te Heuheu Georgina: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2233] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I think the member misses the point that is being made. He will be aware of course that the rates for Crown solicitors are considerably higher than those available for defence lawyers. It is on that basis that this side thinks there should be some fairness and equity. Yes it is important that the Crown’s case is prosecuted and prosecuted well but Crown lawyers are basically sitting within the framework of a huge bureaucracy. They do not necessarily have to worry about the costs of the bureaucracy or about the ongoing costs to their particular practice as private lawyers do. So the argument for the Government promptly reviewing the rates available for defence lawyers is basically around that point—fairness in the system. I do acknowledge what the member says. He does make the point that we need to be constantly on watch to make sure that the rates are at a sufficient level to ensure that those who ought to get legal aid and who deserve legal aid are not barred by the fact that there are lower rates for defence lawyers compared with rates for those acting for the Crown. 
As National members have made very clear we think the Government has missed an opportunity here to properly review the legal aid services framework. The points raised by Hone Harawira are I think very very important. He comes from a background in which he has definitely worked at the coalface with whanau—Maori and others—and I think the suggestions he makes are worthwhile. I suppose it would be great if we could all agree to a system whereby we say to the profession at large that we expect each and every one of those who practise to take a certain number of legal aid cases each year. I do not think it is practical partly for the reason that I referred to a couple of minutes ago which is that our top lawyers in the country come at a price. That price in the end is reflected in all of the costs that are inherent in their businesses—in running competent professional legal practices. The value of Hone’s contribution—and it should be a lesson to the Government—was that he showed that this was an opportunity to look properly at the framework for legal aid and to look properly at eligibility issues. 
The other area I mention tonight that really has not been addressed—and I am sure that the whole Committee knows and agrees—is the issue of rorting in the system. Let us think about that. That issue has not been addressed so the minor good that is being introduced in this bill will possibly be lost when indeed thousands of dollars are run out of the system because of rorting. It is a great shame that the Government did not address that issue. 
I see that the Minister in charge of the bill Mark Burton has returned to the chair. National members would have appreciated his assistance this afternoon in taking some calls to answer various issues that were raised on the transitional matters and on the schedules. Generally it would have been worthwhile to have had his input. It was not there. As a Minister without a legal background it may be that he would have benefited from the contributions made—particularly those made by members of the National team who have recently come from practice. We have a few of those and it is a shame that the issues raised by them were not answered. 
In terms of the title itself the bill should really have been called the “Legal Services (Minor Amendments) Amendment Bill”. As my colleague Chris Finlayson said in terms of addressing some minor issues the bill does reasonably well but on the whole we have missed a great chance to deal with more substantive issues.