Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17772] 
Legal Services Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Bill be now read a third time 
. The Legal Services Bill forms the Government’s response to Dame Margaret Bazley’s call to transform the legal aid system. These are important reforms. This bill will help restore public confidence in the legal aid system and will lead to better service for vulnerable people who rely on the legal aid system. The bill overhauls the administration of the legal aid scheme by bringing the functions of the Legal Services Agency into the Ministry of Justice and creating an independent statutory officer to exercise those functions that require independence. It also creates a new Legal Aid Tribunal for resolving disputes over entitlements. Dame Margaret Bazley highlighted the need for legal aid to be administered as a core part of the justice system and I expect that these new arrangements will lead to a better alignment between the court system and the legal aid system. 
The Legal Services Bill will improve the responsiveness of the system and allow for innovative service delivery by removing much of the prescription in the old Act and allowing the Secretary for Justice the flexibility to establish different legal services and deliver services in different ways. This is consistent with the Government’s commitment to improving the quality of public services and ensuring value for money. The bill also streamlines the eligibility process for prescribed grants. This will apply to low-cost grants in a criminal jurisdiction and will reduce the compliance costs for providers speeding up granting decisions and reducing the cost of administering the system. 
The bill also clarifies funding arrangements for Waitangi Tribunal proceedings and removes the risk of overlap and duplication with funding for settlement negotiations. Importantly the bill introduces a new quality assurance and performance management system for providers to enable the ministry to manage the quality of services provided to legally aided clients. The new quality assurance system will require providers to prove that they are up to the job before they enter the system and regular reappraisal will then ensure they maintain high standards. 
We are all well aware of the review by Dame Margaret Bazley that led to this bill being introduced. In her report Dame Margaret called for a sea change in the way legal aid operates. When someone as experienced in providing services to the public as Dame Margaret Bazley talked about system-wide failings a system open to abuse and appalling behaviour we knew we had a problem. This bill is merely the starting point and we will closely watch the implementation of the bill and its provisions. 
I again commend and thank the Justice and Electoral Committee under the chairmanship of Chester Borrows for the work it has done in considering the Legal Services Bill. To all those who made submissions to the select committee I want to express my appreciation for their time and for their views. Submitters were concerned that the transfer of the legal aid system to the Ministry of Justice may reduce the level of independence in the legal aid system. We thought about this carefully in the policy design and I am pleased that the committee agreed that the position of the Legal Services Commissioner will guarantee that independence. These important reforms will restore public confidence in the provision of effective legal aid services. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Since the Minister of Justice first mooted reform of the legal aid system the Labour Party has supported in principle the need for reform. But it would have to be said that over the course of the debate on this matter in the hearing of evidence in the Justice and Electoral Committee and with subsequent developments in respect of the Government’s criminal justice policy the Labour Party’s concerns about the overall effect of this reform taken with others is leading to increasing concern and it is now with quite a degree of reluctance that the Opposition agrees to continue to support the Legal Services Bill at its third reading. 
I want to run through some of the serious concerns that we have increasingly held as the debate has gone forward. The Minister in his third reading speech just made reference to the Bazley report the report of Dame Margaret Bazley which kicked off this set of reforms. He said something along the lines that a public servant as experienced as Dame Margaret someone who is as proficient as she is in looking at the best ways in which to deliver public services should not be lightly ignored and it is true that Dame Margaret is somebody who has given great service to New Zealand and to its Public Service. But there are major issues with the Bazley report and those issues are ones that the House needs to take notice of because all the reforms we are debating today proceed from that report. 
The aspect that is of most concern in the Bazley report is the one that was drawn to the attention of the select committee by the New Zealand Law Society when this bill was before its members—that is the anecdotal nature of the concerns that Dame Margaret expressed. She did so in language that I hope she has had cause to reflect on because she looked in particular at the way in which legal services were delivered in South Auckland and in particular at the new Manukau District Court. 
I have been to that court. I have met practitioners who work there off and on in gruelling conditions some on legal aid assignments and some not. Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson knows as do other members in the House that that is one of the more difficult courts in the country in which to practise and in which to deliver access to justice for New Zealanders. But there are practitioners who do that day in and day out. They do it unselfishly and they do it often in the face of a system that does not seem to care very much about method or outcomes yet their professionalism keeps that system going. 
The greatest matter of regret that I have in this whole debate is that neither Dame Margaret nor the Minister has ever distanced themselves from the more extreme comments that occurred in the Bazley report about those practitioners. There may well be one or two whose work needs better quality control but the vast majority of those lawyers work very hard to provide access to justice. It is a crying shame not only that their efforts have not been properly acknowledged by the Government but also that the Minister has not chosen to acknowledge that professionalism on a fundamental basis because without it the entire system would grind to a halt. It is also questionable whether an entire set of reforms such as those we are seeing in this House today can be grounded in the Bazley report because of the anecdotal nature of the findings and because of some of the extreme language in that report. It is important I think to put on record in this speech those fundamental concerns. 
The other concern that I think it is fair to put on record that has developed on this side of the House as this bill has proceeded is the way in which it meshes with other matters of criminal justice policy being advanced as part of the Minister’s reform agenda. I think we need to say that in that category lie not only the restrictions on choice as to advocate which this bill will put into place in the legal aid system in respect of certain categories of offences but also the “three strikes” legislation which I note the Minister has distanced himself from but which will have the inevitable effect of increasing traffic—for want of a better way of putting it—through the system. Combine that with restrictions on choice of advocate in the legal aid system and inevitably we will see a deterioration in the ability of New Zealanders the people whom we represent in this House to access justice. 
