Katene Rahui: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20628] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. There is a Chinese proverb that suggests that if we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. In the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill it is very clear that the Government is dramatically changing the policy direction but it is unclear exactly how this will change outcomes for the people who matter most: everyday New Zealanders. 
There is no question that expenditure in the current legal aid system is not sustainable. As other speakers have noted expenditure on legal aid rose from $111 million in 2006-07 to $172 million in 2009-10 which is a massive increase of 55 percent. Ostensibly this bill is designed to prevent such gross expenditure. It is designed to save $138 million over 4 years but of course the fiscal costs are but one aspect in the debate on social justice and how it is experienced by all groups of New Zealanders. 
This bill limits eligibility for legal aid reintroduces a user charge for civil and family legal aid and enables interest to be charged on legal aid debts. In doing so it amends the Legal Services Act 2011 and other Acts to limit the number of legal aid grants and increase the amount legally aided people must pay. As a general principle the Maori Party cannot support the move made in this bill to apply the guillotine to certain aspects of eligibility without bearing in mind the advice of Dame Margaret Bazley and her observations on how legal aid is used to support the claims and cases of Maori and Pasifika peoples. The Legal Services Agency report into legal aid applications reveals that a significant number of applications for legal aid were received from Maori—a total of 37337—and also from Pasifika peoples at over 8000. When we compare this number with the 40000-odd applications from Pakeha it is evident that Maori and Pasifika families have seen much value in the support offered by legal aid. An overriding major concern for the Maori Party in coming to this bill then is that Maori and Pacific peoples feature strongly amongst those most likely to experience problems that require legal assistance. Arguably if the legal aid system fails Maori then it fails altogether. 
I am acutely aware of the wisdom gained in the report  
Transforming the Legal Aid System 
 by Dame Margaret Bazley. In this report she identified that Maori and Pacific peoples appear to face barriers in accessing legal aid in addition to the barriers faced by other eligible people. She also recommended that the legal aid system needs to focus on the legal needs of Maori and Pacific peoples and the barriers they face in accessing legal aid with a view to enhancing their access over time. 
I return to the proverb I referred to earlier: if we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Is the direction we seek to reduce the numbers of Maori and Pasifika peoples eligible for justice? Or is it about the creation of a fairer and more just legal system that would respond equally well to the needs of Maori and Pasifika New Zealanders as it does to any other group of New Zealanders? If the latter direction is what we seek for ourselves then surely instead of restricting eligibility criteria and limiting eligibility to only that referred to in accordance with new schedule 1A we might be looking more broadly at what is preventing Maori and Pasifika peoples from benefiting from due access to justice. Specific concerns we might then turn our attention to would be the barriers Maori and Pasifika peoples face including a narrower merits test for family cases. We might focus on the reintroduction of the $100 user charge for certain cases and whether this will in practice act as a barrier to all groups being able to access legal aid fairly. 
As a former lawyer I am of course aware that Maori are overrepresented as legal aid users but I am just as aware that far too many of our whanau are limited by affordability issues. So although the suggestion to require parties to contribute to the cost of lawyer for the child services to encourage the early settlement of cases might look good on paper it will not be easily enacted in a way that makes sense for whanau. 
It is somewhat ironic that in a bill supposedly promoting justice—and therefore access to justice—measures are being introduced that could actually be counter-productive. I refer to the introduction of compulsory repayment orders and the proposal to charge interest on all debts which in effect will mean that many of our families will go further into debt. 
The Maori Party recognises that there are some useful parts of the bill which we support. In particular we support the opportunity for certain recipients of grants to be exempt from the requirement to pay a user charge. The exempted recipients are certain claimants to the Waitangi Tribunal parties to proceedings under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 applicants for protection orders or orders relating to property of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 patients or proposed patients in proceedings under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 care recipients in proceedings under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 victims in respect of inquests or hearings before the Parole Board and applicants for recognition as a refugee or a protected person. 
We support this list of exemptions of what might be more commonly referred to as cases involving vulnerable parties. The nature of cases referred to—including mental health matters the care and protection of children and domestic violence—are legal aid areas that Maori tend to be overrepresented in so we welcome the opportunity for their needs to be considered. However as a general focus our commitment as the Maori Party is to support the human rights of all people by ensuring their access to justice. We cannot be confident that this bill achieves that. 
We promote restorative justice systems where victims are empowered and where community involvement in the justice process is enhanced. We do not consider that the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill enables these goals to be realised. As such at this first reading we will be voting against the bill.