Little Andrew: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My apologies.ANDREW LITTLE: No offence taken. I am flattered to have been confused with such an honourable member. That speech from the Minister of Justice about the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill confirms that this Government’s changes in the justice sector are about cost cutting and far from promoting justice are about denying access to justice.There is a principle that lies at the heart of any justice system and that is access—access to justice. Access to justice if it is to be of any use at all must be equal. There is no system of justice if it is confined to the rich and the powerful. So legal aid plays a very important role and what any Government does in the area of legal assistance and legal aid is very important.The State in exercising its coercive powers whether through the police or other prosecuting agencies or indeed simply through bringing people before the State-funded courts must make sure that those who are brought before the courts have a reasonable chance of getting good representation and having their interests heard particularly when there is a risk or a chance or a threat that their liberties may be denied and they may be detained. Then it is even more important that they have access to legal advice and representation.So State assistance to low-income people to the poor to the impecunious—as they are often described—whether in criminal matters or whether they are parties to a civil matter is absolutely essential. Without legal aid without legal assistance we have a justice system for the rich and that will never do in a liberal democracy such as ours. The Legal Services Act 2011 which is the primary piece of legislation in this whole matter states as its purpose “to promote access to justice” by amongst other things providing “legal services to people of insufficient means;”—providing legal services to people of insufficient means.This Government has embarked on or at least in this case it did embark on radical change to legal aid following the Bazley report. When you talk to the legal profession you find differing views about that report the merits of it the basis of it and the evidence that was used to support the changes that were recommended in it. But there is no doubt in my mind that the Minister has confirmed it in her speech just now that the real concern is not about the quality of justice or the quality of representation; it is about the cost to the State of ensuring that that is provided.We all understand that the State’s coffers are not bottomless but the principle of justice and access to justice is one that must sit very high in the priorities of any Government to support the people. We must make it a priority to make sure that people are adequately supported and therefore adequately represented.The Bazley report also talked about a concern about quality and Dame Margaret Bazley raised the question about what she described as the long-term viability and therefore the sustainability of the system. She claimed that there was abuse of the legal aid system. Well I have read the report and I fail to see what the real evidence of abuse was. But let us assume that there were some lawyers who were not up to scratch and who were claiming legal aid for not doing a very good job.Hon Maurice Williamson: No really?ANDREW LITTLE: They were very small in number—very small in number—and Mr Williamson may well have observed some himself. I do not know. There may well have been some. But let us have a look at the consequences of the administrative changes made to the legal aid system to date.We are seeing good lawyers now refusing to do legal aid work because rates have been cut and the hours available to do particular work have been cut and those lawyers—good lawyers lawyers with strong track records and I was talking to some just the other night in Auckland former police officers turned lawyers who know criminal justice who know the other side and who know what good quality and adequate representation look like—can no longer make it work for them. There are a growing number of lawyers who are no longer doing legal aid because they cannot make it work.Who is suffering as a consequence of that? Not them because they will find other work. They will find the fee-paying clients who will use them—well the lawyers might have gone into family law once upon a time but they may not even go into that when this Government has finished with that area. They will go into other areas of work. But defendants—those who have been arrested those who are facing prosecution and who are impecunious—are the ones who miss out. They do not get the voice in court that a proper liberal democracy requires them to get. If this bill is about making positive changes and improvements to the legal aid system it will not do it. It simply will not do it.Some of the more insidious changes that appeared in the original bill that came to this House in the last Parliament have been removed as a result of the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and indeed of the Minister of Justice’s Supplementary Order Paper 134 but the underlying principles that have driven the change have notbeen removed such as the desire to cut costs for the sake of cutting costs not for the sake of improving representation.There was an argument given or a reason given for why this bill has been so delayed and that is that the Government can get on with its Family Court reform. That is turning into a complete shambles now because having sort of run at Family Court reform like a bull in a china shop and having said: “We are going to make all these changes. We are going to withdraw the rights to legal representation. We are going to take independent legal representation off children.” the Minister then said a couple of weeks ago: “Oh no we got that wrong. We are going to have to change that.” But we still do not know what the change is. And we do not know what impact a piece of court reform the Family Court reform which was about reducing—at least in one part—the cost of legal aid is going to have. We simply do not know whether there is going to be a saving in legal aid or not at all.This bill does not change its underlying premise which is simply about cutting cost—simply about cutting cost. There are still problems with this bill—there are still problems with this bill. The first one is that it leaves in place barriers to legal aid and legal representation when people need it most. One of the provisions that it leaves in place is that if you have already been legally aided and you are required to repay your legal aid and you are behind in your payments and you then face another court hearing that would otherwise entitle you to legal aid you may not get legal aid because you are behind in your payments for your last matter.That is not justice. Impecunious people often find it difficult to meet their financial obligations. That is the nature of being poor. That is the nature of poverty. When it comes to the administration of justice and when it comes to appearing before the court and facing a prosecution we should not deprive people of proper representation because they have an outstanding obligation to the State for another matter. That is wrong. That is unjust. We are opposed to the bill for that reason.The second problem is user fees. This bill introduces a user fee for those who are legally aided. It is absolutely bizarre. Why when you are dealing with the poorest in our community and the most impecunious would you on the basis of providing State assistance then say: “Now you are going to have to pay a fee as well.”? It may be only $50 but $50 for somebody who cannot make ends meet is $50 too much $50 they cannot afford.And then there is the third aspect which is charging interest to the legally aided on amounts outstanding. Legal aid was never a banking system. It was not about an overdraft and making a loan from a bank. It was about providing assistance at a crucial time in your life when you need it most.The general direction this Government is taking in justice is wrong. It is about cost-cutting. The courts are in uproar because of the cuts in the courts the Crown solicitors around the country are in uproar because their fees and their budgets are being cut and the court staff are under stress. The Family Court staff in Auckland know that what they are operating now is a complete shambles and they cannot make it work. Everything this Government is doing in justice is wrong and bad for people and this is just another measure this Government is taking. We are opposed to it. It will not help people who need it most and it will be bad for the justice system.