Then there is the package of reforms currently under consideration in the Justice and Electoral Committee the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill where as the Law Society has pointed out procedural reform is being put ahead of reform of the drivers of crime or the substantive criminal statute or even really the rules of evidence—an odd way to do it—and in the process we have some restrictions on the right to the presumption of innocence restrictions on the right to trial by jury and other major concerns being brought to the attention of the committee not only by the legal profession but by a number of people concerned about that fundamental right of access to justice. 
So we have some major concerns about this bill. I do not say that all parts of the bill are bad and I hope that members on this side of the House have been fair about its provisions as we have gone through the process of debating it. One of the very positive aspects of the legislation is the extent to which it provides some contestability in the provision of publicly funded legal services to those who cannot pay their own way. Not only will there be the continuation of a contracted legal aid provision system for some lawyers but there will be an extension of the Public Defence Service. That is an excellent system. It was introduced under the last Government and it is being extended as a result of the bill we are debating today. The bill empowers a reasonable extension of that scheme. 
Two things need to be said about the Public Defence Service. The first is that it provides some choice and contestability in the system. The Public Defence Service is a publicly funded publicly owned entity and it provides defence services for people who employ its services. The evaluations of the Public Defence System show that the way it provides services is very very effective and very very efficient. That provides good evidence that the State can deliver these sorts of services if the services are structured properly on an appropriate basis and if it can do so in a way that keeps a check on or a reference to contracted private providers. So that is a good thing. The other good thing is that there will be a third category of provider. In some places where it is just not possible to find legal aid providers on a contracted basis then firms will be contracted to provide the service. We support that. 
In summary although the reforms are not all bad we have some major concerns about them. We have decided we will continue to vote to support the legislation but it will be very much on the basis of waiting to see what the results are like. We are certainly not making any commitment to retain the system that will be brought into effect by this bill because of the major concerns I have listed in this speech—in particular the concern about the inability of people to make a choice about their representative or advocate especially in respect of some offences when the grant of legal aid is not even untrammelled but effectively a loan from the State. That is a matter for real concern. If it transpires that in the implementation of this legislation along with the other parts of the Government’s criminal justice reform agenda the right of access to justice for New Zealanders is significantly impaired then the watching brief that we are keeping on it will mean that when we have the next opportunity we will make significant changes to the legislation if they are required. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and congratulations on your appointment. This is the first time that I have been in the House to have the opportunity to say that. It is good to see you back. 
I rise to speak in respect of the Legal Services Bill. I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker Charles Chauvel and acknowledge that the concerns he raised are concerns that are held widely across the legal sector and that were well discussed within the Justice and Electoral Committee. I congratulate the committee members on the work they did in the consideration of this bill. 
Those of us who have worked as legal aid providers and duty solicitors around our courts in New Zealand can think of times when we were taking instructions under a tree while it was raining down outside or were leaning in the doorway of the very cramped public area outside the court trying to deal with people and to work with them in circumstances that were trying for them in order to access the justice they were entitled to in our free and democratic society. But we also have to take cognisance of those matters raised by Dame Margaret Bazley in her report—and I take the point made by Charles Chauvel earlier that very much anecdotal comments were made. To my disappointment those comments tended to feed a healthy appetite out there in the general public who do not normally interact with courts or at least with criminal courts anyway—an appetite for the belief that those within the legal fraternity were lower than the most low. 
The fact is that people within the legal fraternity have to work within very tight bounds and they frequently make a significant contribution to access to justice out of their own pockets by way of time and services they cannot claim for under the legal aid system and they have no way of funding. I think if we looked across the rest of the economy in New Zealand and expected a similar level of altruism from the abilities of various businesses and practitioners then we would be found wanting. The fact is that a number of areas within our current legal aid provision need to be addressed. Loopholes will be exploited. Given the way they are exploited in the high-profile way they are exposed it brings the legal fraternity into disrepute albeit as I have already said the public really want to believe that that fraternity is already there. 
The bill seeks to disestablish the Legal Services Agency and to fold it back into the Ministry of Justice—as was previously done and as it worked particularly well—and to establish a Legal Services Commissioner. It introduces a new quality assurance framework that will enhance the confidence of the public in the knowledge that those providing legal aid services on payment from the taxpayer and on behalf of society at large will be assessed and will be providing good legal services for those they are working for. The bill will allow the Secretary for Justice the flexibility to establish different legal services and to deliver services in different ways. To provide new ways and creative and innovative ways of enhancing and facilitating access to justice is something we need to do bearing in mind the spread and the changes we have in population bases around the country. 
The bill allows for the streamlining of eligibility for low-cost criminal cases in summary jurisdictions and it allows the Secretary for Justice to contract community law centres to provide legal services. That is something that community law offices are willing to do and the community is willing to have community law offices provide those services for it. 
Lastly the bill replaces the Legal Aid Review Panel with the Legal Aid Tribunal which will consider applications for the review of legal aid applications. I find this last point extremely important bearing in mind the gatekeeper role that the Legal Services Agency has at present and how difficult it can be for providers of legal aid to access the most minimal of funds in order to assist access to justice for the people they work for and bearing in mind that the public largely believes that those who appear before the court are already guilty and should be extended very little in terms of public time energy or taxpayer money. 
I commend this bill to the House. I am grateful for Labour’s assurance that it will be supporting the bill at this third reading and I commend the Minister for the job he has done in preparing the bill for consideration by Parliament. Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I congratulate you on your new role. I did so last night when you were in the Chairperson’s Chair but I was told by the Minister Simon Power that I was premature in doing so because apparently you had not been accepted in that role. I am assuming that you now have been; I hope you have been. You are looking very comfortable. It suits you well Mr Assistant Speaker. 
