Garrett David: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8348] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will take an even shorter call on this bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I will focus on clause 7 which talks about the ability of the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt in certain circumstances. 
During question time in the House a week or so ago in the previous sitting the honourable Attorney-General acknowledged in answer to a question of mine that every dollar of criminal legal aid was one dollar less that was available for civil legal aid. The example I used in that question just off the top of my head was persons—and I have had clients in this position sadly—who need to try to recover the losses they have suffered from leaky buildings. The sad reality is that the vast majority of criminal legal aid is never recovered. The write-offs that occur now and that will occur to a greater extent under the new section 36A to be inserted in the Legal Services Act by clause 7 will apply to criminals in the most part. 
I question whether we should allow people like Mr Graeme Burton—the “Mr” just slipped out there—to continue to impinge upon the limited legal aid budget for the appeal that he is planning to bring against his recent conviction for attempted murder. I am told by reliable sources that after his recent conviction for attempted murder he said: “Christ knows why it took them so long. I would have decided it in 10 minutes.” Nevertheless he is to appeal that conviction and every hard-working New Zealander will be contributing to his defence. There is not a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of one dollar of that sum ever being recovered. The honourable Attorney-General noted in his answer to my question that without the final bills even being in Graeme Burton’s most recent defence cost $12000 of taxpayers’ money. 
I personally and on behalf of the ACT Party am very pleased that to some extent this bill has been overtaken by events. The whole area of legal aid as the Minister of Justice has just announced is subject to a review as to who provides legal aid and how it is provided and funded. But it is not uncommon for our party to be saying that a review goes nowhere near far enough. I think we need to examine the assumption we have had for 30 or 40 years that criminals should be entitled to endless legal aid. 
I read the other day that many criminal claimants for legal aid—I cannot quote the exact figure but it was a significant proportion—have received criminal legal aid more than 10 times. More than 10 times they have appeared in court on the taxpayer with not a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of taxpayers ever getting back any of that money. Every single dollar of that money is denied to a client like mine whom I will not name and cannot name who is literally on the bones of his backside. He is lucky enough to have had pro bono legal assistance—I have got myself to this point so I had better continue I suppose—because he could not afford it. Initially it came from me but thankfully it came from somebody else after I came to this place. 
I think it is high time we conducted the comprehensive review that the Minister of Justice is undertaking of this whole area. Thank you.