Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10141] 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What are the eligibility criteria for receiving legal aid and what powers exist for the Legal Services Agency to recover any or all of the financial assistance delivered under this scheme? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Sections 8 and 9 of the Legal Services Act set out the eligibility criteria for legal aid for criminal and for civil matters. The criteria for criminal legal aid date back to 1912. Aid is available in criminal matters where any adult applicant charged with a serious indictable offence in New Zealand does not have sufficient means to obtain legal assistance and the interests of justice require that he or she be granted it. The Legal Services Agency can require an individual to make a contribution towards the cost of a lawyer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What will the Minister do about Yiyu Zhang a Chinese on a student visa convicted of 39 charges including kidnapping threatening to kill and aggravated robbery who was able to use the law to buy a shorter prison sentence by paying $64000 in reparation yet was able to plead poverty and receive $41000 in legal aid? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers that question this is the only warning I am giving. The question will be heard in silence. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first part of the question asks what I would do. The member will know well that under section 98 of the Act which sets out the limitations on the Minister’s powers to direct I cannot direct the Legal Services Agency to do anything and I note that every member of this House voted for that clause. In relation to the agency’s ability to recover money my understanding is in this case that it is investigating whether any of the legal aid money can be recovered. It is worth noting that more than $12 million was recovered last year from those granted legal aid. I make the final point that not to grant legal aid to somebody facing a charge that in this case resulted in 10½ years’ imprisonment would not only breach our international legal obligations but would be totally contrary to what the National Party spokesperson on justice says about people not representing themselves in court. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind a little bit of interjection but there was too much during that answer. I will not be giving a warning again. 
Tim Barnett 
: How much is spent on legal aid and has there been a blowout in legal aid expenditure? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Last year we spent about $82 million on legal aid. This year we are tracking towards much the same level. There has been no blowout in legal aid expenditure over the last 4 or 5 years in contrast with the mid to late 1990s when annual increases in legal aid were running at 17 percent and 19 percent. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Minister not even consider his usual practice of promising a review for a case where someone has got what the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 30 October stated was a 2½ year discount on his sentence for a $64000 reparation payment yet it appears he was so poor he could not meet his own legal aid bills? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I very rarely respond to calls for reviews from that member so I will not be doing so on this occasion. The money was paid by the family. It was under no legal or moral obligation to do so. I only wish that the New Zealand families of offenders were as forthcoming as that in trying to make amends. Legal aid is determined on the financial ability of the individual not of the individual’s family. That law applies to all New Zealanders. In relation to the payment of that money I understand that the victims are very pleased in this case to have received substantial reparation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that every political party in this Parliament but one is for wholesale immigration and soft treatment of those sorts of crooks when will the Minister stop wasting—[ 
Interruption 
] It is true all right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the final warning. The member interjecting is very very lucky. I want the Rt Hon Winston Peters to restate the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the record of every political party in this Parliament but one being in favour of wholesale immigration and a soft touch when those people rip the New Zealand taxpayer off when will the Minister do something for people like Mary Bloggs who pay their taxes look after their families and are good citizens instead of kowtowing to every group in this country that has no long-term interest in New Zealand’s financial or social viability? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The premise of the member’s question is wrong. That person was not an immigrant; he was an international student. He was one of 82000 international students who come to New Zealand each year returning to this country about $1.7 billion a year. Inevitably amongst 82000 people we will get some ratbags. He was one of them. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the personal and financial sacrifice made by kinship carers such as grandparents does the Minister agree that they should not be means tested when applying for legal aid for the purpose of seeking guardianship of children in their protective care; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The rules apply separately to criminal and civil legal aid as I am sure the member is aware. I am also aware of the plight of some of the people in the position she is talking about. I would like to see something done to help people in that situation. There is currently a review of eligibility for legal aid which should consider that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How fair is it that the millionaire family of a foreigner can pay $64000 to get a 2½ year lesser prison sentence but expect the New Zealand taxpayer to foot a $41000 legal aid bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I made the point before that any individual—and the same rule applies to every individual facing a serious criminal charge in this country—is looked at on the basis of his or her financial ability. The claim about a millionaire sits somewhat strangely alongside all the newspaper reports I have seen on this family because they suggest the family was of modest means. Perhaps the member would like to give me the information on which that allegation was based. 
Stephen Franks 
: In view of the Minister’s refusal to even consider a review of this case why has the overall eligibility review—promised in 1999 and referred to again as “due next year in 2000” —on legal aid never surfaced and could that be because the Minister promised to make legal aid more generous and now realises that New Zealanders actually want to see it be less liberal? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong on two counts. Firstly I have no power to review—in fact I am expressly forbidden from doing so—a decision on a case by the Legal Services Agency. Secondly far from the eligibility review never having surfaced if the member likes to look on the website he will find it there. It has been there for quite some time and the report back is due next month. 
Marc Alexander 
: How could it be possible that taxpayers have been handed a $176385 legal aid bill for four members of an extortion ring when one of them and his family was able to pay reparation of $64000 and pleaded guilty to 39 charges—particularly as the legal aid was given to offenders on student visas—and is that not just another example of New Zealand taxpayers subsiding non-resident offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I refer the member to article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which this House has ratified and every party in this House voted for he will see there is an obligation that any person facing serious criminal charges in this country who does not personally have sufficient means to have legal representation must be provided with it. I also point out that the actual amount paid in amends—not reparations ordered—was in excess of those legal costs. The family was under no obligation to pay that. The family did that itself. The individual must be judged as all other individuals are judged in terms of his eligibility for legal aid. That was done independently of me and of this House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given Mr Goff’s outraged reaction prior to the 1999 general election when there were allegations made about a Chinese millionaire apparently receiving legal aid which Mr Goff said was a major outrage and needed to be stopped what will he do to recoup the money from people who can obtain cash for shorter prison sentences but not to pay for their lawyers in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If any individual receiving legal aid in this country was a millionaire I would be outraged because that is expressly prohibited under the legislation that we have passed. The legislation sets out the criteria very clearly. The Legal Services Agency applies those criteria and to the best of my understanding it has done so accurately.