I am standing to discuss Labour’s views on the Legal Services Bill. I say from the start that Labour members support this bill but we do so reluctantly. I think my colleague Charles Chauvel articulated Labour’s views really well in his speech prior to Chester Borrows’ speech. I will go over it again with regard to Labour’s thoughts on the Legal Services Bill. 
We understand that the bill overhauls the legal services system. It is the legislative result of Margaret Bazley’s review of legal aid completed last year which found some failings in the delivery of publicly funded legal services. The bill will replace the Legal Services Act 2000. 
Labour believes reforms are necessary with an emphasis on the public defender system and community law centres and a focus on quality assurance. However we have concerns about this bill and the Government’s overall direction with regard to its justice policy which seems to be inhibiting access to justice. I will talk more about that shortly. 
Just to provide a bit of background the purpose of this bill has been from the outset “to promote access to justice by establishing a system that—(a) provides legal services to people of insufficient means; and (b) delivers those services in the most effective and efficient manner.” 
What are we concerned about? I will start with the “three strikes” bill. We are concerned that the “three strikes” legislation will place further pressure on publicly funded legal services and will negate some of the good work that has been done in the sector. The number of defendants charged with serious crimes relying on legal aid will increase given that they will be more likely to plead not guilty in order to avoid being locked up for a long time. Those are some of the reservations and concerns we expressed when the “three strikes” bill was going through the House. 
Our reservations must be more widely shared than National wishes to admit because that legislation should really have gone through the Justice and Electoral Committee. It should have been headed by the Minister of Justice Simon Power. We are pretty sure that he shared our reservations with that bill. Hence rather than going through the Justice and Electoral Committee as it should have the Law and Order Committee looked after it. I remember because I was on the select committee at the time. Our concern was that really the police should not have responsibility for a sentencing bill. However the Minister of Justice washed his hands of it the Law and Order Committee was stuck with the bill and that is where it went. We disagreed with it. There are fundamental reasons why we were concerned and we discussed them at that time. Now our concerns about that bill have again arisen with regard to this legislation. 
The concern was really that the number of defendants charged with serious crimes relying on legal aid will increase given that they will be more likely to plead not guilty in order to avoid being locked up for a long time. That will inevitably prolong the length of trials and place extra cost pressure on the justice system. That really was our concern in relation to the “three strikes” legislation. 
Dame Margaret Bazley’s report uncovered some serious problems with the way New Zealand’s legal aid system operates. As a result this bill is necessary to restore taxpayer confidence in legal aid which is we would all agree an indispensable part of our justice system. But the bill unfortunately will not achieve that restoration of confidence as there is no statutory consultative requirement in the bill with community law centres and the rest of the legal community. 
We are pleased I have to say that the Public Defence Service will be expanded. It is a system launched by former Minister of Justice Phil Goff in 2004. The Public Defence Service is a good way to meet the cost of rising fees charged by barristers and solicitors in private practice. It creates a system of salaried public defenders and will standardise a high quality of defence. It really is a good alternative to legal aid. 
We are pleased the Government is placing greater emphasis on community law centres. There was a time—I think it was the beginning of last year—when we were concerned that their future might be at risk under this National Government so we are pleased the Government is placing a greater emphasis on community law centres and that the Secretary for Justice will have the flexibility to utilise different means of delivering legal services. But we are disappointed that the obligations are not legislated for in this bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Put a bit of passion in it. Passion! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Tau Henare says there is no passion in this speech but I tell him that we do not all need to jump up and down and yell to demonstrate the fact we take something seriously unlike some people. 
Recently last month Simon Power announced there would be a $402 million funding gap for legal aid in the next 5 years and that further reforms were required. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Stop reading it. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: It is very worrying I say to Mr Henare. We hope there will not be additional funding cuts as the legal aid system is vital in order for large sections of the public to have access to justice. 
Lianne Dalziel one of our Labour colleagues has previously expressed concern that many allegations in Dame Margaret’s report were unsubstantiated. She called on Simon Power to meet with members of the Manukau Bar who claim that their reputations have been unfairly hurt by the report. The New Zealand Law Society expressed its concern that the report was based on anecdotal evidence. It said the majority of legal aid lawyers were not corrupt or incompetent yet there was a risk they would be tainted by the allegations made against the minority of practitioners. I think this is a very valid and fair point made by the New Zealand Law Society. The Manukau Bar expressed similar concerns but the Government has not addressed them. We feel there was a valid concern expressed by the New Zealand Law Society backed up by similar concerns from the Manukau Bar and we think the Government should address it and take it seriously. 
We have some concerns about legal aid and employment disputes. The current system disadvantages union members. They pay $300 to $500 per year for their membership which includes an insurance fee to cover the cost of representation for personal grievance claims. However non - union members have to contribute only $50 placing them at an advantage. Members on this side of the House would really hate to see our union members disadvantaged in any way with regard to this matter. 
Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I recognise that I have 2 minutes left; it is great to have you signal that to me. 
