Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLegal Assistance Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Legal Assistance Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 11 June.Part 2 Amendments to other Acts(continued )The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The House is in Committee. Kia ora tātou nō reira e te Whare e ngā iwi e ngā reo e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa. Good afternoon honourable members. We are in Committee—Hon Trevor Mallard: Following the standards of the Speaker.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well thank you Mr Mallard. We are in Committee for further consideration of the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill; for consideration of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Livestock Valuation Assets Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill; for further consideration of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill; and for consideration of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill and the Medicines Amendment Bill.Members we move first to the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill. When the Committee was last considering this bill we had reached Part 2. It is my understanding that the Hon Lianne Dalziel had the call and she has 4 minutes 55 seconds remaining if she so wishes. We do certainly have a significant number of bills here to consider Committee—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify whether we had begun the debate on Part 2 of the bill at the last point at which this was done or were we just ending Part 1? I just want to get a clarification of that matter. I am just going to continue talking for a little moment longer. Yes so were we on Part 1 or Part 2?The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We were Mr Robertson. I have it in front of me that we have here—and I have it written down here—Part 2 read. The honourable member Lianne Dalziel was speaking at 2150 and 2155 and therefore she has 4 minutes and 55 seconds remaining if she so wishes. The question is that Part 2 stand part. I call the Hon Lianne Dalziel.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):Because of the time that has elapsed since we last spoke on this bill I am going to start again. That is actually quite useful because I cannot remember what I have already said so it is probably a good thing to start again.Part 2 actually deals with amendments to other Acts. Quite often when you get to the amendments to other Acts you are really just seriously looking at amendments subsequent to what is dealt with in the substantive part of the bill that we have already addressed. However there are a number of areas that I think it is worth traversing and that in particular relate to the Care of Children Act 2004. This is where a lot of the controversy has arisen in terms of some of the changes that have been brought into place. It is not clear in terms of the legislation exactly what all of the implications of some of these amendments might in fact be. I seem to recall from the hearings that we had at the Justice and Electoral Committee that there was a lot of discussion about whether parties would be required to reimburse the costs associated with counsel for the child. I am looking to the Opposition spokesperson on justice Andrew Little for some assistance here. I think that there was a lot of debate around contribution to the costs for a lawyer for the child potentially able to be ordered which would be split between the two parents.Andrew Little: They could be different proportions.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: They could be in different proportions. That was of some concern I think because there was certainly a fear that any payments that were required to be made in relation to the legal aid coverage or the payments for lawyer acting for child could actually make people feel quite uncomfortable about their role in the hearing itself. I must say that there is a degree of disquiet around this particular change so that each party must pay an equal share of the prescribed proportions. I know that we had a discussion on another bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—which is perhaps not relevant to having a conversation about the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill—and there was a deep concern about it because of course some may qualify for legal aid and others may not. So you have got one of the parents up for a substantial proportion of the cost and the other parent up for a funded share. That I think created again some sense of disquiet about whether that would make the dealings between the parties more or less comfortable—and probably more uncomfortable—as a result. So there are some significant issues in respect of that.There are also issues around enforcement of orders to refund fees and expenses of court-appointed lawyers. There is a whole process to be gone through in the legislation to order a refund as a debt due to the Crown by that party and being enforceable in a District Court or the High Court as the case may require. Again this is forcing people into a situation—well in relation to the enforcement of a debt—of seeing themselves in a position where perhaps they are not seeing that their contribution is necessarily their legal responsibility.But it all really comes back to that same issue that we were debating before in the other legislation and that is that essentially when you have got a Government that thinks that family disputes between couples are private matters and therefore not eligible for any form of State assistance and the only interest the Government has is in helping parents agree to the care of the children arrangements it does seem to be a real mismatch because of course the whole focus is actually on reducing costs. This makes absolute sense when you tie it in with the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill but it does not make sense when you are looking at what might actually be in the best interests of children.When people are facing these enormous costs what they end up doing is entering into agreements that may in fact not be in the best interests of their child. I will give you one example that came up in one of the hearings that we had where a couple had agreed that they were going to share care. They were going to share the day-to-day arrangements for the care of their child. As a result of them reaching this agreement which was going to be 1 week about—so 1 week for one parent and 1 week for the other. The child—remind me again our spokesperson on justice. I think the child was 18 months old—Andrew Little: 6 months.