Ardern Jacinda: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13523] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Legal Services Bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for holding my place. I will reflect very quickly on some of the comments that were made by Mr Garrett. I think it is a shame in this debate that although Mr Garrett very nobly recognises points of agreement he also recognises that we descend into some situations that by and large are the exception not the norm. Within our criminal justice system we must organise a system that is still based around the ultimate principle which I would hope he agrees with whereby people are innocent until proven guilty. If Mr Garrett would like to present to this House a methodology where we could maintain that principle which is the fundamental foundation of our criminal justice system and still iron out some of the issues he raised I would be happy to engage with him on that point. But arbitrary cut-offs such as those that were suggested—I assume they were suggested off the cuff granted—do not do that. I am happy to engage in that debate but we must ultimately keep in place that fundamental principle. 
Again I say to Mr Garrett that arbitrary cut-offs do not work. I will expand on that when it comes to the principle of “three strikes and you’re out” because again that is probably the ultimate demonstration of arbitrary cut-offs that remove the very important principle of judicial discretion which is a key part of our criminal justice system. I will come back to that but first I will address the substantive matters in this bill. It overhauls the legal services system in New Zealand as it has sat in its current form since about 1991. Those who have been listening to this debate will know that the set of changes we are examining in the House today were a consequence of a review that was carried out by Dame Margaret Bazley. I think the reason that the review became so controversial was that she pointed out the failings in our publicly funded legal services system. Some quite wide-ranging accusations were made and some of the actors and rogues in the system were a key part of her review. I think she brought that issue to the fore. 
It is right that the review was done but I would be loath for anyone to assume that all of our publicly funded legal services are characterised by some of the individuals that Dame Margaret Bazley highlighted. In Manukau in particular we have seen some incredibly good individuals working in that area have their reputations smeared by the very blanket accusations that were made. I think it is important that ultimately we ensure that public confidence is retained in our system. That perhaps would have been restored had Simon Power as the Minister of Justice spoken to the Bar in that area but unfortunately he did not. 
At the Justice and Electoral Committee we questioned the chair of the Legal Services Agency as to whether he spoke to the Bar in Manukau and he had not at that time either. I would like to highlight that Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel did make that effort but the Bar itself was seeking action by the Minister himself or by the agency rather than just the Opposition who took a key interest in the area. Although it is important that we act in an expedient way on the recommendations made by Dame Margaret Bazley it is also important that we get it right because this is an incredibly important arm of our justice system. 
What are the objectives when examining this legislation? The Government has pointed some of them out. One of them is managing rising costs and that is absolutely understandable. We are looking at a legal aid system that is costing about $130 million per year but most of the increases we have seen have been in the criminal justice area. Some particularly large and high-profile cases have sucked up a considerable amount of that. Also there have been claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. That is one element that the Government is interested in tackling but in my mind ultimately it is secondary to some of the much more important principles of ensuring ongoing accessing to justice and upholding the quality—this was pointed out by my colleague in the Maori Party—of the services that the public access via legal aid. Public confidence in that service is incredibly important. 
Labour will though support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. There are elements in it that we absolutely support but we do have concerns as well and I want to talk about both those areas. We are pleased that the Public Defence Service will be expanded. That was something that was launched by the justice Minister at that time in 2004 who obviously was Phil Goff. The Public Defence Service demonstrated that we could have a system of salaried public defenders that would standardise a high quality of defence and iron out some of those issues that come with a fee basis and it was a good alternative to legal aid. My reading of what has happened in the transition with the recommendations from Dame Margaret Bazley and what has come through from the Government is that there are a couple of areas that may not have been covered by the extension of the Public Defence Service. I would be interested in Government members clarifying this for me but I understand that the Minister of Justice announced back in April that we would see the service extended to Hamilton Wellington and Christchurch. 
Also I think Dame Margaret Bazley made a recommendation about Palmerston North. I am not sure whether the Government picked up that recommendation but I am happy to hear whether that is the case. Obviously she would have seen some reason for that and I would be interested to see where the Government disagrees with her in that regard. I want to highlight that we are seeing another announcement about the extension of the Public Defence Service back in April—and here we are again talking it up. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just like the Kopu Bridge. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is like the Kopu Bridge. How many times has the Government announced the Kopu Bridge? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: About eight times. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Perhaps we will see the Public Defence Service re-emerge as a Christmas gift given that this Government is such a fan of re-announcements. 
I also want to touch briefly on the fact that the Government is placing greater emphasis on the use of community law centres. I absolutely endorse that but again I flag my concern that it is one thing to acknowledge the good work community law centres do but it is another to demonstrate to them that they will have ongoing sustained funding. The Minister of Justice has continually given us that assurance but as far as I am aware they are still ultimately in the funding framework they are under at the mercy of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Special Fund. Because it is based on an allocation of interest being divvied—I think it is a 60/40 split—between a bank and the community law centres it is not sustainable and consistent. The amount of time and energy that the network of community law centres has wasted on worry about the source of their funding is I think unnecessary. If we are going to acknowledge the good work they do we should give them greater certainty in the way they are funded. 
I want to touch briefly on another of our concerns. Lianne Dalziel has already pointed out that it is one thing to say we want to cut down on the cost of legal aid; it is another to try to incentivise within our criminal justice system the constant use of not guilty pleas. Mr Garrett has to acknowledge that that is perhaps an unintended consequence of his legislation but a consequence none the less—we have actually incentivised not guilty pleas. That will mean that we are likely to see an increase in legal aid. Does Mr Garrett perhaps propose that if a person ends up being on their third strike they then do not get any more legal aid? 
David Garrett 
: No. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Well he has suggested that.