Robertson Grant: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17012] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will follow on from my colleague Kris Faafoi. It is quite clear that Part 2 goes into significant detail on the procedure for the granting of legal aid and on the cases to which it can be granted. Most of what is in Part 2 is of a relatively technical and non-controversial nature but I will refer to several points. In some sense I think that a number of people perhaps do not understand that the legal aid system concerns both the potential withdrawal of legal aid and the repayment of legal aid. As my colleague David Parker said before legal aid is generally although not always effectively granted as a loan. The repayment of that loan and the procedures about how that might happen are outlined in Part 2 of this bill. 
In particular there is the ability for the commissioner to withdraw legal aid from an aided person and I think it is important that people are aware that that capacity exists. I am looking at Part 2 clause 29(a) which states that the commissioner may withdraw legal aid if “(i) the Commissioner is satisfied that the aided person has sufficient means to enable the person to obtain legal assistance and representation;”. That goes to the concerns that my colleague David Parker raised earlier about whether everybody was getting legal aid and whether it was appropriate. As I said when I made my contribution I slightly differ from my colleague because I think the default position we should be in is one where everybody has equitable access to justice. As Kris Faafoi just said there are people who are struggling to make ends meet and who are having difficulty with the rising costs of living increases in GST and all those sorts of things. They need to know that there is a basis for them to have access to justice. 
But there has to be a limit to that. I think we all respect that with the sums of money that have been discussed already—like the $400 million hole in the funding of legal aid—we obviously recognise that there are some limits to it. Clause 29 actually goes into that issue and specifically notes that the commissioner can withdraw legal aid if it is believed that the person receiving it has sufficient means to pay for assistance and representation. The commissioner can also withdraw legal aid if it is considered that “(ii) … the interests of justice no longer require that legal aid be given to the person;”. That is a weighty task and it is important that it is undertaken sympathetically. One person’s belief about whether justice is still required can be quite different from another’s. So those are important elements within the bill. 
Sometimes people believe that legal aid is a bottomless pit to which people can simply go on and on as Kris Faafoi said taking and sucking money from the taxpayer pool. In reality in Part 2 of this bill we have a mechanism by which legal aid can be managed and controlled. I believe in fact that that provides integrity to the system. It balances my earlier contribution when I said I believed that people of insufficient means need to know they have access to justice. The balance in this clause is that if in any way those people are perhaps not legitimate in that desire or requirement then there is a mechanism to deal with that. Clause 30 does the same thing in terms of civil matters. 
I turn now to the question of community law centres. We on this side of the Chamber are particularly pleased to note that the bill starts to give some certainty about the survival and funding of community law centres. I acknowledge here Minister Power’s contribution earlier about setting the bill in the context of a wider package. There is the notion that community law centres an expanded Public Defence Service and the way in which we are making changes to legal aid in Part 2 will all play a part in that wider package. I think it is important that we understand that that is the breadth of the package. We on this side of the Chamber are great supporters of the Public Defence Service which was brought in under the previous Labour Government and we are pleased to hear that it will be expanded. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why not in Palmerston North? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: My colleague Jacinda Ardern asks why it will not be brought in in Palmerston North. There are a number of places that it could be expanded to. 
Hon Simon Power 
: All in good time. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: So that is where the Minister is going! It is important that we find this whole package coming together. 
On the subject of community law centres I think every MP particularly an electorate MP knows of the value of community law centres. Those of us who get a lot of cases involving issues like immigration in particular but also more bread and butter issues about people’s tenancy rights and family and custody disputes know the value of community law centres. We know that as MPs we can refer people to a community law centre and they can get the response they need which is so crucial.