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: 6 months old. The parents thought they were doing the right thing. They—Scott Simpson: The Family Court bill.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes I know. The point that I am making is that it is relevant when it comes to cost-sharing arrangements because a lot of people enter into these arrangements because of the costs associated with them. There are three sets of costs that are now in play. One is the cost of now going to a family dispute resolution which of course is the other bill. The other is the cost of the child support because eligibility for child support is dependent on the number of days or the number of hours essentially for the primary caregiver. That has created an incentive for people to look for ways to share the arrangements so that basically it is like an insurance knock-for-knock arrangement where you can cancel each other out. But then on other occasions they are not able to achieve that so none of the costs that the non-custodial parent or the one providing day-to-day care—that parent is not allowed to take into account the cost of holding an extra bedroom open which is an issue for people especially who are renting. They are not allowed to take into account the extra costs for food and entertainment and things like that for that time. So they continue to pay their child support every week. The point that I am making is that all of these issues come into the decision-making process and have nothing to do with the best interests of the children.The final one that we have decided to add to the whole mix is that you can pay for counsel for child as well. Well we have already heard from our debate on the other legislation that there are some limitations around that. That lawyer acting for the child—in the best interests of the child—may in fact provide the only legal advice that anyone gets at any point in time and it is at the point that they get to family dispute resolution. Now we are going to send them the bill as well—to both parties.I actually think that people should take a serious serious look at what this Parliament does from time to time. We should join the dots. We have had an issue down in Christchurch around building consents where we have got a silo mentality within the council and we have got a silo mentality outside the council in all the different Government departments. Even with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in play there are still all these silos all doing their own thing and not joining the dots. Well for goodness’ sake when we are talking about the best interests of children should wenot be joining the dots? Is that not probably the most important thing that we could do for those little dots?I think that it is irresponsible to go through a process of decision making on these separate issues in silos and not see that they have a huge impact on children. That is why the word “sustainability” went out of the title of this bill; it is now the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill. The word “sustainability” has gone because actually it is not a sustainable proposition. I know that the Government took it out because it did not really want people to focus on the fact that it was only about the money but actually it has gone for another good reason and that is that this is not a sustainable approach. If we really care about the best interests of children and ensure that they are at the heart of all decision making then we would not be doing child support separately from legal assistance and separately from Family Court proceedings. I actually know that there are a number of people who agree with that point of view. I know that there are many actually on the other side of the Chamber who secretly agree with that point of view too and would like to see something done about it.The other part of this particular bill talks about the costs of court-appointed barristers or solicitors. When the court finally reaches the nightmare situation of having two self-represented litigants in front of them who are both going hammer and tongs at each other it finally brings in a court-appointed barrister or solicitor to help sort the mess out which is going to happen much more often as a result of the previous legislation that we have been dealing with. We are going to end up in the situation where the parties are going to be required to pay for that barrister or solicitor as well even though they were appointed to represent the interests of the court. I think that there has been a fundamental flaw in the thinking here. Early legal advice is what actually helps resolve disputes.