I say again that Labour supports this bill but we do so reluctantly. I have outlined the reasons why. In summary they are things like the “three strikes” bill—and the repercussions of that poorly thought-out legislation—and some of the allegations made in the Bazley report which the New Zealand Law Society and the Manukau Bar expressed serious concerns about. There are other concerns and I am sure that my colleagues who speak after me will speak to those concerns. But as I said Labour will be supporting this bill. Thank you very much. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party at the time of the first and second readings of the Legal Services Bill voted against it and there were good speeches illuminating why we were doing that from Gareth Hughes and Kennedy Graham. Unfortunately Kennedy Graham cannot be here today to present a speech on behalf of the Greens. He has been the Green member of the Justice and Electoral Committee but like many other Christchurch MPs he is otherwise detained. 
This bill has several good points as have been outlined by previous speakers. The public defender system is a step forward and we want that to be reinforced. But we are concerned like the earlier Labour speakers that to some degree this legislation has been driven by the Margaret Bazley report which as has been pointed out has been highly criticised by lawyers particularly in the Manukau area as an unwarranted attack on them without sufficient evidence to back up the accusations of somehow wrongly benefitting from the legal aid system. The main reason why the Green Party opposed the bill at the earlier stages still applies in that we are not sure whether disestablishing the old Legal Services Agency and putting the administration of the legal aid services under the Ministry of Justice will preserve the necessary independence that a legal services body requires. Putting in a supposedly independent statutory officer the Legal Services Commissioner will not necessarily solve that problem. 
The report back from the select committee says: “It is important that while the Commissioner would be accountable to the Secretary for Justice the Secretary should not be able to interfere in the Commissioner’s performance of his or her independent functions as set out in the bill.” That is all very well but as we have found in other areas when an officer is reporting to someone above them in the hierarchy their responses are a bit conditioned by the responses of the higher-up officer. That issue was raised as part of the debate on the bill that merged Archives New Zealand and the National Library and put them under the Department of Internal Affairs. Even though there is an independent Chief Archivist the Chief Archivist has to report to the head of the Department of Internal Affairs. A similar situation will constrain the real independence of the Legal Services Commissioner particularly when monetary matters are involved as they are with legal services and as they are in the case of the Chief Archivist and the Department of Internal Affairs. Budgets can be restricted and so on so we do not think there is sufficient independence in the system. 
The other question raised in the report back from the select committee when talking about submissions was the question of people being able to get a lawyer of their choice. As was pointed out in the report back the previous board of the Legal Services Agency took away the right of defendants to choose their own lawyer in category 1 and category 2 criminal cases which involve lower-level criminal offending. But it is difficult in the Greens’ view to make a distinction between lower-level offending and higher-level offending in terms of access to legal aid. One might say that the matter is not as important if the person would receive only a small punishment so it does not matter that they cannot choose their own lawyer. But as we know the very first offence even if it involves low-level criminal offending can be very important for people. It often sets them on the road to a criminal career repeat offending and so on. If they had had a good lawyer at the beginning stage it might have made a difference. People often feel a great injustice if their lawyer is not up to scratch even in the smallest case. If they are wrongly convicted the sense of injustice can carry over into more criminality. So that is not a good thing. 
There were submissions from community law agencies for consultation to be written into the legislation so that there was a statutory requirement for consultation by the agency. Unfortunately the select committee decided that such a requirement should not be written into the legislation. Again although it is good to trust that people will have the right motivation and will engage in consultation because that is the thing to do I think it is always good to write a requirement in because some officials and some Governments are not very keen on consultation with non-governmental organisations. We have currently a Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully who is not very keen on consultation with non-governmental organisations in the foreign affairs and aid sector so I think it is good to write in those kinds of provisions. 
With those few comments noting as I indicated that the public defender system and other aspects of the bill are quite useful I say that on balance the Green Party will stick with its position of voting against it. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson reo Maori te korero. No reira ko taku i te tuatahi he whaiwhai haere i nga korero a etahi ki a koe tena koe hoki mai ki te Turu o te Speaker 
.  
Ko taku he mihi ki a koe kua eke ki tera o nga taumata no reira kia ora rawa atu. 
I a matau e titiro ana ki tenei pire te Legal Services Bill kare matau i te titiro whaiti nei ara ki te ma me te pango. Ko ta matau titiro he tirohanga whanui kia taea ai te titiro ki te hohonutanga o nga take penei i tenei ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare. Kei te putake o ta matau titiro o nga whakaaro o te Pati Maori e penei ana. Mena ae ranei he painga to te punaha a-ture ki te hunga whakaraerae o te hapori. Ki te tika ma te awhina a-kupu ma te awhina a-roia ano hoki. No reira kei te whakaae atu matau ki te whakaaro kia whakamatauria nga roia i mua o ta ratau noho i te rarangi roia. He pai tera ki ta matau titiro ki o matau whakaaro me pera rawa te tika o te reo Maori. 
Tuarua ka tino harikoa matau mena i whakaae te Minita ki te whakahoki i te putea mo te Maori Legal Service. Engari kare tera i eke i eke panuku. Ka toru ka nui te hiahia kia noho pu te komiti awhina a-hapori kia whai wahi te hapori ki roto i nga whiriwhiringa. Ko te public advisory committee 
tera. I a matau e titiro ana ki etahi atu o nga take kua noho awangawanga te Pati Maori ki te whakakorenga o taua komiti ara ko te public advisory committee 
 
 ara te ropu e awhina ana i te Legal Services Agency mo nga manukanuka o te hapori mo te awhina a-putea awhina a-noho awhina a-matauranga ranei ki te hapori ki tetahi wahanga ranei o te hapori taku e korero nei; ki tetahi atu take ranei ka tae atu ki mua i te aroaro o te Minita i te mea ko te iwi Maori te hunga kimi awhina hia awhina ana i te nuinga o te wa. 
