Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. Gee it's getting a little bit rowdy in here. Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I was part of the Justice Committee that considered this bill and so I—well I didn't stand and take a point of order and claim to be offended by the comments. I'd use slightly different language. But it was difficult I think for us on this side who sat through the select committee process on this bill to hear those criticisms of us that claimed that we were being somewhat fake or disingenuous in our comments today. I can say with all sincerity—and those that are here will know—that we actually spent a huge amount of time on this member's bill. We went backwards and forwards with the officials so many times with the key submitters of the Law Society and some of the others also to try and see if we could find the solution to the problems that had been identified by the member that the bill was trying to address and I know that for a fact because I was in that select committee. We've got so many lawyers on our select committee that we were really going through it all with a fine-tooth comb. Those who have worked for Community Law like the member Vanushi Walters could look at it from that perspective and that experience. So I stand here and say sincerely to the members on the other side that we really did try and find a way but unfortunately as other members have expressed in their contributions today we just were not able to do that. Therefore we will not be supporting the bill. But I just want to talk from my own personal experience on this matter. Like many in the House I have a law degree. I remember graduating from Waikato University. I started my first job at Te Ohu Kaimoana. I was employed as an in-house solicitor for Te Ohu Kaimoana and I remember that as soon as I graduated whānau my marae—they all contacted me with legal issues and wondered if it was something that I could help with not understanding that actually we are prohibited by the law and the Law Society from doing that. Now while that gave me a convenient excuse to be able to say no to all of the requests that I got to provide those and while I really wanted to be able to do that when I listened to the submissions and when I thought about my own situation back then I could understand the concerns that were being expressed by the Law Society and some of their reservations for it. I understand that there is a good reason why we have this in place. So I think back to my own experience. I was employed as an in-house solicitor for Te Ohu Kaimoana I had supervision from my managers and I was working within a very defined area of law and we had all the protection mechanisms in place. I was then being asked to do something which I absolutely understand whānau doing that or communities doing that or organisations requesting that support because they just see you as somebody who is one of their own with a tohu—with a degree—that could do something for them either because it would save them money by asking you to do it for free on a pro bono basis or because you're somebody familiar with them and they trust the advice and support that they might get from you. But the situation that I was in was that I didn't necessarily have the skills and expertise in that area—so I should say no on that basis—or if it wasn't a particularly difficult area I still had nothing there to protect them in case I gave them the wrong advice. That really was one of the big issues that we had in the submissions that we heard from the Law Society. There is a reason why we have a process for lawyers being able to set up in practice on their own account. They have to go through particular training and certification to be able to do that which is why they get indemnity insurance. Some of the problems that were identified with what's being proposed in this member's bill were that in this type of situation where you are not practising on your own account and you haven't followed all of those processes your employer is not responsible for you acting outside of your employment agreement and there is risk to those who are obtaining these free legal services and legal advice. So I think that that's an important consideration. As well-meaning as somebody with a law degree might be to be providing services to the public to the community and to people who may not be able to afford it or they just want to do it to make a contribution to their local cricket club sailing club marae and so on there are risks to those on the other side when they are obtaining what they believe is good legal advice but they don't know what goes on behind that in terms of the legal community the Law Society and so on. So I can understand the problem. At that time I was a young lawyer. I didn't believe I had the skills and experience in that particular area of law to do that. How many times somebody's asked me if I could just look over their sale and purchase agreement for their house—no I don't want to get that wrong—or it's to draft up the marae charter rules or to do somebody's succession or can I do them a will and so on. The list is a large one of what people regularly came forward for and requested. When the other issue that we identified in this was described to me it was well-meaning lawyers who wanted to be able to contribute to their community groups and give back in some kind of way and they would obviously do it within the area that they felt competent to do that. But we've raised the issues with risks and liabilities there. The other issue that came up and was brought to our attention was access to justice issues for those who cannot afford legal services. So this is not just your sailing club who happens to know a lawyer or a marae trustee who's got a nephew or niece that's just graduated from university but people who actually need legal services but can't afford to access those legal services. So on that basis we heard really good submissions from Community Law. We heard about their programme Te Ara Ture. We heard about how much of a challenge access to justice access to lawyers either free or affordable is for people and we felt that this bill was not going to be able to resolve that issue. It may have contributed in some part to that greater issue but the issue is actually greater than just some people being able to provide free legal services pro bono services while in employment—so outside of their employed situation. Community Law has offered up a suggestion on how they might be able to be a clearing house for those sorts of things but this wasn't a piece of policy that we could just make in the select committee process. It requires a much broader review of the problems and identification of all the possible solutions and the costs associated with that and then it comes with a commitment to the resourcing to be able to actually deliver on that. So while this issue of access to justice has been raised I don't really remember that being the first examples that we discussed but it became a live issue during the process and we really did try as the Justice Committee—all members of that committee—to find a way through. But what we found in the end was that what was proposed through submissions was unworkable—it had fish-hooks in it and potential unintended consequences—and that further policy work needed to be done. We have recommended that that policy work does get done and I'm pleased of the Government's record of contributing to our community law centres over the last few years. The point has been made about the other side's level or support or non-support of that. So we do recognise that there is a problem. We are committing additional funding to it. We are taking steps and we have recommended that there be a wider review to address the access to justice issues that have been identified through this process. I thank everybody for the huge amount of time that we've put into it and therefore—just to be clear—we are not supporting the bill to the next stage.