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice):I take a call just to respond to some of the points raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Obviously she has with her experience recognised that there have been some issues that need to be addressed that have been spoken about amongst the family legal fraternity. It is important to point out that in the consideration of this Legal Assistance Amendment Bill and further on in the implementation of it there will be some regulations that will for instance prescribe the portion of lawyer-child costs that parties are required to pay as two-thirds. But by default this cost will be split in equal shares between the parties. It is also important to note that however the court may substitute a different share for a party if satisfied that in the circumstances of the case it would be inappropriate to require each party to pay an equal share. The substituted share may not exceed the prescribed portion so no party may be required to pay more than two-thirds of the cost of the lawyer.There obviously needs to be built into this some safeguards—and the safeguards are all around the paramount principle of the Care of Children Act 2004 under which most orders are made—that the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount. Therefore any decisions about orders of costs must be taken with that principle in mind. The court may decline to make an order of costs if satisfied that it would cause serious hardship to either party or to a dependent child of the party and the court may adjust the default equal share of costs if it is considered inappropriate.It is also to be noted for instance that even as part of the Family Court review which the previous speaker mentioned there are a number of alterations that have been made there in respect of for instance allowing legal aid to be granted for counsel to be provided in the preparation of parents who will be representing themselves because it recognised that there was “inequity of arms” if for instance one party with a substantial income was able to go and get coaching if you like from a legal counsel and would be better prepared. So it was important in the interests of justice to allow that to happenunder that particular bill and I think it is important to know that legal aid is moving to recognise that there have been these issues.My final point to make is in response to the courts’ ability to alter or to waive the imposition of the costs of counsel for the child. In the institution of fees and filing fees in the Family Court there was a lot of noise about the fact that these had never been in place before. The point was made that waivers would be granted or would be able to be granted in circumstances. In actual fact 70 percent of the matters appearing before the Family Court now receive a waiver. Any argument that says the Ministry of Justice would be unlikely to give waivers is actually not an issue. It has not proven to be an issue under that particular regime and no one would expect it to be in the future.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to make a further contribution on the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill in the very important Committee stage. Having listened to the contribution of the Associate Minister of Justice Mr Borrows I simply reiterate the concern that the Labour Party has about the regime that is now to be set up for the recovery of a proportion of the costs associated with the appointment of counsel for the child.I am not reassured by the Minister’s attempt at reassurance just now and I refer him specifically to new section 131A of the Care of Children Act inserted by clause 27 and to the definition of “serious hardship” remembering that under the regime that the bill proposes there is first of all a presumption that the costs or part of the costs of counsel for the child will be levied across the parties. There is scope to have the share between the parties different across each party—I understand that. But the basis on which one party or both might not be levied at all is on the grounds of serious hardship.Serious hardship as defined in new section 131A(6) “(a) includes significant financial difficulties that arise because of—(i) the party’s inability to meet”—and this is the phrase I want to focus on—“minimum living expenses according to normal community standards;”. With all due respect to the Minister that language is somewhat vague. What is a judge to make of “minimum living expenses” and what is a judge to make of “normal community standards” understanding that that sort of language sounds like a very shifting sort of standard: the shifting sands of minimum living expenses and the shifting sands of normal community standards?It looks to me like this provision in its current form is more likely to cause more confusion and anxiety than to give any greater assurance. Perhaps the Minister could answer the question about what a judge is to make of that sort of language when it comes to this sort of cost recovery. I know it appears in the previous part of the bill but it relates also to the other powers of attachment that will now apply when it comes to cost recovery including for cost recovery of counsel for the child. It is also related to the part that allows not only attachment orders but that attachment orders can be up to 40 percent of the net pay of a grantee of legal aid or of someone who has had the benefit of counsel for the child or whose child has been represented by counsel for the child. Up to 40 percent of net pay can be the subject of an attachment order to meet these costs that can now be levied.There is nothing in the bill unless the Minister can point it out to us that suggests there is any potential for alleviation—for a judge to avoid levying a party or both parties who have had the benefit of counsel for the child in their care of the children proceeding—other than the general discretion of the court on the very vague “serious hardship” condition. This still remains highly problematic for us. This does not give us any reassurance that this bill will not lead to some people facing considerable hardship and considerable debt. Once the amount is levied it will be subject to interest and it will be subject to recovery action not the least of which would be an attachment order thatcould see up to 40 percent of a person’s net pay being extracted from them before their pay lands in their bank account.That has the potential to cause significant problems for people and to really create a great sense of fear in people who are in the position often not by choice where they are utilising in this case family proceedings where they are subject to this type of levying. That makes the legal aid scheme not a scheme of fairness not one of ensuring access to