Goff Phil: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9387. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): You know I was curious at the level of interjection from the National benches before. They were all baying while my colleague Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First was on his feet. You would think that if the National Government wanted to say something on this bill the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill which is so embarrassing to it so replete with U-turns and back-downs that it would have taken a full 10-minute call. But not one—not one—National member of Parliament fronted up to this House to take a full call to explain themselves to New Zealand and explain why they could have got it so wrong in bringing in the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. Maurice Williamson who is a liberal in the National Party must have been intensely embarrassed that his then Minister of Justice Simon Power brought a piece of legislation into this House—supported and endorsed by every member of the National Cabinet and every member of the National caucus—a piece of legislation so utterly wrong so utterly prejudiced and so utterly extreme and mean-spirited that the Justice and Electoral Committee had to come back with its tail between its legs and bring back a bill that is scarcely recognisable.But I have got to say this: I congratulate the select committee. Select committees should have the guts to look at the legislation introduced by Ministers who have not done their homework and throw it out on its ear if it is totally inappropriate and this legislation was totally inappropriate. You know what we have got here in this report back is a 12-page apology by the select committee including members of the National Party and its allies saying “We got it wrong.” and even then it has not taken it far enough.You know what I really object to in this legislation is that it undermines a core principle that goes to the heart of the justice system and that core principle is this: justice is available for all not simply according to your ability to pay for it. What this legislation would have done in order to save money was deny people who could not afford justice the ability to access legal representation in court and that means injustices almost certainly happen. It means that people who could not afford to be represented would have represented themselves and you know the old saying in law is that the person who makes himself a representative in court has a fool for a representative. But it is not only the injustice that that would have done; it would also have taken longer in court. It would have taken more of the court’s time and therefore it would have been more expensive.You know the problem with National members is that they regard justice as a commodity that can be bought and sold rather than as a right—the right of every New Zealander regardless of their financial means to be fairly represented in court to have the right to defend themselves to have the right to protect themselves against civil action and to have the right to ensure that their side of the argument is heard in any criminal matter. That is a fundamental principle. It is not something that should be traded off. Yet this legislation contained at its heart a willingness by a National Government—and to his eternal shame Simon Power—to say that people will be denied justice because they cannot afford to pay for it. Legal aid is not freely provided in this country. You have got to be on a pretty low income before you are even eligible for it. I think the income threshold for people who are single is $22000. You know that is barely the minimum wage. Yet the people who most need that support would have been denied it under this bill and this bill is just an accumulation of U-turns and apologies for what the National Government got so wrong.You know the title of the bill gave it away. It was the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill and one of the recommendations of the select committee is to remove the word “(Sustainability)” because “sustainable” actually meant cost-cutting but it was cost-cutting on the basis of denying legal aid to those on low incomes without the means to have proper representation. You know what I really object to is that this was a Government that when it introduced this legislation had just finished giving the biggest tax cuts in history to the people on the highest incomes in our country. So it is not—Jacqui Dean: Oh not true.Hon PHIL GOFF: It is not rubbish at all—not rubbish at all. They were people like the Prime Minister. He gave himself literally more than a six-figure tax cut while the Government was cutting the eligibility of people who could barely rub two coins together in order to be properly represented within the legal system. Where is the justice in that? It is not socially just it is not morally right and in the end even for this miserable National Government it was unsustainable and it has had to back down. It has had to come into the House with its tail between its legs and say: “This cannot be sustained.”I am really concerned about a number of things that were in this bill. For example it said that an applicant could be refused legal aid if the applicant was in arrears for repayment. I am not justifying people not paying the debts they owe but I am saying that there are many many reasons why a person might not be able to afford to repay the legal aid debt that they have incurred. It may be misfortune. It may be that they are on a low income. It may be that they think putting shoes on their kids’ feet and food in their mouths is a little bit more important than repaying the bill that they owe to the legal aid authority. But what this bill would have done was say: “OK you’ve got arrears. Therefore you get no assistance.” So a person who for whatever reason has arrears would have been denied the fundamental foundation of justice which is legal representation in court. I ask any one of the members on the National Party benches to justify how that was right. Finally—finally—with pressure from the Opposition parties National has come back and it has put in an interests of justice test. Well I want to ask Jacqui Dean why that was not there in the first place. Why was that not there in the first place? It is absolutely fundamental. Then it has made a half-hearted change. It was going to have a user-pays charge of $100 and in its real sense of generosity it has now cut that to $50. If $100 was wrong why is $50 right when we know that even a small fee can be sufficient to discourage people from seeking legal representation and incurring other costs in court?But there are other things that were particularly bad and I think that clause 20 was something that I cannot understand—I cannot understand why members of the National caucus approved this when Simon Power brought it to them. Not one of them—not one of them—has got to their feet and tried to justify this. When you were determining whether a person could be granted legal aid you would set a threshold that would take into account the clothes that they wore the furniture the second-hand furniture that they would have and the appliances—the washing machine and the fridge—and it would take into account the tools of trade the very tools of trade that they required to earn a living. These things were all to be used against somebody on the basis of their ability to get legal aid. How mean how miserable how unsustainable is that?Well actually it is not the worst thing. The worst thing they were going to do is that they were going to take into account the technology that disabled people were using to give them the ability fundamentally to function in life. So if you had an electric wheelchair that would be taken into account as an asset and as an excuse and a reason to deny people legal aid. Maurice Williamson why did you support a piece of legislation that came into the House that contained provisions like that? They bow their heads in shame and so they should because this was an appalling piece of legislation partially repaired by what the select committee was able to do and congratulations to the Opposition members who sat on that committee and fought the Government and embarrassed the National members into joining with them and saying that these changes are fundamentally necessary.But the point remains that this was a piece of legislation that was ill-thought-out ill-conceived and mean-minded. It should never have seen the light of day let alone be introduced as a piece of legislation before this House. It has been partly repaired but the underlying sentiments are still there and this Labour Party will oppose this legislation. I now invite the next National member to get to his or her feet and try to justify—