ironic that this Minister and other speakers including Mita Ririnui have come to the House tonight to promote access to justice when quite early in Labour’s stewardship of the Government coffers it lifted court fees and put access to justice out of the reach of a whole lot of New Zealanders. In doing that one clearly has to look at provisions for legal aid. I think that under the current Minister access to justice has been an ambivalent sort of thing. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the member mean by that? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It has been said that the raising of court fees—sometimes by hundreds and thousands of dollars—has had a severe impact on the ability of New Zealanders to access justice in the courts. In terms of the bill before us however National sees the point of raising income thresholds. On the face of it given that these provisions have not been updated since 1987 it is understandable that there has probably been a reduction in eligibility. It seems sensible that this bill at least acknowledges that. 
The explanatory note states: “The changes introduced … are estimated to make legal aid available to 1.2 million New Zealanders (up from 765000). In 2003/04 there were 60277 legal aid grants … this is estimated to increase to 85000 grants.” That is all good and well as long as the eligibility rules are clear can be applied consistently and will ensure that those who can meet their own legal costs certainly do meet them. This should not be a sort of pre-election thing that supposedly shows the Government cares about access to justice when in reality maybe the provisions of the bill do not make it any clearer as to who should and should not get legal aid. 
The issue of repayments is another underlying theme. Yes we ought to make legal aid available when it is meritorious that we do so but by the same token those who have been granted legal aid should engage in some form of repayment where they are able to as well. That is important. We should not just give and make payment available. Claimants have to realise—particularly if they are successful—that at some stage the taxpayer is entitled to some form of reimbursement. As with the eligibility criteria there must be some clarity and robustness around the area of repayment as well. 
I want to make a comment in support of my colleague Judith Collins who like Richard Worth has been in practice more recently than some of us. I agree with the previous speaker from New Zealand First who raised the issue—as Judith Collins did—of where drug leaders and gang leaders are able to prove some sort of eligibility for legal aid. Yet as a lot of us know often there are times when those same people have assets that quite frankly should make them ineligible. That shows a slackness in the rules that clearly needs to be tightened up. 
I hope that when the select committee examines the bill it makes sure that that sort of situation is not allowed to continue. But I guess we have also seen some corporate types in the past who have become eligible for legal aid. We thought that those people were running huge corporate empires in our community yet when they were before the courts suddenly they were eligible for legal aid. That does not seem to be right either. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Usually only after they have gone bankrupt. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Exactly! The reality is though that the rules need to be tightened. The rules need to make sure that only those who should have legal aid receive it and that those who ought not to receive it do not. That of course raises the issue of abuse of legal aid which we have all seen over the years. Obviously it has raised the need for a revamp of the rules relating to legal aid which makes it proper for this Parliament to send the issue to a select committee. 
I was interested when Nandor Tanczos reminded us—and he is probably the right one to do so as he has been on the Justice and Electoral Committee—of the Government’s eligibility review which now seems to be in the long lost distant past. So I think the best thing that could be said for that review is that at last 6 years later we now see something before the House that supposedly embodies some of the thinking that was in the review. But given that this Minister has spoken loud and long on the abuses inherent in the legal aid system and also on the need to ensure proper entitlement for a long time I guess we can be thankful that this bill is now before us. 
As I have said National supports this bill’s referral to a select committee. Our members on the select committee will be looking at the provisions very closely because the matters raised by speakers in the House tonight are serious matters. A lot of money is spent in this area and equally there is a lot of abuse. That must be weeded out. The rules must be clear. They must set out very clearly who is eligible. Proper provision must be made to ensure that people who have assets hidden away should not be able to avail themselves of taxpayers’ funds to fight their cases—they should do it themselves—and there must be proper rules for repayment. 
Bill read a first time.