Mallard Trevor: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17017] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 First of all I will place on the record of the House—and I am sure there will also be an opportunity to do so later—my admiration for the work of the Minister of Justice across his portfolios and as a member of Parliament. I have said publicly that he is a good honest straightforward person to work with and someone who keeps his word when he gives it. He is sometimes slightly reluctant and will not agree to do things that we would like him to agree to do as far as both the House and his policies are concerned but he is a person of absolute integrity and is someone who will be missed from the House. I think it is important that that is made clear. 
As I have said in the past I have seen people come and go across the House over a number of years. The below-average ones are numerous and this member is one who makes up for a lot of them. I think it is slightly sad that so soon after the Minister’s announcement he is caught in the chair and the person who is responsible for the fact that he is caught in the chair at the moment is sitting not more than 2 metres away from him. I think it is important that there is an understanding of how the processes of the House should work. 
It is good to have someone in the chair who understands that and who I am sure if he was responsible for some other legislation would not have got into the pickle that is resulting in the intensive discussion of a bill that I think it is fair to say we used to agree with. But now that my colleague Charles Chauvel has had a good look at this part in particular he is beginning to have some pretty serious doubts about it. As far as the general principle of the bill goes I think all of us know that there are some things to be done in the legal aid area and the bill is an attempt. I think there are a number of interesting points. 
I am not sure whether the Maori Party has been properly apprised of clause 5 of schedule 1. This clause effectively states that someone’s interests in Maori land have to be taken into account in working out whether that person can afford to pay for lawyers. Well that might be the equality of everyone before the law. But we know that the very way Maori land becomes Maori land under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is that it cannot be disposed of as other land can be. I think there is a fair point in there that the rent from the land the income from that land should properly be considered as an individual’s income. But I think that in considering disposable capital we should not be suggesting that Maori can dispose of Maori land. I ask Tariana Turia whether she supports the fact that Maori should have to dispose of their interests in Maori land. 
Paul Quinn 
: It doesn’t say that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is exactly what the clause states. “The disposable capital of the applicant includes Maori land and any interests in Maori land unless—(a) the application is made in respect of proceedings in the Waitangi Tribunal; or”— 
Paul Quinn 
: Disposable capital does not mean that you have to dispose of it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: But that is the very point because if one cannot dispose of it it should not be included in the definition of disposable capital. Yet the bill does include it in its definition of disposable capital. 
If Paul Quinn cannot read that provision he should get someone to read it to him—he should get someone to read it to him. If he the leading Maori in that party the leading Maori on justice issues in that party and the only Maori to get a justice bill through Parliament cannot understand that this bill requires Maori to sell their land when they cannot sell their land then that is particularly sad. I wonder what Tau Henare thinks about this issue. Has Paul Quinn discussed the issue with his colleague Tau Henare? 
It is clear that Tariana Turia does not care about Maori land being sold down the river under this clause in a way that one would expect from the Attorney-General but not from the Minister of Justice. It is also worth going back to some of the other matters. The member Tariana Turia is looking and laughing. She thinks it is funny that Maori land should be taken. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is inappropriate for that member to lie in the Chamber. I was not smiling or laughing. The comments he made were inappropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. The last 5 minutes have been quite robust and what a member says is not a reflection on that member I am sure. I would like the debate to continue in that vein. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am dealing with the first point. I think the point of order that the honourable member has brought up is not substantiated. Members can make comments. If the member feels that she is aggrieved by what he has said then that is a different matter but I did not take that out of the comments that were said. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member said I was lying in the Chamber. That accusation requires a withdrawal and an apology. That has always required a withdrawal and an apology. I have taken offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. I am dealing with the point the member brought up. I have said it is a clean slate; we are starting again. I heard what the member said. I did not agree with what that member said. We are starting from scratch. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I move that the Speaker be recalled to get a ruling on that matter. The reason is that it is always required when a member is accused of lying in the Chamber that it be withdrawn and apologised for. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Speaker’s ruling 42/5 states that a member cannot say that another member is lying and I appreciate that. Speaker’s ruling 42/5 states: “A particular mode of expression that has been ruled out of order consistently has been the use of the word ‘lie’. Many other expressions can be used to say that a member is stating something that is incorrect—and that is material for debate which goes on in the Chamber every sitting day.” This is the situation: the member complained that the honourable member said that he was lying. If that is the case then I ask the member Tariana Turia to apologise for that comment. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No; I have actually asked whether the member said that that member was lying if so I ask the member to withdraw that comment. That is what I am asking. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I withdraw the comment. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am highly offended by the comments that that member also made that were completely untrue and I want him to apologise to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is another Speaker’s ruling 44/4 which I shall refer to. It states: “It is not the Speaker’s duty to intervene if objection is not taken to the language used by one member towards another unless the Speaker considers it is such language as requires the Chair’s immediate intervention.” This is the situation: the member has withdrawn her comment. She took exception to it— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: But I said she was smiling and laughing. One cannot take exception to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member has taken exception. Let us start from scratch shall we? Under Speaker’s ruling 44/5 I ask the member to withdraw the comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have had the back and forth on that issue. The member was smiling. The member was laughing during my speech. I drew attention to that fact— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: No I wasn’t. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a matter of fact. The member might not have been laughing or smiling at me but she was laughing and smiling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is not a matter of personal reflection whether someone was smiling or laughing or whatever. This is getting out of hand. Let us leave it at that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will repeat the comments that I made. I find it appalling that the Maori Party is supporting legislation whereby the asset of Maori land which is non-disposable is taken into account when making a decision about the assets of Maori who are charged before the court as if that land was disposable. As I said earlier I think it is fair enough that the rent the income Maori get from Maori land should count as far as their income is concerned but to pretend that that land can be disposed of in those circumstances is wrong. I think it is shocking that Tariana Turia is sitting there while this legislation is going through. It has been pointed out to her but she is not on her feet defending the principle of the inalienability of Maori land. We thought that that was the case. Most New Zealanders think it is the case. We think that under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 it should be the case. So why is it that during the debate on this legislation the member is sitting there and letting those assets be taken into account as if they were alienable even though they are not? 
Paul Quinn 
: It does not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is exactly what it does. As I said to that member before he should get someone to read the bill to him. He could get Mr Finlayson to explain it to him. We know he is not the sharpest pencil in the box but if he takes his time and works through it slowly even Simon Bridges I think within an hour or two could get him to understand. Within an hour or two Simon Bridges could explain it to him. 
I will go back to the question of trusts and money held in trusts. I seek an assurance from the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General that money held in trust funds is taken into account when considering schedule 1 of this bill within the meaning of disposable capital. If someone has a sole interest in a trust or has a sole beneficial interest in a trust I want an assurance that that trust is taken into account when the Crown is working out whether it is disposable capital. 
There is a well-publicised case in the court currently which I am sure the Attorney-General is well familiar with. I am not asking him to go into the details of that case but the principles are pretty well established. There is no doubt in the case that the individuals have large trust funds. They have a large amount of money tied up within trusts but they are still making applications for legal aid on the basis that they do not have that money. That is wrong; it is a rort. A lot of New Zealanders pay good taxes and they should not pay for those multimillionaires who have their money cut away within trust systems. New Zealand taxpayers should not pay for those people to get legal aid when there is a pile of Kiwis who are not getting the legal aid they should be getting and when the criteria are far too tough. 
It might even be that some of us if we knew that this area was being cleaned up and tidied would support and be happy enough to see a flattening off in the legal aid budget. But again I say that some changes being made in this bill are useful. 
I also ask the question about the 6 months’ imprisonment. There is some sort of assumption in the bill about going to prison for a crime that merits less than 6 months imprisonment—or in fact about not going to prison. There is a judgment made about the likelihood of imprisonment which is quite a hard one to make. There are cases where at the beginning of the case it seemed unlikely that even if defendants are charged with an offence that earns under 6 months’ imprisonment—and this is very very substantial; this part is the core of the bill and I think that a number of us want to make at least four contributions—and are likely to lose their liberty through not being properly represented even though the charges are such—