Robertson Grant: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17004] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I enter this debate with some trepidation as a non-lawyer following on from Mr Parker and Mr Bridges who both obviously have extensive legal backgrounds. But I guess I can bring a slightly different perspective. 
I too will carry on from Simon Bridges’ audition to be the Minister of Justice which we heard just before by picking up on the purpose of the legislation in Part 1 of the Legal Services Bill. Clause 3 tells us: “The purpose of this Act is to promote access to justice by establishing a system that—(a) provides legal services to people of insufficient means;”. My colleague Mr Parker has just suggested that the word “appropriate” may need to appear in there. As he has noted not everybody making use of the legal aid system would be doing those things were they using their own means. 
I take a slightly different view not so much about whether that word should be in there but about why we have legal aid. I noted when reading through some of the material from Dame Margaret Bazley’s report that the legal aid system is perceived by many people to be second-rate. I think that that presents the balancing argument to the one that Mr Parker just gave in that we need to strengthen a system of which the users by definition are often at a financial disadvantage or are perhaps socially excluded in some way. We need a system that they have confidence in to provide them with justice. If there is a perception by many people that this system is second-rate in some way we need to strengthen the system. 
I believe that that is what this legislation does. However it is important to note that the provision of legal services to people of insufficient means is very much part of a social contract the social fabric of how we ensure that there is access to justice. By all means—and this bill does this—we need tests for people who are receiving legal aid; we need to be sure that they are genuinely of insufficient means and also that legal aid is the appropriate form of protection and advocacy for them. I note in that regard the idea in Dame Margaret Bazley’s report—and indeed Mr Power’s response to it—of extending the public defence services. Obviously it is a good example of how we are looking at more appropriate means of providing advocacy and support to people because it will not always come through the legal aid system. 
I also just note—again as someone who is not from the legal profession—that when the original report came out there was some feeling that it represented a system rotten to its core and that somehow the legal aid system was in fact a drain on taxpayers it was not providing a good service and it was full of rip-off agents. It is important to note in speaking on Part 1 of the bill that that is clearly not the case. Most legal aid lawyers are providing a good service for their clients. Perhaps the perception from some of the clients is that they are not getting that service but most legal aid lawyers are not ripping off the system. Sure there have been some and it is important to highlight that issue. But the integrity of this part of our justice system needs to be upheld. 
Obviously legislation such as this is making steps towards upholding that integrity but I would not want the public of New Zealand to be left with the impression following on from the inquiry and the Government’s response to it that the system is rotten to the core. We had some interchange in this Chamber last year between Lianne Dalziel and Simon Power around those lawyers in South Auckland for instance and whether they had been given a fair go in this process. It is important that we note tonight on the record that a large number of legal aid lawyers are doing excellent work. We hope that those who are not will be identified through some of the systems that are being put in place under this bill so they can be weeded out if they are not performing in the way that we would like them to be. 
When we look at Part 1 and the purpose clause within it it is important to note that the notion that people of insufficient means should be supported is an important one. A rise in the cost of living is going on in New Zealand at the moment where people are facing bills that they simply cannot afford just for the basics of power food and petrol. If those people were put in a position of needing legal support and if this kind of legal aid system was not around that would be injurious to justice and to the kind of society that I think most members of this Committee would want to live in. It is a plain fact that a large legal bill on top of the kinds of bills that people are facing in their everyday lives today would be a disincentive to people seeking justice. That would be wrong just as we said earlier on the question of the cost of taking people for medical attention that it would be wrong. If that cost was a disincentive that would be wrong as well.