Sepuloni Carmel: Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17775] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I congratulate you on your new role. I did so last night when you were in the Chairperson’s Chair but I was told by the Minister Simon Power that I was premature in doing so because apparently you had not been accepted in that role. I am assuming that you now have been; I hope you have been. You are looking very comfortable. It suits you well Mr Assistant Speaker. 
I am standing to discuss Labour’s views on the Legal Services Bill. I say from the start that Labour members support this bill but we do so reluctantly. I think my colleague Charles Chauvel articulated Labour’s views really well in his speech prior to Chester Borrows’ speech. I will go over it again with regard to Labour’s thoughts on the Legal Services Bill. 
We understand that the bill overhauls the legal services system. It is the legislative result of Margaret Bazley’s review of legal aid completed last year which found some failings in the delivery of publicly funded legal services. The bill will replace the Legal Services Act 2000. 
Labour believes reforms are necessary with an emphasis on the public defender system and community law centres and a focus on quality assurance. However we have concerns about this bill and the Government’s overall direction with regard to its justice policy which seems to be inhibiting access to justice. I will talk more about that shortly. 
Just to provide a bit of background the purpose of this bill has been from the outset “to promote access to justice by establishing a system that—(a) provides legal services to people of insufficient means; and (b) delivers those services in the most effective and efficient manner.” 
What are we concerned about? I will start with the “three strikes” bill. We are concerned that the “three strikes” legislation will place further pressure on publicly funded legal services and will negate some of the good work that has been done in the sector. The number of defendants charged with serious crimes relying on legal aid will increase given that they will be more likely to plead not guilty in order to avoid being locked up for a long time. Those are some of the reservations and concerns we expressed when the “three strikes” bill was going through the House. 
Our reservations must be more widely shared than National wishes to admit because that legislation should really have gone through the Justice and Electoral Committee. It should have been headed by the Minister of Justice Simon Power. We are pretty sure that he shared our reservations with that bill. Hence rather than going through the Justice and Electoral Committee as it should have the Law and Order Committee looked after it. I remember because I was on the select committee at the time. Our concern was that really the police should not have responsibility for a sentencing bill. However the Minister of Justice washed his hands of it the Law and Order Committee was stuck with the bill and that is where it went. We disagreed with it. There are fundamental reasons why we were concerned and we discussed them at that time. Now our concerns about that bill have again arisen with regard to this legislation. 
The concern was really that the number of defendants charged with serious crimes relying on legal aid will increase given that they will be more likely to plead not guilty in order to avoid being locked up for a long time. That will inevitably prolong the length of trials and place extra cost pressure on the justice system. That really was our concern in relation to the “three strikes” legislation. 
Dame Margaret Bazley’s report uncovered some serious problems with the way New Zealand’s legal aid system operates. As a result this bill is necessary to restore taxpayer confidence in legal aid which is we would all agree an indispensable part of our justice system. But the bill unfortunately will not achieve that restoration of confidence as there is no statutory consultative requirement in the bill with community law centres and the rest of the legal community. 
We are pleased I have to say that the Public Defence Service will be expanded. It is a system launched by former Minister of Justice Phil Goff in 2004. The Public Defence Service is a good way to meet the cost of rising fees charged by barristers and solicitors in private practice. It creates a system of salaried public defenders and will standardise a high quality of defence. It really is a good alternative to legal aid. 
We are pleased the Government is placing greater emphasis on community law centres. There was a time—I think it was the beginning of last year—when we were concerned that their future might be at risk under this National Government so we are pleased the Government is placing a greater emphasis on community law centres and that the Secretary for Justice will have the flexibility to utilise different means of delivering legal services. But we are disappointed that the obligations are not legislated for in this bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Put a bit of passion in it. Passion! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Tau Henare says there is no passion in this speech but I tell him that we do not all need to jump up and down and yell to demonstrate the fact we take something seriously unlike some people. 
Recently last month Simon Power announced there would be a $402 million funding gap for legal aid in the next 5 years and that further reforms were required. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Stop reading it. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: It is very worrying I say to Mr Henare. We hope there will not be additional funding cuts as the legal aid system is vital in order for large sections of the public to have access to justice. 
Lianne Dalziel one of our Labour colleagues has previously expressed concern that many allegations in Dame Margaret’s report were unsubstantiated. She called on Simon Power to meet with members of the Manukau Bar who claim that their reputations have been unfairly hurt by the report. The New Zealand Law Society expressed its concern that the report was based on anecdotal evidence. It said the majority of legal aid lawyers were not corrupt or incompetent yet there was a risk they would be tainted by the allegations made against the minority of practitioners. I think this is a very valid and fair point made by the New Zealand Law Society. The Manukau Bar expressed similar concerns but the Government has not addressed them. We feel there was a valid concern expressed by the New Zealand Law Society backed up by similar concerns from the Manukau Bar and we think the Government should address it and take it seriously. 
We have some concerns about legal aid and employment disputes. The current system disadvantages union members. They pay $300 to $500 per year for their membership which includes an insurance fee to cover the cost of representation for personal grievance claims. However non - union members have to contribute only $50 placing them at an advantage. Members on this side of the House would really hate to see our union members disadvantaged in any way with regard to this matter. 
Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I recognise that I have 2 minutes left; it is great to have you signal that to me. 
I say again that Labour supports this bill but we do so reluctantly. I have outlined the reasons why. In summary they are things like the “three strikes” bill—and the repercussions of that poorly thought-out legislation—and some of the allegations made in the Bazley report which the New Zealand Law Society and the Manukau Bar expressed serious concerns about. There are other concerns and I am sure that my colleagues who speak after me will speak to those concerns. But as I said Labour will be supporting this bill. Thank you very much.