Kua tino titiro matau ki te putake o te pire me te titiro ki nga take kua puta mai i roto i nga korero kua korerohia nei i te mea te tikanga me haere nga painga ki te iwi Maori. Hei whaiwhai haere i te korero a Dame Margaret Bazley e korerohia ake nei “if the legal aid system fails Maori it fails altogether.” 
Koina tana korero. No reira na nga awangawanga i mua mo te legal services 
  
he pai ke atu mena ka taka te hunga nei ki raro i te Paremata. He pai tonu tera ki a matau penei i ta Keith Locke e korero ake nei. 
Engari ko tetahi o nga take i korerohia i roto i te Whare he take nui whakaharahara ki a matau ko tera e pa ana ki te wahanga tuarima i te wharangi tuatahi ara e ki ana ko nga rawa e hangai tonu ana ki te whenua Maori. Me penei pea te whakamarama ake i roto i te korero a Dame Margaret Bazley mo te legal services. Ehara i te mea i korerohia ehara i te mea i puta etahi akiakinga e hangai tonu ana ki nga moni o tena o tena otira te whakamatautanga o te moni me nga kaitono me te nui o te moni a tena kaitono a tena kaitono. 
Ko te whenua Maori he take nui i roto i te tirohanga o te Ao Maori. Me ki e mea ana ko wai matau a Maori nei. I roto i tetahi o nga whakatauki e ki ana “Noku te whenua no oku tupuna”. No reira ara noa atu nga korero i roto i te pire nei e pa ana ki tenei mea te whenua. No reira koinei i puta te manukanuka nui i kitea mai ai e noho he kupu i huna nei i roto i te wahanga tuatahi o tenei o nga pire ara i te wahanga tuarima e mea ana ka whakaaetia kia titiro te komihana ki te rawa me te moni ka puta na runga i te ahuatanga o te whenua Maori. Mena ka titiro ki te wahanga tuatahi i tona whanuitanga kei te kite atu kei te whakaaetia kia titiro whanui ki tenei mea o te moni o te putea o nga rawa a tena a tena a tena; kia taea ai te whakamatautau mena ae ranei kaore ranei ka taea e tetahi te utu nga nama mo te awhina a-ture. 
E mea ana te wahanga tuarima o taua wharangi tuatahi mena ka tapirihia mai ko te putea me o panga ki te whenua Maori ka mutu ka taea te whakatakoto i tera momo whiriwhiringa i roto i nga whakahaere o te koti a-whanau nei. No reira he ahua uaua te whakamarama ake i tenei i te reo Maori engari ko te tino putake o taku korero he rereke ano ra te titiro ki tenei mea te whenua Maori na runga i te mea he tirohanga to te Ao Pakeha taku e korero nei. Na ehara i te mea ka titiro a Maori nei ki tona whenua ko tetahi wahi ki tena tangata ko tetahi wahi ki tera tangata ko tetahi wahi ki tera tangata kao. He titiro whanui. Ehara i te mea ka pera tonu te titiro o te Ao Maori ki tona whenua. Ehara i te mea ko te panga ki te whenua he take a-putea nei a-rawa a-whai rawa nei kao. He titiro a-tikanga nei a ka mutu i etahi wa ka puta te korero e kore nga Maori e hoko i tenei mea ko te whenua i te mea ehara nona tera whenua he whenua no nga matua no nga tupuna. Ko te nuinga o nga tangata ka whai panga ki roto i te whenua Maori ehara i te mea ko te rawa te mea nui ehara i te mea ko te moni te mea nui i te mea kei te mohio tonu ko nga painga ka taka ki nga tamariki ki nga mokopuna a te wa. Ka mutu ki te ata wetewete i enei take i roto i nga koti he uaua. He mea nui tera. No reira ki roto i a Te Waiariki i tenei wa e hia ke nei nga whenua nga poraka whenua Maori ki roto i te rohe o Te Waiariki o Te Tai Rawhiti ano hoki he moumou moni he moumou taima noa iho te whaiwhai haere i te hunga ka whai panga ki tenei mea ko te whenua. Ka mutu e hia ke nei nga Maori kare i te mohio he panga whenua to ratau. Kao. Kare ratau i te mohio kei te noho huna a ratau korero mo te whenua kei roto i te Koti Whenua Maori. No reira he uaua rawa. I whakatakotohia e te Pati Maori tenei take ki mua i te aroaro o te Minita engari auare ake. I whakatakoto i te korero ki mua i nga pati o te Whare Paremata kare i eke panuku inapo hoi ano ehara i te mea no te kore hiahia engari kare i eke. 
Ka mutu hei kupu whakamutunga pea ki tenei o nga kaupapa kare tenei wahanga e paku awhina i te iwi Maori ahakoa ko ratau te hunga e kimi awhina ana i roto i te koti. Ko ta matau ke ko te ki atu me pana atu tera me ukui atu tenei wahanga i roto i te pire kia taea e te iwi Maori te hunga e whai panga ana ki te whenua Maori nei te kimi awhina i roto i nga whiriwhiringa kia taea ai e ratau te tono mo tetahi awhina i roto i te koti. Koina te mea nui mena ka whakatapirihia atu te whenua Maori ki te rawa kua nui ake te putea ka mutu kua raruraru katoa te iwi Maori mena ka tono pera ra. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I am giving my address in Maori. But first I want to add to the complimentary remarks by others before me by welcoming you back to the Speaker’s Chair. I commend you on attaining that position. Well done.  
