Nash Stuart: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Nash Stuart: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17013] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 of the Legal Services Bill. I want to talk about clauses 6 7 and 8 and I will go on to talk about schedule 1 if I may because I think some of these things need to be clarified for the benefit of a lot of people. Before I start on that I will say that Simon Bridges commented that about 40 percent of the bills going through the Committee are from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I find it quite surprising that the Minister of Justice has decided to resign. I wonder whether the reason is that he feels he is the only one in Cabinet who is doing any work. He is sick of it and he realises that there are better options out there. The Minister of Justice is sick of carrying the National Government. He seems to be the only one with a plan; no one else on the Government side of the Chamber has a plan. 
I will come back to the bill. Part 2 deals with when legal aid may be granted. I am not a lawyer but I am aware that there are two types of cases: criminal matters and civil matters. Clause 6 deals with criminal matters. A lot of the arguments we read in the press or hear in the pub or Cosmopolitan Club are from New Zealanders who are saying “Goodness me! That guy has just been done and he is appealing under legal aid. That is just not right.” But if we look at Subpart 1 and we understand the rule of justice we see it is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that everyone has the right to a fair trial. The point I want to make is that clause 6 sets out the proceedings for which legal aid may be granted in criminal matters. It actually lists them: “criminal proceedings in a District Court a Youth Court the High Court the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court:”. What you have here is that—not you Mr Chair; I know you will never need legal aid—any New Zealander who faces a criminal matter in any court has the right to have legal representation. That point underpins our whole democracy no matter how unfair that may be. 
Clause 7 talks about the proceedings for which legal aid may be granted in civil matters. People may be surprised to learn that subclause (1)(e) provides that legal aid may be granted if the commissioner considers that the case is one that requires legal representation. The requirement for that representation may be in the Maori Land Court the Maori Appellate Court the Employment Court the Employment Relations Authority or any other administrative tribunal or judicial authority. 
Hon David Parker 
: What about the Privileges Committee? 
STUART NASH 
: Possibly it could be in the Privileges Committee. Mr Parker brings up a good point; I think that legal aid has been used in this area. 
I turn to clause 8 and the points Mr Robertson was making about when aid can be granted. It can be granted in criminal matters when the applicant is a natural person and that assumes that a body corporate or a company cannot apply for legal aid. It applies only to a natural person. Subclause (2) states: “When considering whether the interests of justice require that the applicant be granted legal aid the Commissioner—(a) must have regard to” a number of matters. Subclause (3) states: “When determining whether an applicant has sufficient means to enable him or her to obtain legal assistance the Commissioner must … have regard to the applicant’s income and disposable capital as set out in Schedule 1.” The definition of “capital” in schedule 1 states: “capital in relation to an applicant for legal aid means that person’s total assets after deducting—(a) the amount of any debts secured against those assets; and (b) the amount of the actual debts of the person other than those that are secured.” Clause 2 of schedule 1 also has a definition of “income”. 
This is quite an important argument. Members may recall a very recent case where a rather wealthy gentleman who had been a director of a finance company applied for legal aid. There was a huge hue and cry because people thought that a very wealthy man who had substantial assets was applying for legal aid. The perception is that those who apply for legal aid actually have nothing and cannot afford a lawyer. That man’s legal counsel must have looked at the definitions in the legislation applied the test and assumed that this incredibly wealthy man who still lived in a big house on Remuera Road in Remuera and drove a Porsche did not have sufficient capital and did not have a home.