te Heuheu Georgina: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2033] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in the Committee on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) but I have to reiterate that National does not support this bill in its present form. We would have wished as part of our policy for a more sweeping review—one that looked better at issues of eligibility for legal aid both in criminal and civil proceedings. We do not think this bill does that. We also would have wished that a proper review and a proper approach to this matter would look at the excesses of the current system and we do not think this bill has done that. Although the intended outcomes of the bill seem laudable enough National believes that the bill falls short of achieving them—namely a fairer more credible and more effective justice system one that is underpinned by the rule of law and where justice services are equitable credible and accessible. 
We believe that the bill fails mainly on two grounds. First of all we do not think that the rules of eligibility for legal aid in both civil and criminal proceedings are as clear as they ought to be. Of course if the processes have no clarity then we are looking largely at uncertainty. We believe that an effective justice system should be one that aims for certainty in its processes. This bill does not do that. Also we think that too much discretion is left in the provisions and that in effect applicants for legal aid—and probably those who are considering eligibility as well—are left in a position not much better than what happens currently. We think that the Government’s bringing in this bill and not addressing those issues has led to a bit of a waste of time. Certainty is a value that we would have looked for but we do not think this bill achieves certainty. 
The second ground on which we feel the bill fails badly is that it unfairly discriminates against lawyers who undertake legal aid work as opposed to those who are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown. We do not think there is any proper case for that sort of discrimination. I will say more about that in a moment. 
If we look at the detail of the changes in Part 1 that relate to the granting of legal aid to an applicant in respect of criminal proceedings we will see that they are subject to an overriding consideration of “the interests of justice”. An attempt has been made to identify the relevant criteria but those criteria are subject to an ability that the Legal Services Agency has in relation to section 8(4) inserted into the principal Act by clause 5. Section 8(4) states: “When considering whether or not the interests of justice require that the applicant be granted legal aid the Agency may have regard to any other circumstances that in the opinion of the Agency are relevant.” 
We believe that puts in far too much discretion. The bill already sets out about three or four criteria that supposedly fall under the overriding banner of the interests of justice requiring that the applicant be granted legal aid. Then as I have said section 8(4) gives too much discretion to the agency as to whether an applicant qualifies. 
The provisions for the granting of legal aid in civil matters are set out in section 9 inserted into the principal Act by clause 5. Without at this point referring to those provisions that section also allows for far too much discretion. Therefore we do not think that this bill in any way leads to the outcome that I mentioned before which is an effective more credible and more equitable justice service. We think that this bill in fact adds uncertainty and that legal aid applicants will be no wiser at the end of the process than they are under the present legislation as to whether they are likely to be granted legal aid. So that is a big disappointment and colleagues of mine will certainly be making some comment on that matter as we go through the Committee stage of the bill. 
The second point I referred to was a provision that we believe discriminates against those undertaking legal services for applicants. There is discrimination between those who undertake that work and those who work for the prosecution.