When examining the Legal Services Bill we did not take a narrow and simply black or white view of it. Instead we looked at it broadly so that we could get an in-depth understanding of the issues in it such as the ones before the House. Central to our view and the thoughts of the Maori Party were the following issues. Was the legal aid system beneficial to vulnerable members of the community yes or no? In terms of justice would these vulnerable ones have access to it through legal advice or representation as well? So we agree with the view that lawyers should sit competency tests. We see that as a good thing—a correction to our way of thinking. I have to express that properly in Maori.  
Secondly we would have been really delighted if the Minister had seen fit to reinstate funding for the Maori Legal Service. But that did not happen; it did not make it to the top. Thirdly we dearly wanted the public advisory committee retained to ensure community involvement in the consultations. As we examined the issues we of the Maori Party became concerned about the abolition of the public advisory committee which assists the Legal Services Agency that gives advice on community concerns in terms of funding housing or educational assistance to the community or a section of it or any matter referred to it by the Minister or that comes before him. Maori people are the ones who seek assistance or want help most times.  
We have taken particular interest in what this bill might offer in terms of addressing issues that have emerged in the speeches delivered here because without a doubt any benefit should go to the Maori people. As Dame Margaret Bazley said “if the legal aid system fails Maori it fails altogether.” That is what she said. Given previous concerns with the Legal Services Agency it would be a great improvement if it came under the scrutiny of Parliament. We really favour that occurring. It is quite like what the member Keith Locke said previously. 
One of the issues that was debated here in the House an issue of huge significance to us is the one that relates to clause 5 of schedule 1 namely resources relating to Maori land. Perhaps what Dame Margaret Bazley had to say in her review of legal services explains it better. It was not as though it was discussed that pressure was focused specifically on the money that this person or that person had or that the disposable income or capital of this applicant or that applicant should be assessed.  
Maori land is of huge significance in a Maori World view. It refers to our significance as a people. A phrase in one aphorism states “The land is mine; it is from my ancestors”. So there are many references in this bill to this thing called land. Hence it was with some concern that we discovered tucked away within schedule 1 of this bill the proposal in clause 5 of the schedule that allows the commissioner to look at the equity and income of Maori land. If schedule 1 is considered in its entirety one will see that it allows a wide look at the income and assets of individuals; and the making of an assessment yes or no as to whether one can afford the costs involved in legal aid.  
Clause 5 of schedule 1 proposes that the income and one’s shares in Maori land be applied in the case of a proceeding in this family. This is quite difficult to explain in Maori but the point I am trying to make is that when it comes to this thing called Maori land there is a different view on it because the non-Maori viewpoint is quite different. That is what I am saying here. Maoridom does not view land from an individual perspective—that is one part for that person and one for someone else. Absolutely not. It is a broader perspective. To the Maori it is not an individual thing. Shares in the land are not about money assets or having equity. Not at all. It is essentially a viewpoint based on a lore handed down—end of story. At times statements are made that this thing land is never sold by Maori people because it does not belong to them but rather to the elders and the ancestors. Many Maori people have shares in Maori land but assets are not the important thing here nor the income generated but rather the knowledge that any accrued benefits will drop down to the children and grandchildren of the future. Furthermore unravelling issues like these in courts is quite a difficult process. It is a huge task. So the situation in the Te Waiariki electorate currently is that because there is a vast amount of Maori land and numerous blocks in the Bay of Plenty and East Coast regions a lot of time and money is wasted chasing up people who have shares in this thing called land. And many Maori do not even know they have land interests—end of story. They do not know that their information about the land is tucked away in the records of the Maori Land Court. So it is difficult. The Maori Party took this matter up directly with the Minister but to no avail. We put it before the other parties in Parliament last night but it never reached the threshold. But it was not for want of trying that we did not get the desired outcome.  
As a closing statement perhaps on this bill this part of the bill will not help Maoridom at all not one bit even though Maori are the very ones who are seeking assistance in the court. We advocate that this part of the bill be excluded and deleted to enable Maori tribes and those with land interests to apply to the court for assistance. That is the important thing provided it can be tacked on to Maori land where the equity exceeds the money in hand; otherwise Maori will be in trouble big time through the application process. Greetings to us 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Simon Bridges. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Not yet! 
Grant Robertson 
: A bit slow. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well I was getting confused. The Hon David Parker was also trying to get the call. I thought the Assistant Speaker knew something I did not know. 
Legal aid is a fundamental part of a civilised—as we like to think of it—sophisticated and humane society. One way to think of legal aid is that it redresses power imbalances so that people who effectively are powerless who do not have the resources can nevertheless have a fair day week month in court depending on the complexity of the case against them. Indeed they can get legal assistance and advice before that time so maybe it does not come to that. In criminal law it is very simple why that would be the case. It is the State that is bringing a case and a person should have a right to a good defence against the State. Family law is also relatively straightforward some of the time. 
In civil cases—and family law is a breed of civil law—legal aid is perhaps not quite so clear but even then I think we would all agree that where people without money or resources are being sued or have a legal right there should be to some extent public moneys to pay for those people to have their day in court in order to take on the powerful who might be raising a case against them. 
As I say it is important that we have a good legal aid system in New Zealand. That does not mean we should be lazy about our thinking on legal aid. It is expensive: costs have been rising very significantly in recent years. In the Justice and Electoral Committee we were led to believe that those costs would continue to rise—if not exponentially then certainly dramatically—over years to come. So we cannot be lazy about our thinking. Dame Margaret Bazley issued a report and that has been picked up on. This bill soon to become law is part of the Government’s response to Margaret Bazley’s reasonably rigorous report into legal aid in New Zealand. I accept we cannot tar all lawyers with the same brush but she found some concerning cases; it does not matter in a sense whether they were anecdotal or more widespread. This bill makes for and begins the process of a more efficient legal aid system and that has to be good. 
