Dalziel Lianne: Legal Services Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Legal Services Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8496] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill and I will make just three points. 
The first is a point I made during the Committee stage which is that I hope the Government will take an early opportunity to look at the question of representation in coroners’ hearings. Such a hearing is not like a court in the normal run of events and not everyone is eligible to hire a lawyer to appear for them in a coroner’s hearing. As one of the lawyers who has appeared in that situation quite frequently said to me once it is a court of understanding. That is its objective: to get to a point of understanding of what went wrong and to gain learnings from it so that the risks are reduced in terms of those events occurring again. I was very much involved in the loss of life that occurred at Christchurch Hospital in 1996 and I attended coroners’ hearings and observed that everyone—doctors nurses hospitals—in the room was represented by lawyers except the families. I have felt for a long time that this is a gap in our system and I say to the Government that we would certainly be very happy to work with it on extending the eligibility for representation in coroners’ hearings as part of the legal aid review; I think it would fit very well with it. 
That moves me on to the second point which is that victims are not just those who are victims of serious crime. I have just come to the House from the Commerce Committee’s hearings into finance company failures. There are people out there who have lost a lot of money. They have not been the victims of crime; they have not been mugged in the street. But they certainly have been mugged in terms of the amount of money they have lost through the investments they made. So it is all a matter of degree and perspective. A lot of people would in fact like to see their access to justice facilitated by greater access to financial support to take on these cases—in some cases those people are directors trustees or auditors—and to enable a more class action approach so that groupings can get together and drive the legal work that needs to be done in order to hold to account the people who ought to be held to account. 
I acknowledge the Minister of Justice—this is my first chance to do so since question time—for agreeing to meet with the Manukau lawyers. I met with them yesterday and what I got out of that meeting—which I think the Minister will too—is that most of Dame Margaret’s recommendations are really worthy and it is worthwhile getting on with them. I understand his desire to get on with them quickly and I support him in that. But some recommendations are silly and will not work and he needs to meet with the lawyers and understand why. One of the recommendations sounds really really good—mind you I laughed when it was put to me—and that is the recommendation about meeting with the duty solicitor 2 days before the hearing. It is just not possible. The summary of facts is not available from the police until the day so there are issues around processes. We think that some focus on the processes particularly in the Manukau District Court might actually solve a lot of the problems that are happening there. I respectfully disagree with the Minister about the need to right the wrong of the assumptions that have been created about 80 percent of the people who work there. But I will leave the Minister to hear what they have to say and if he is able to address that issue I think it will help everyone move on and back the changes that have to be made. 
The final point I make is to back Jacinda Ardern’s comments. I believe there are groups out there who are using the victims of serious violent crime to prevent a broader debate about the drivers of crime. I make it absolutely clear that identifying drivers of crime is not a process of making excuses for criminal behaviour. It is not about excuses; it is about opportunities to intervene so that we can reduce crime. I think the Government is absolutely on the right track with this and we want to back it on that as well. After all that backing of the Government I think I will call my speech to a close. 
Bill read a third time.