Parker David: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17008] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 It is probably a bit like being in the Libyan Parliament at the moment! It sounds like small-arms fire above us! I want to raise two issues. First of all I want to respond to something Minister Power said about the spiralling costs of legal services and legal aid. I suggest that if there is one area where it is very easy to save costs it would be to do away with the silly “three strikes” legislation. If someone is at risk of getting a “three strikes” penalty recorded against them and being locked away for ever that person has a greater incentive to defend the charge so that there is no future risk of eternal imprisonment at Her Majesty’s pleasure in one of New Zealand’s prisons. If we are really serious about wanting to stop wasting money in the legal system we should do away with the “three strikes” legislation. 
I turn to another issue which is that of community legal services. The definition in clause 4(1)(b) under the heading “community legal services” refers to law reform and advocacy work. The first community law centre in New Zealand was the Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Law Office which was formed in the 1970s. The second one was the Dunedin Community Law Centre which was a different model and proved to be the model for the rest of the community law centres. 
Paul Quinn 
: It was yours. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I thank Mr Quinn. Yes I was one of those who were involved in the formation of that centre. I was not the leader but was on the committee of people who put that community law centre together in 1979. Indeed I worked in it as a volunteer off and on for a couple of decades after that but I no longer do so. 
The prime reason that community legal aid centres exist is to provide legal services to people who cannot afford or normally do not access legal services. Generally the problems that turn up at community law centres are relatively minor but none the less they are important to the people who are facing a legal problem and do not know how to negotiate their way through the system. 
Generally law students and people employed by the law centres—and and in both of those cases they are generally under the supervision of lawyers who are volunteering their time quite generously—provide legal services to help people over those small problems. The problem might be a fencing dispute or someone coming in to ask whether they need to see a lawyer in order to dissolve their marriage and they need to be pointed in the right direction. It might be something about dogs or a small criminal penalty or someone who thinks they have been unfairly charged with a traffic offence. 
All of those things are very good but there is an area where I think it is important that we do not let law centres stray too far and that relates to law reform and advocacy work. Law reform and advocacy work is appropriate but not when it crosses the line to be a political polemic. These precious funds that are being used in law centres ought to be focused primarily on the provision of legal services for the people who need to understand their way through the law not to change the law and not to advocate for political causes. I do not mind there being some part of that because in reality we should be advocating for changes in the law that come up through law centres if they have something to do with say some minor criminal procedure. They might have experience in that and they want to submit on a bill that is coming before Parliament and there is absolutely no problem with that. But beyond that I do think that we ought to limit funding. 
I know that the definition of community legal services talks of services that a community law centre provides under contract between the centre and the Secretary for Justice so I am asking for confirmation from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice that in the contract there are appropriate controls on non-legal advice services—that is advocacy services which can on occasion go too far in the promotion of political causes. I have seen that occur and I think one of the reasons why I oppose it is that if it becomes too prevalent I think it puts at risk the strength of the claim for appropriate levels of funding for community law centres to do what is their absolute core function and what is necessary in society. 
A lot of the sorts of problems I have mentioned are very important to the individual. Low-income people are not powerful people in society they are often not able to pay a legal fee and they would not be eligible for legal aid because the nature of the problem would not meet the legal aid thresholds. Lawyers are not interested in providing the services because the people cannot afford to pay so in the absence of a community law centre there is an unmet legal need. That is why community law centres exist. So let us make sure that law centres focus on meeting that unmet legal need rather than on crossing the line into advocacy work for political causes. Although it is rare I have seen it occur on occasions.