I agreed with what the Hon David Parker who is next to speak said yesterday in the Committee of the whole House. I think he may have put it slightly differently but he talked about a continuum with justice versus efficiency. Efficiency is still very important. One can have a million-dollar drink-driving case that takes weeks but the cost of that would be prohibitive and not worth it. So some regard has to be had for efficiency. 
But the other thing that this bill does is allow for competence and competence testing—a quality assurance framework where practitioners who get legal aid will need to demonstrate competency. That I think is very important. It has been said to me before and it is true that people could get an LLB from any of the numerous universities in New Zealand—there are probably too many in this country that offer law degrees—and they can set up shop anywhere in New Zealand. Of course they have to meet the professional requirements but once they have done that they never ever again in New Zealand need to do anything more to upskill or train or to better themselves as lawyers. I am sure David Parker Chester Borrows and I probably were diligent when we were practitioners going along to New Zealand Law Society courses that updated us on the new law. I remember going to one on the Evidence Act that the past Government— 
Hon Member 
: Too expensive. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: They were expensive those courses; they were $700 to $800 a pop sometimes. They did do a good muffin and scone though but that is another point. The point is that some would be diligent and go to these courses and would upskill but there is no requirement to do that now. Where lawyers get public money to defend or to pursue a case there are competency requirements. I think that is fair enough. It is a quid pro quo— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: To change the status quo. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: To change the status quo says my poetic friend and colleague Cam Calder. So that is that. 
I also make some final concluding remarks again about some things that David Parker and Simon Power the Minister of Justice said yesterday about our having embarked on criminal law reform family law reform is to come and perhaps even civil broader law reform. Of course how we fund civil cases— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I wait for that moment of glory when you quote me. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I do not recall “Jacinda Ardern LLB” but that is OK. That is not a problem. Jacinda Ardern can go to night school I think through Waikato University and then maybe I will quote her on legal reform bills. 
Anyway I am getting off course. Finally civil reform is to come and there are a number of things we can consider there. Conditional fee agreements are something they do in the UK and they are now revisiting. We may look at those sorts of things in the future in this country but they are not without their pitfalls. This bill is a very good plank of progress in legal aid reform in this country and Simon Power and the Justice and Electoral Committee that I am on are to be commended for their work. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to speak in support of the Legal Services Bill. Before I do I think it is good that members here are being a bit careful not to criticise all people who work on the legal aid rosters because most people who work on the legal aid rosters do a good job and do not overcharge. None the less Dame Margaret Bazley did find evidence of poor practice and I must admit that I was surprised on the Justice and Electoral Committee to learn that some legal aid lawyers doing low-level criminal cases in South Auckland were earning $250000 per annum at the cost of taxpayers. That seemed to me to be a bit excessive for low-level legal aid cases. 
We heard not just in Dame Margaret Bazley’s complaints but also from retired Justice Hansen—I think he is Sir John Hansen now. He was the executive High Court judge in the South Island for a long time and a very practical man as well as a good judge. He said that one of the problems was the method of allocation of legal aid briefs. So he supported the change proposed by the Government in this legislation to the preferred lawyer rule—effectively the choice was always given to a litigant to choose their own lawyer. There are occasions where it is important that litigants have continuity of lawyer such as with cases involving language barriers and instances where the accused suffers underlying mental health problems and has had a history of involvement with a particular lawyer. It is helpful for everyone to have continuity otherwise people have to go back over ground that has previously been traversed. Some of the issues relating to mental health difficulties should be brought to the court’s attention and the administration of justice is improved through the facilitation of that by a lawyer who has previously been involved. But that does not mean to say that in all cases there should just be the automatic right to choose one’s lawyer because we found that some of those cases had an association with the abuses of the legal aid system. So we agree that the removal of the preferred lawyer—that is the right of people who are getting their legal expenses paid for by the Crown to choose the lawyer that they want—should not always be so for minor cases. It becomes a bit more difficult in more serious cases where someone might be at risk of losing their liberty for a longer period of time. We think it is then appropriate that the person who is accused has some control as to the lawyer who is representing their interests. 
Some people say we should not have legal aid but I disagree with that view. It is a wrong proposition partly because the court processes are generally improved through people having legal representation. People who are of low income and who are charged with a crime often cannot afford a lawyer. If they are left without a lawyer they suffer an outcome different from someone who can afford a lawyer. It does not seem to be a good principle of justice that there is a different outcome according to the amount of money someone has in their wallet. There are also flow-on costs to the Crown in terms of less efficient court processes and the cost of ongoing disputes where people feel they have not had a fair trial and will be more likely to appeal and to object to the consequences. Their families will have a sense of injustice and confidence in our criminal justice system will be undermined. So it is important that we have legal aid available. 
I want to refer to a couple of other issues. Legal aid costs are significant and they are growing. What I think is wrong with the system at the moment is the “three strikes” legislation which drives up legal aid costs. There is no doubt that if someone is facing a charge for a crime that would be one of their three strikes then they will be more likely to defend that charge because they do not want three strikes. They will be advised by their lawyer that the consequences of the charge are so significant that rather than plead guilty they should defend the charge. There is no doubt about that in my view. So one area where we could be saving costs to the Crown is by doing away with the silly “three strikes” legislation. 
