Garrett David: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13522] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party supports the Legal Services Bill. As members of the House will know I always enjoy being able to agree with members on the other side of the House. I commend the previous speaker Lynne Pillay quite genuinely and sincerely for her speech. A great deal of what Lynne Pillay said was excellent stuff. I put on record that the ACT Party too has a commitment to the right of people to be legally represented. I see perhaps a touch of incredulity on your face Mr Assistant Speaker Roy that I am agreeing with Lynne Pillay but it is true. 
The member talked about the valuable work of community law centres. I—and I suspect many other lawyers in the House—have worked at community law centres pro bono. I have never been keen on using my skills to help criminals so one of the things I did was work in a community law centre. Those centres provide a very valuable service for those at the bottom of the heap and frequently people who have a number of different problems other than an inability to pay go there. They often just need someone to listen to them. I remember a man some years back who wanted to sue Bill Birch for $25 million for some perceived slights which of course was totally unrealistic. But he felt he was listened to and treated with dignity. So community law centres play a very valuable role. 
It would be wrong to say that all or even most legal aid lawyers are at the bottom of the barrel—as Simon Bridges said criminal law is a skilled branch of the profession—but it would be equally wrong and naive to say they are all top-notch. If we go to any district court in the country—less so in the provinces I have to say but any metropolitan district court—we see lawyers whose suits need a clean; whose hems are clipped up by staples; who have not seen as Simon Bridges said the inside of a refresher course for a very long time; and who are not up to date with the changes in the law. That is not right primarily for the defendant; it is also not right for the taxpayer. 
Here sadly is where I have to diverge from agreement with Ms Pillay. Unlike the Labour Party I do not agree and ACT does not agree that anyone is entitled to endless legal aid. We live in a society where resources are rationed to some extent. Rationing of resources frequently happens with older people. My mother died a wee while ago. She probably could have been saved with a pacemaker but she was 90. The hospital authorities gently told her that she was not a candidate for that surgery obviously because of her age even if she was strong enough to have survived it. So we reluctantly accept some rationing in the health sector as they say these days. Everything is a “sector” is it not? But why should we not accept that there should be some rationing in legal aid? 
Ms Pillay touched on civil legal aid. As a practising lawyer it used to distress me very greatly to often meet people who had very real and genuine civil claims but unfortunately they were middle class. They were not poor enough to get legal aid—the very small amount of civil legal aid available—and they were not wealthy enough to pursue the case themselves even if we did the work at very discounted fees as we often did. So a whole heap of people go with an unmet need which is the phrase these days. I do not know why we had to invent all these phrases but that is it. Those people had unmet needs because there simply is not the money. 
Of that pool of $160 million or something allocated to legal aid every year the vast majority of it goes to criminal legal aid. I have just addressed the Sensible Sentencing Trust annual victims’ conference. I looked around that hall recognised many faces and knew their stories. Many of those people have been victimised by criminals who have appeared 100 times in court and 100 times the taxpayer has picked up the tab for their defence. Is that sensible? We tell old people like my mother that they could potentially be saved by a pacemaker but they are 90 years old. Although they did not say it to my mother they were essentially saying that that money could be better spent at the neonatal unit. In the ACT Party we say that everyone is entitled to a defence once perhaps twice and perhaps even three times. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Three strikes and you’re out. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Indeed I say to Ms Pillay. I would like the members on the other side of the House to tell me by interjection if they wish and put on the record whether Labour really believes that someone like William Bell should be entitled taxpayer-funded defence 100 times. Mr Robertson does not have to shake his head. I do not need to use his name; I could use many names that member does not know. I ask whether Labour believes that a career criminal should be entitled to endless largesse from the taxpayer. Well the ACT Party does not. To paraphrase Lady Bracknell just about anyone can have the misfortune of being wrongly accused once—by circumstance by bad luck or rarely perhaps by corruption. It may happen twice but it would not happen 54 times. So it is perfectly reasonable to look at whether people should be entitled to endless legal aid. 
This is a good bill. It makes good changes. But I think we need to look at the whole system and perhaps—Ms Pillay said it as a joke—whether “three strikes” should be extended to the legal aid system. People are entitled to a full and complete defence by a qualified and competent lawyer of their choice three times. But if someone is unlucky enough to be wrongly accused four times then perhaps that person should be on their own. Thank you.