Sepuloni Carmel: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20624] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague Charles Chauvel has said we have concerns about the Government’s overall direction in respect of its justice policy which inhibits access to justice and creates the potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. For that reason—and I will explain in more detail why—we will not be supporting the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. 
Labour believes in an accessible justice system and we have serious reservations about the direction of the reforms in the justice system under this Government. This bill essentially rolls back the expansion that was made under Labour in 2007 making it harder for people to access lawyers. At that time legal aid had not been reviewed in two decades and the then National Opposition criticised the Labour Government for not making enough legal aid available. Labour introduced a new repayment and debt management scheme which is where the focus on sustainability should be rather than on penalising people on low and modest incomes who genuinely need a lawyer and need to be able to access legal representation. 
The changes encourage legal aid applicants to consider whether they wish to proceed with litigation. This may dissuade people from pursuing a justified case limiting a person’s right to access justice. The current means test will be modified in the case of offences that are not punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment above 3 years. The Minister of Justice has indicated that the threshold will apply to those earning $22000 for a single adult and $51000 for an adult with two dependants—and $22000 is not a lot of money. To deny that access to anyone who is earning $22000 or over does not seem to anyone on this side of the House to be very just. In fact we fear for the ability of those people to get representation for themselves in respect of the legal matters that they may be confronted with. We are concerned that this may force people into representing themselves in court increasing the chances of miscarriages of justice. I am sure that other members in the House would agree that our general everyday Joe Bloggs would not necessarily have the skill set to represent themselves effectively in court if required. 
The cut to legal costs by significantly expanding the Public Defence Service at the expense of independent lawyers providing legal aid is a concern for us. The latest review of the Public Defenders Service in England and Wales showed that the Minister’s solution to expand the Public Defence Service will cost the taxpayer considerably more than it does currently. 
Simon Bridges 
: We’re not in England or Wales. This is New Zealand. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Mr Bridges probably does not recognise that often in these matters research is required and we look overseas for examples. I was just citing those examples. Although Labour supports the existence of the Public Defence Service as it was initiated under our Government we believe that independent lawyers should provide the bulk of criminal defence work. 
The lack of balance in what the Minister is proposing will lead to a lack of quality in terms of legal defence options for Kiwis facing charges. The quality of our justice service is certainly in question after 2½ years of the National Government being in charge. Furthermore the Government’s plan for the Public Defence Service along with the denial of those charged with category 1 or 2 offences to choose their own lawyer restricts choice for individuals. Those who have a history particularly in mental health issues may be forced to have a lawyer who does not know them the disadvantages they face or the full state of their circumstances and perhaps will not have enough time to investigate in order to provide a comprehensive defence. 
The Minister Simon Power has not made available the figures for actual costs including all administration set-up and expansion costs. There needs to be greater transparency to improve access to justice for all New Zealanders and unfortunately we are not seeing that under the National Government. The Ministry of Justice asserts that criminal legal aid is the highest expenditure area and that it is steadily increasing. However criminal lawyers are rarely the initiators of legal actions; therefore if there is increased use of legal aid lawyers arguably it is also because the number of charges in summary and indictable offences has increased. 
When the legal aid reforms were announced Mr Power said: “We cannot continue to ignore the substantial cost pressures the system is facing particularly at a time when New Zealand is being forced to borrow an average of $300 million a week.” The Government gave $2.5 billion in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners. I think we need to keep that in mind in light of Simon Power’s statement. The Government gave $2.5 billion in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners. Meanwhile people earning over $22000 will now find it tougher to access legal aid even if faced with a criminal charge. 
I think we are seeing again where the Government’s priorities lie. The money could have been put in place to ensure that justice is accessible to all Kiwis—to all New Zealanders. Instead the Government now cites financial difficulty and the fact that we are currently borrowing so much money as reasons to cut access to justice for the vast majority of New Zealanders yet the Government can still give $2.5 billion in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners in this country. Again I say that that really shows what the National Government’s priorities are. 
Implications for those charged and facing bail are that duty solicitors will apply for bail on behalf of a defendant only in a category 1 offence; if a defendant is waiting to get legal aid or cannot get legal aid then he or she may not be able to have successful bail; and innocent people may have to spend some time in jail because of the timing of the application while their access to legal aid is being examined. 
The purpose of the merits test for granting family legal aid is to encourage parties to resolve more minor matters themselves. Most parenting applications already require parties to undergo counselling and mediation before there is a hearing in court. Legal representation ensures that parents are aware of all of their legal obligations. The changes to legal aid provisions to deal with the rising cost of family legal aid grants disregard the changing landscape of families in New Zealand. So we have some major concerns with the legislation that we have before us. 
As I said at the beginning of my speech Labour will be opposing this bill because of the concerns we have about the Government’s overall direction with regards to its justice policy which really does inhibit access to justice and creates the potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. That is what we will be looking down the barrel of going into the future if this legislation is passed. 
Overall the bill amends the Legal Services Act 2011 and other Acts to limit the number of legal aid grants and to increase the amount legally aided people must pay. The bill also limits eligibility for legal aid reintroduces a user charge for civil and family legal aid and enables interest to be charged on legal aid debts. Our concern is that at a practical level in terms of people’s real-life experiences we will see people who earn $22000 or over which is really not a lot of money losing what in this country they fundamentally have a right to and that is justice. They will no longer be able to afford it and there will be cases where because a person cannot afford it that person will be forced to represent themselves in court. That in turn will increase the chance of a miscarriage of justice. 
We oppose this bill and we hope our colleagues across the House will see some sense and join us in opposing it also.