Parker David: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17001] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I understand we are on Part 1 of the Legal Services Bill which of course includes the preliminary provisions. The preliminary provisions include the interpretation clause which includes the definitions of the various proceedings to which the bill applies. 
The purpose of the bill as explained to the Justice and Electoral Committee is to rationalise the provision of legal aid particularly in respect of criminal legal aid where some problematic patterns of behaviour have developed according to the report by Dame Margaret Bazley. It was also clear from submissions to the select committee that some of the problems that were perceived in respect of criminal legal aid did not apply to family services. So one of the issues that I would not mind the Minister of Justice providing clarification on is whether the definitions of “criminal proceedings” and “civil proceedings” in clause 4 make it absolutely clear that some of the more rigorous provisions that will apply to criminal proceedings will not apply to family proceedings. 
I understood from officials that in response to submissions from family lawyers they recognise that there does need to be a choice on the part of family proceedings litigants as to their counsel whereas in respect of the criminal arena barristers and solicitors will be appointed under the legal aid rosters. I understand from the advice that was given to the select committee that the reasoning behind that is that in respect of criminal proceedings there has been a capture if you like of large parts of the market by a small number of barristers—who may not even be the best barristers—and that that has been at considerable cost to the Crown. There have been accusations that some of those lawyers have at times been conducting their proceedings in a way that has been expensive for the Crown and has resulted in some unexpectedly high incomes for some of those solicitors. None the less the same is not true in respect of family law where there is acceptance that a rostered basis or people having a legal aid lawyer allocated to them rather than their choosing their own lawyer is not appropriate. 
I say to the Minister that I suppose one of the reasons why I am interested in this issue is that it seems to me that there is something in that. In respect of family proceedings one can have a protracted custody dispute and it would be wise to have the same lawyer appearing in all parts of that protracted dispute which may go on for a couple of years. That is particularly so where children are affected. There is counsel for the child and often counsel for the child is also paid for by the Crown. I would be interested to know whether appointment of counsel for the child in respect of family proceedings will persist or whether that will be rostered as well. It is not clear to me from the interpretation clause clause 4 whether that is correct. I look forward to the Minister telling me the answer to that query. 
Another query I have is that I am not sure what is happening in respect of “proposed patient” within the meaning given to that term in section 2 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act where it is proposed that people are made subject to compulsory treatment or compulsory assessment. They can actually lose their liberty for a period because of that. If that sort of thing occurs then as I understand it sometimes the Crown pays for a lawyer to represent the interests of the person who is subject to a mental incapacity. I am interested to know how that lawyer is chosen. Is that lawyer chosen on a roster basis like the one we have for criminal matters or is there some other way in which that person chooses a lawyer? Does their family choose a lawyer does the judge choose a lawyer is the doctor involved in choosing a lawyer or is it a case of just going down a list? If the last lawyer chosen was “Parker” do they go to “Power” the next in alphabetical order if the mentally incapacitated person is unlucky enough— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Oh! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —to reach the “Pa’s” not the “Po’s”! Perhaps that is an issue the Minister in the chair could address. I am sure he knows the answers to those technical questions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Simon—