Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2374] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. Before briefly discussing the bill I will refer to a small matter that came up during the Committee of the whole House. A possible technical issue was raised. Chris Finlayson identified some references in the bill to the Law Practitioners Act 1982 that did not take account of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 which received the Royal assent as he correctly pointed out on 20 March. However that Act does not commence until a date is set by Order in Council. I anticipate that to be at least 18 months from now. The references in the Legal Services Act 2000 to the Law Practitioners Act 1982 will be amended at a later date to coincide with the commencement of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. I thought it was worth clearing that up for the member. 
This bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that an inability to afford a lawyer is not a barrier to accessing justice. The bill introduces changes that will update the financial eligibility criteria for legal aid which have not been reviewed since 1987. These reforms are important because access to justice is fundamental to the rule of law and therefore to the integrity of our justice system. Under regulations to be made once the bill is passed the pool of people eligible for legal aid will increase from around 765000 to some 1.2 million people. At the same time the bill introduces a mechanism whereby financial eligibility thresholds will be regularly updated to ensure that they keep pace with increases in the cost of living. 
The bill makes it easier for people to know whether they are financially eligible for legal aid by simplifying the income and capital criteria. A number of improvements have also been made to the merits test for both criminal and civil legal aid. The changes to the merits test provide greater guidance to both applicants for legal aid and decision makers as to whether a particular matter does qualify for aid. 
These are significant improvements that will enhance the transparency and I believe the consistency of legal aid decision-making. The provision of State-funded legal aid involves a careful balance between ensuring access to justice and the cost-effective operation of the scheme. It is for this reason that for a number of years the legal aid scheme has required the repayment of the costs of legal aid by those who are able to do so. Under these reforms a greater proportion of aided persons will repay some or all of the costs of legal aid. 
The bill introduces a more transparent repayment regime whereby aided persons are better able to assess the potential costs to them personally of legal aid and I think that that transparency is a significant and important improvement in the scheme. This will ensure that appropriate financial incentives operate with regard to the use of legal aid. Recovering legal aid costs also expands the pool of money available of course for other legal aid applicants. The bill contains a range of measures designed to improve the Legal Services Agency’s ability to recover legal aid debt. The agency is now able to require a person to commence or recommence payment of a legal aid debt for example if the agency considers that a person’s financial position has improved to a level that allows repayment and it uses incentives to encourage the repayment of debts such as the ability to charge interest on debt if a person defaults. 
Entitlement to legal aid is an important benefit which significantly more New Zealanders will be entitled to access under these reforms. It is therefore important that the agency receives good-quality information on which to determine a person’s eligibility for legal aid. A number of improvements have been made in this regard. For example an aided person or his or her lawyer must advise the agency of any increase in financial circumstances that could affect the aided person’s eligibility for legal aid. This obligation has been further clarified by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill now makes it clear that the obligation to inform the agency is not prevented by legal professional privilege. 
Overall the bill introduces greater transparency in the form of simplified financial thresholds and clarified merits criteria. The cost-effective administration of this expanded legal aid scheme is supported by a new repayments regime and improved agency debt management tools. The regular updating of the new financial eligibility thresholds will safeguard access to justice both now and into the future. Accordingly I commend the bill to the House.