Finlayson Christopher: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2229] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As my friend Ms Wilkinson said one of the key purposes of the Legal Services Act 2000 is to provide access to justice for people who have insufficient means to pay for legal services. But the effect of this bill means that we are not talking about access to justice but about a little bit of access to justice or about some access to justice. Although the bill deals in a reasonably competent way with what could be called minor matters it completely fails to address the real issues confronting the legal aid system in this country. 
I do not intend during this address to repeat what the previous National speakers have said but will simply endorse what they have said. Access to justice is impeded when the legal aid rates—particularly the criminal legal aid rates—are so paltry. I compare this mealy-mouthed approach to lawmaking exemplified by the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) with what has been going on in England over the same period. It really is quite illustrating that the Labour Party’s brothers and sisters in New Labour in England have been prepared to bite the bullet. 
There have been three reports in the last year that show the way for legal aid reform in this country. The first is dated 5 July 2005 in which the Department for Constitutional Affairs set down a long-term strategy for legal aid whereby lawyers for example have to bid for legal aid cases and there is a very high-cost case review board. Those sorts of things will make legal aid more affordable. Then on 9 February 2006 a very important report called the  
Procurement of Criminal Defence Services: Market-based reform 
 was published under the authorship of Lord Carter. I endorse that report which I have read and commend it to the Labour Party because market-based reforms are not all right-wing madness. It has been endorsed by New Labour in England and will be implemented over a couple of years in the period leading up to 2009. 
The Labour Party in England is prepared to sign up to fixed pricing for all criminal legal aid work to a managed market to awarding contracts to efficient and good-quality providers and to managed price competition. These are not alien terms in England; these are the sorts of things this bill should be dealing with. Then most recently on 20 March 2006 a consultation paper on proposals for a national preferred supplier scheme was launched. The Legal Services Commission the equivalent in England of the Legal Services Agency will provide services only to preferred suppliers who have to be of a certain standard. There will be simplified billing and claiming processes for preferred suppliers in order to reduce transaction costs on both sides significantly reduced inspection and auditing preferred supplier membership based on higher upfront entry criteria a new relationship—and this is an important one—based on forging a genuine partnership with providers of legal aid services and the lead responsibility for managing this partnership given to one of the Legal Services Commission’s relationship managers. Finally the paper specifies that e-business will be used for all transactions between the agency and preferred suppliers so that the work is done more efficiently and quickly. 
We know full well that throughout the Government leviathan in New Zealand e-business is in many respects a pipe dream because it is barely in place. The Ministry of Justice needs to get its act together in relation to e-business within the areas for which it has responsibility. 
So the key point to make is that the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) deals with some minor issues reasonably well but does not address the big issues. No one on this side of the Chamber debates that legal aid is incredibly important. No one debates that the cost of legal aid has to be very carefully managed otherwise there will be a blowout. But there are some important access to justice issues that this bill should have addressed and has simply failed to address.