Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2399] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 We have already heard this afternoon that the Legal Services Amendment Bill has multipartisan support across the House. I rise to support the bill because it fulfils one of our Government’s promises which was to address some of the issues around victims of crime. This bill addresses some issues as do other measures we have taken. Tax cuts came into force yesterday and the ReStart package has been introduced. 
The Government is a supporter of social justice in this country. It is a supporter of victims’ rights and of a victim’s right to justice. One of the primary roles of a Government is to protect its people. Sadly crimes hurt people and lead to suffering but bills such as this address some of that suffering and allow victims’ needs and rights to be addressed. 
The bill has three key provisions The first provision which many speakers have already alluded to is the removal of the eligibility test required of victims who apply for legal aid to attend coronial inquests or Parole Board hearings. Secondly the bill gives the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waive its right to recover legal aid debts where an individual’s circumstances would mean that enforcing the debt would lead to inequitable consequences or serious hardship. Thirdly the bill provides flexibility by creating a regulation-making power that allows for other classes of people and proceedings to be exempt from eligibility restrictions and repayment obligations. Therefore the bill is flexible fair and equitable and it protects the rights of victims. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: A very worthy bill. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: It is a very worthy bill. 
The purpose of exempting victims from eligibility tests and repayment requirements in some circumstances is to reduce stress for people. It is stressful enough for a person to lose a family member or a friend. It is stressful enough to have to sit through a court case and listen to gruesome facts about how the family member or friend suffered at the hands of criminals. It is stressful enough to go through that and then go through a coronial hearing and it is even more stressful to then be targeted with a large and substantial legal bill for attending those hearings. So those exemptions are really just and fair in such circumstances in terms of victims’ rights. 
The previous speaker Lynne Pillay—the previous honourable member for Waitakere—alluded to the fact that there have been other measures over the years to protect victims including the Sentencing Act 2002 and a number of other measures that both Labour Governments and National Governments have enacted. An earlier speaker from the Maori Party said the bill is in keeping with some restorative justice principles and aims which our justice system is taking on board over time. 
So much focus has been put on the offender but it is interesting to look at the definition of “victim” in the bill. The definition is quite wide. A victim has been defined as “a person against whom an offence is committed by another person;” but it is expressed more widely as “a person who through or by means of an offence committed by another person suffers physical injury or loss of or damage to property;”. It is equitable to include that wide definition. It is not just emotional stress that is created by such crimes. There is also physical stress loss of property loss of dignity and in many ways a real spiritual hurt comes with the commission of crimes in this country. 
Many in the House have already alluded to the Kuchenbecker case. In that case the mother of the children whose father sadly was murdered by Graeme Burton was asked to repay money to the Legal Services Agency for legal representation provided to her sons. It sad indeed that after she had gone through a coronial hearing and had seen in the media the nasty and grossly repugnant behaviour of this gentlemen—who as Mr Garrett has said has allegedly committed another crime today—she was then given a bill for legal services. In the eyes of many people that was totally unjust. 
 Sometimes it hits close to home when people are affected by crime. Last week in my electorate I came across the wife of a murder victim at a Neighbourhood Support group meeting. She was the victim of a nasty crime and she was also subject to media scrutiny in relation to a high-profile murder case in my electorate. Thankfully for her she had the support of relatives. She had chosen to forgive the reprehensible character who carried out the nasty crime. The sentencing will occur next week. She said to me that she was supported but that she would have been happy to have the support of Legal Services Agency in dealing with the coronial hearing. She has decided to move on but there are many many people out there who go through this process alone without the funds to carry on and in a state of high grief and suffering. 
This bill really is about natural justice. It gives people the ability to participate meaningfully in the processes around parole and coronial hearings. They are able to engage legal counsel without the worry of negative economic consequences whereas previously they often had to face offenders without experienced support people around them. It is unreasonable for victims to be further burdened by costs. This measure obviously has multiparty support. I certainly support it and I think that most New Zealanders would applaud this Government and this Parliament for enacting it.