Dalziel Lianne: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2387] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was interested in what the Minister of Justice Simon Power said; unfortunately I was not able to hear his contribution to the debate last night— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I thought the member was going to say she didn’t have a copy of the speech. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did not have a pre-existing copy of the speech; that is quite true. 
I want to speak in favour of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I believe that this is a very important amendment and probably rather timely given that the Minister has just announced a review of the legal aid system as a whole. The fact that we need to deal with this legislation highlights one of the main issues that need to be addressed—that is that in some instances financial eligibility testing and repayment conditions are utterly and completely inappropriate. The first classic example is where the victim of a crime wants to make representations at a parole hearing. The second example is in a coronial inquiry at the coroner’s hearing. I personally have experienced attending a coronial inquest with constituents and I know that it can be extremely hard for people who have been the victims of a systems failure as they were at Christchurch Public Hospital in 1995. It would be even harder if the victim of a crime had died as the result of a very serious violent offence. For people to ensure that they are properly represented in that environment from time to time they will want to call on legal representation. 
I just want to share this observation with the House. Having attended a coroner’s inquest with some constituents back in 1996—I think it was—it became very apparent to me that everybody in that room was represented legally except for the families of the people who had died. They were the only ones who had no representation; they had only me. And the only reason they had me was that I was prepared to go along and stand alongside them. In fact the coroner had to make an exception to the rules about who could ask questions so that I could ask questions on their behalf as I did not have a current practising certificate at the time; the coroner made a remarkable exception. That situation really opened up my eyes to something that is seriously wrong in our coronial system. As I say everyone else in that room was represented—the doctors were represented the nurses were represented and the Crown health enterprise was represented. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Oh the bad old days! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the bad old days. The insurance companies were all represented. At not one of the four hearings I attended on behalf of the families of people who had died at Christchurch Hospital did people actually approach the family members to say they were really sorry about what had happened. The reason they had not approached them to say they were sorry was because of the old insurance principle that one never says one is sorry when there is going to be a review of what occurred because if one says one is sorry that might somehow be an admission of liability. Members might remember that when they get into a rental car there is a little tag that tells drivers that if they are involved in an accident they must not say they are sorry. They must not admit liability or do anything that might mean the rental company has to pay money out on their behalf. 
It is fundamentally important that family members are represented at coronial inquests. I think it is vitally important that their voices are heard in that environment and that the right questions are asked. Just in the last week we again arranged for a law firm to represent a constituent at a coronial inquest. My assistant in my office in Christchurch accompanied my constituent to the coronial inquest and she informs me that if my constituent had not been represented there would have been an absolute whitewash because the entire process was around defending people against being blamed for certain actions that occurred that cost this woman her husband’s life. It is fundamentally important that people are represented in these environments especially when the other interests are represented by highly skilled counsel as they invariably are when the consequences are so great. 
I believe that adjusting the financial eligibility testing criteria for the victims of crime in a coronial setting is absolutely appropriate. I would probably want us to consider going a step further and making that service available more generally because the consequences may not be directly obvious in terms of the criminal offence; it may be in fact that a form of civil liability lies behind the series of events that occurred and it may not meet the standard of criminal offending as set out in this bill. One might be a victim of what might be described as “criminal” in a general sense but not of what is described as offending in the very explicit provisions of this legislation. That is certainly a matter that the select committee could look at while it is looking at this bill; it is very very important that people are properly represented in this sort of environment. Removing the financial eligibility testing enables the victims of crime—or essentially their families—to be represented legally in an environment where everyone else is legally represented. 
In terms of the Parole Board hearing I think it is absolutely vital that there is access to legal representation for those who want it. Some people prefer to speak from the heart to tell their own story and to represent themselves. Many find it incredibly empowering. To be able to express how one feels about things after having been the victim of a crime is often a very empowering process which is why I am a great proponent of what is described as restorative justice. 
Sometimes it is actually better that people front up to admit to what they have done than to continue to deny what has occurred and never ever take responsibility for what has happened. I want to tell a short story in relation to this because I think it is worthy of comment. I remember visiting Paremoremo prison a number of years ago. We were told the story of a couple of men who had been convicted of rape. They were coming to the end of their sentences and were due to return to their community. The young woman who had been raped by them approached the prison and asked to meet with them. She came from a very small town in New Zealand. In fact she told the prison manager that the town was divided: half the town believed her and half the town believed these two men. Their imminent release was causing her great consternation because that whole talk had started again and she could not face going through again what she had been through with half the town believing that she was not telling the truth. In the end the prison agreed to this meeting and she explained to the men why she wanted them to tell the truth. They actually admitted that they had raped her and were prepared to admit it publicly in the town. That moment’s meeting was far more restorative in its effect and far more empowering for the victim of the crime than those men paying their debt to society which I believe they ought to do—that was what the prison sentence was for. But the men fronting up and taking responsibility for their criminal action was the most empowering thing for the victim of the crime. 
I fully support this legislation. It is important for those who want to be legally represented that we reduce the financial eligibility criteria and also that legal aid debt is written off right from the outset so that they know they do not have to repay it. I commend this bill to this House; it will be welcomed throughout New Zealand.