Wall Louisa: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): It is a privilege for me to speak as part of Labour’s “Team Justice”. I would like to acknowledge Jacinda Ardern Kelvin Davis Phil Goff Stuart Nash Su’a William Sio Peeni Henare and myself. My particular delegations are in the courts and legal aid areas and what I have been really interested to find out actually is that the whole objective of the justice reforms has been about saving $250 million.In 2011 the Ministry of Justice oversaw legal aid. I would like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Phil Goff because in 2005 when he was the Minister of Justice what Labour did was actually expand eligibility for legal aid because we wanted to ensure that low-income working families had access to this money as well. When National came in it saw it as a liability—a $173 million liability—so the first thing it did was change the eligibility criteria. For National the imperative was to get the cost down to $100 million. What has that seen? Actually you now have to earn under $22000 to qualify.One of the big issues we have in the area is around protection orders. If you are a woman who needs a protection order you do not automatically get eligibility to apply for legal aid to get a protection order. The Minister of Justice’s response was that women can do it for themselves but if you go on the Ministry of Justice website it actually says you should engage a lawyer—it is a legal process.One of the other unintended consequences—who knows—of this whole reframing of access to legal aid has been an increase in self-representation. One of the first things I did was go and talk to an expert a woman called Bridgette Toy-Cronin. She is a PhD graduate from the University of Otago. She works in the legal issues centre and I want to commend Mark Henaghan and his group from Otago University for actually highlighting a whole lot of issues in our criminal justice system. What she said was: “There is a difference between access to courts and access to justice. Self-representation allows access to courts but access to justice within the system is an entirely different matter. It is one thing to get in the door and another having the ability to get the necessary resources or advice to understand the legal system.” This was reinforced by Chris Moore President of the New Zealand Law Society who actually said that this phenomenon had happened because of an inability of people to get legal aid.The other interesting commentator in March last year was Chief High Court Judge Justice Helen Winkelmann who actually sounded a warning about under-represented litigants or people representing themselves in court. She actually said that this posed “a serious challenge to the civil justice system”. It makes it less efficient and from some of my meetings with judges and other people engaged in this sector I think the reforms have been a complete debacle.Yesterday I was with Judge Harvey. He has got a particular passion for access to justice through IT. I think there is merit in some of his proposed reforms. Actually if I look at the reforms that have been incredibly successful in the justice system they have actually come about because judges who know the system intimately have proposed some of the reforms that are working.One such reform is the alcohol and other drug treatment court that—I am just trying to remember her name; she is from west Auckland—Judge Tremewan has championed. The whole objective is about reducing reoffending and reducing dependency on alcohol and other drugs. It is about reducing imprisonment and it is about being cost-effective and I think that the findings so far have been that it has been an incredibly important addition to the justice system and is actually treating people who need help. So that is kind of the medical aspect of the justice system. It is not making them criminals or treating them as criminals but it is actually addressing the underlying causes so that we can address issues such as recidivism. In terms of my courts portfolio it has been really interesting to actually think about the court.I went to the Manukau District Court only the other day. I intend to go to the courts as part of my responsibility and to get a feel for what being in a court is like. I have never been in one myself but I look forward to doing that.One of the issues that has been highlighted is that the centralisation of the Family Courts in Auckland has been a complete disaster. Some clients cannot get into Auckland City and those who do have to pay $24 to park there for the day.I think what we are finding is that a lot of the reforms that this Government has introduced in the justice sector have been completely driven by economic imperatives.Reports noted.