Chadwick Steve: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20635] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a slightly longer call than Paul Quinn on the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill because I think that member summed it up really when he said that the select committee will consider this bill at great depth. I am proud to be part of a party that opposes this bill. I think this bill is simply dreadful. I say too that I am sure that in Cabinet there have been vociferous debates about the great reformer of the legal and justice sector Simon Power who until this bill and another one that is now languishing well down on the Order Paper tended to get most of the reform agenda in law probably pretty well on the button. But we on this side of the House are really opposed to this bill. The reason why is that it inhibits access to justice and then creates an incredible potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. 
I know that the Attorney-General who is very focused on proper access to law and due process is probably very disheartened by this bill slipping in before the election. He knows with his great criminal law mind that lawyers around the country are saying of the great crusader for and reformist of legal justice that he has gone too far—that he has gone too far with this bill. It will impose substantial miscarriages of justice and I am really worried about that. Justice must not be denied to those who are going through the court process. I think even calling this bill the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill is absolutely a crock. This bill is about capping access to justice and capping access to legal aid because of the cost implications for this Government. It is not about sustainable funding. If it was about sustainable funding it would have put a focus on the front end. Those who go before the courts need advice on debt management and how to actually manage their finances rather than to have their access to justice capped. 
One of the aspects of this bill that I feel most incensed about is the means test which will be modified in the case of offences that are not punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of 3 years. The Minister has indicated that this threshold will apply to those people who earn $22000 a year. Wow! Are people who earn $22000 a year really going to be the bar so that people earning above that level can no longer have access to legal aid? That will rule out many people in the communities in which I live and work who find that through access to legal aid they are encouraged to pursue their right to a robust justice appraisal of their case. It is ridiculous to say this means test will encourage legal aid applicants to consider whether they wish to proceed with litigation. For goodness’ sake! People who earn $22000 a year want to prove that they are not guilty. They cannot afford to engage a lawyer so they go first to the community law centre. They go there first and say: “What do I do? I have got a charge. I can’t defend myself. I don’t have the means to speak for myself and defend myself though many do. I must have legal aid to help me.” To put that bar at $22000 a year for a single adult is offensive and to put it at $51000 a year for an adult with two dependants is absolutely outrageous. 
The bill talks about affordability and I understand what National is really saying: that people should do more for less and that legal aid is a “nice-to-have” not a “right-to-have”. Justice needs to be seen to be done and to say that there could be a user-pays element in terms of justice provision is offensive. This is as offensive as user-pays was in the decade when National brought it in for the health system. Now it has a user-pays philosophy for access to justice and on this side of the House we find that to be absolutely offensive. 
I also say that the cut to legal costs by significantly expanding the Public Defence Service at the cost of independent lawyers is a concern. It has pressed a button right around the country. When we go around meeting lawyers they say that this service is offensive to trained professional lawyers who are not rorting the system. They can see that a public defender service is a way of saving money. Already we have the example that when such a service was reviewed in Wales and England the review showed that it actually cost the taxpayer more. So when is the National Government going to look at what are effective justice measures? What are cost-effective justice measures? They are about paying for experienced lawyers who know how to work the system for their client so that justice can be seen to be done. They are usually the most experienced lawyers in the country not junior lawyers who are learning through taking legal aid cases. 
I find this bill absolutely offensive. Family court lawyers are going to find it is offensive. The Government’s introduction of this bill 12 weeks before an election in the hope that it can just slip it in on the Order Paper and get it off to a select committee so that its members can go out there and say “We members of the National Government are doing great things about reforming the criminal justice process in New Zealand.” is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment of riches for us in the Opposition to now go around the legal fraternity and say “Have a look at this bill. See what they are proposing now.” Lawyers are already offended. They are already offended by the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill which I see is another bill of the great reformer Simon Power that has slipped down to No. 18 on the Order Paper. Why is it at No. 18? Because National cannot get the numbers needed to get that bill through the House. It does not have the support of the Maori Party the Greens or Labour and National knows that. It has lost on that one and it will lose on this one. 
This is another offensive bill. It is not a little bill; it actually has huge implications for access to justice principles in this country which we in Labour hold dear. We will be making sure through our networks of lawyers around the country that they know about the provisions proposed in this bill. As Mr Quinn said yes it will go to the select committee and I think the Government members will be astonished at the reasonable and outraged response they will get on this bill. Thank you.