Another area is that the Crown through the police needs to exert some control on how complex it makes some of these trials. The prosecution controls how long some cases are to a certain extent just as the defence does. The increasing complexity of all trials be they civil or criminal needs to be addressed because the quality of justice has not changed much. There are no more or fewer people getting off charges when they really are guilty and ought to be convicted or being convicted when they are innocent. That sort of thing has not changed over time yet trials are becoming longer and longer and therefore more and more costly. Every additional technical step the prosecution takes has to be matched by a technical and costly act in defence on behalf of the accused which is at the cost of legal aid if the person on trial is in receipt of legal aid and at the cost of people’s pockets if the person on trial is not in receipt of legal aid. There is a need for rigour. How do we impose that rigour? Well it requires a change of practice within the ministries. It is not so much a matter of law; it requires a change in practice. It also in my opinion requires judges to control their courts and to say that there is an interest in justice in the expeditious conduct of proceedings. I said yesterday and I still believe that the quality of justice cannot be divorced from its accessibility. If there is a fantastic but inaccessible justice system that no one can afford to access it is not serving the overall interests of society in just resolution of disputes in terms of someone being convicted of a crime or not convicted or in terms of the resolution of a civil dispute. We have to control the cost of justice. There needs to be rigour within prosecution. 
One also needs rigour in the courts. Judges must control their courts. I saw a change during my period in practice when judges moved from being pretty strict growly generally old men on the bench. But my goodness they had a sense of fairness and they controlled their courts. If a judge saw a lawyer taking too long trying to delay something coming on for trial making it too complex or asking too many preliminary or interlocutory matters prior to trial they stood on it and stopped it. It is their right to and their duty to if they are going to cause the efficient administration of justice. I think our justice system has gone back in that regard and we need to get back some of that rigour. We see the increasing length of judgments. We have only about 350 decided civil matters in the High Courts in the whole of New Zealand between all of the judges. About 350 civil judgments between all of those judges in the whole of New Zealand were defended issues. Not enough matters are coming to trial because the cost of trials has become too high. The bill covers civil as well as criminal jurisdictions. Legal aid is but one part of what we need for a cost-effective fair and just system. We must control the length and cost of processes despite the fact that we have only 350 judgments in the High Court I was told. We should look at the length of law reports. They are just as long as they were when we had far far more decisions coming out of the High Court. The length of every judgment has increased. Too many of the reports read like books or in my opinion like academic treatises. It is important that we have the occasional academic look at a point of law but that is not true of most cases. Most cases can be decided relatively simply on their facts without embarking on some jurisprudential consideration of the finer points of the law. We need more practicality at that end of the justice system as well. 
The Legal Services Bill in so far as it changes the rules for preferred counsel is a valid attempt to control expense but we ought not to pretend that it is actually the fundamental driver of cost. The fundamental drivers of cost—whether they be in legal aid cases or non - legal aid cases—need to be controlled. The High Court Rules and the District Court civil rules need to be changed. They are too complex. We do not have enough oral judgments being delivered. That is another step that could be improved through better judicial practice. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Before I start my contribution I thank the Hon Rick Barker for his role as Assistant Speaker and I wish him good luck as Labour’s senior whip. 
I am privileged to stand in the third reading of the Legal Services Bill. Legal aid was first provided in New Zealand in 1912 to ensure that people of insufficient means were represented fairly. The National Government intends to make sure that all New Zealanders have access to a high-quality legal system. The Government also wants to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent. 
The bill will replace the current Legal Services Act 2000. The review undertaken in 2009 by Dame Margaret Bazley identified that the legal aid system was open to abuse. The review also identified that there were inadequate processes to ensure quality and serious delivery of issues. Last year there were 85156 legal aid grants costing taxpayers $131 million. The clear message was that it was time for fundamental changes. The trouble these days is that offenders know their rights better than they know their mistakes. The Justice and Electoral Committee received 24 submissions from lawyers community law centres and the general public. They all acknowledged the need for reform and recommended many changes to be considered. 
The bill will provide an effective legal aid system that supports the wider justice sector. The legal aid system helps to uphold the principles of and access to justice equality before the law and natural justice which helps to build and maintain public confidence in the legal system. The bill will provide an effective legal aid system that supports the wider justice sector. It will create a system in which taxpayers can have confidence. It will also provide high-quality legal services by capable lawyers. 
The focus of the bill is the reform of the legal service agencies. It transfers accountability for the administration of legal aid to the Secretary for Justice. It creates an independent statutory office that will have an obligation to grant legal aid and ensure the independence of public defence lawyers. 
One of the changes recommended by the select committee that I think is very important is that the Secretary for Justice is required to cancel the approval of any provider who was convicted of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment. That will not only align the provision with the provisions of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 but will also ensure that providers are held to appropriate professional standards and will protect the reputation of the profession. 
Another important change recommended by the select committee is to amend clause 77 by inserting new subclause (3A). This clause requires the Secretary for Justice to provide a reason for declining or giving approval for a provider to provide legal aid or specified legal services. That will make the secretary accountable for his or her decisions. It will create a system in which taxpayers can have confidence and it will provide high-quality legal services by capable professionals. 
Legal aid services are vital to our most vulnerable citizens and the changes made in the bill will make proud the users and the providers of legal aid. We are also confident that the package of changes will help build more public confidence that the legal aid system is providing quality service for those who need it while giving taxpayers value for their money. 
The bill shows that the Hon Simon Power the Minister of Justice has acted speedily to address the issues identified by Dame Margaret’s review. We are confident this package of changes will help build more public confidence in the legal aid system and provide quality service. I support the bill on its third reading. 
Debate interrupted.