justice but a scheme that will become one of great fear. People will fear that they may be plunged into permanent or long-term hardship or poverty or destitution as a consequence. That is not good.As a matter of public confidence what we need is a legal aid scheme that does what it is intended to do. We need a scheme that provides legal assistance for those who simply do not have the means to meet the cost—one that provides legal assistance to those who are in a position where they must pay legal costs the costs of representation and advocacy in a situation where they would prefer not to or in a situation that they have not necessarily chosen. These sorts of clauses are enough to suggest that a legal aid scheme that is built on these sorts of provisions will not be a legal aid scheme worthy of the name.I call on the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice to give some clarity about just exactly what the Government has in mind when it comes to recovery of costs for these matters for the lawyer for the child under this part and what it means in terms of the test for serious hardship for a party to be afforded their minimum living expenses according to normal community standards. That is not meaningful to me and any black-letter lawyer looking at that is not going to be reassured that this is going to provide any assurance at all. That remains a very important and very serious question in terms of this very important piece of legislation.Given the changes that have already happened there are going to be costs and expenses that lawyers are no longer going to be willing to pick up whether it is the $50 user charge or other charges that may be imposed. Lawyers providing this sort of work under legal aid are simply not going to be able under the current regime to pick up those costs and they will fall on the parties. These are already impecunious parties—that is why they are seeking legal aid and apply for legal aid—and to then be subject to a further test of serious hardship does not look like good justice to me. Let us hear from the Minister on those points.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Taloha ni and tēnā koe Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill. This is an issue that has played quite largely in my electorate of Mana. There was a quite well-attended public meeting around the issue of access to legal aid organised by someone who I think knows the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice quite well and who has I think lobbied him on many occasions around her concerns with many of the provisions in this bill.Pointing directly to Part 2 I want to also head towards clause 27 I think it is as I think my colleague Andrew Little did. This is the insertion of some new sections sections 131A to 131C around the advocacy for children. One submission during the select committee process that I did want to highlight was from the Children’s Commissioner Dr Russell Wills where he had serious concerns about where this bill was heading in terms of looking after children. In point 21 of the submission that Dr Wills made to this bill he said: “In addition I note that the Bill makes no reference to the best interests of the child in the explanatory note to the Bill despite the fact that it will clearly impact upon children and young people who are involved in Family or Youth Court proceedings.” He goes on to say that “These children and young people areamong the most vulnerable in our community and it is therefore imperative that their interests are given primary consideration.”I think that is very interesting—I think that is probably one way to put it. But it is quite a damning statement from the Children’s Commissioner the fact that this bill has not really taken the best interests of children to heart both within the explanatory note and also within the provisions of this bill. That was in essence the substance of the meeting that was held in Porirua. There was a lot of concern from the legal community from a lot of agencies who deal with children in this situation about the ability to advocate properly for children in these situations where you have families who are separating especially because there is a lot of legal assistance offered in this situation. A lot of the families that these lawyers are acting for do find themselves in serious hardship.Just as Andrew Little did I want to point to I think new section 131A(6) inserted by clause 27 of this bill and ask whether the Minister in the chair could try to clarify for us the definition of “serious hardship” as it is in the bill as it stands at the moment. As it stands section 131A(6) says that “serious hardship” in relation to a party or a dependent child of that party: “(a) includes significant financial difficulties that arise because of—(i) the party’s inability to meet minimum living expenses according to normal community standards;”.For any judge to try to make sense of that I think would be difficult. If that judge were to be sitting in the Porirua District Court that would be difficult because I would say that most of the families appearing there would meet that test and would therefore be able to get some kind of compensation or get legal assistance but some others may not depending on where they were at the time or which court they were being seen in. Could I ask the Minister in the chair whether he could clarify that for us; that request comes from me and also from Andrew Little.I did want to make the point just before my 5 minutes is up that we do not believe that the best interests of the children are at heart here. We can look at the change in the title—and we will get plenty of opportunity to debate that. It was originally the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill; the title has been changed. But we believe that the real driver of this bill is in its original title and that is to make in the eyes of the Government legal assistance much more sustainable which in “real speak” is to cut costs to the detriment of justice and access to justice and unfortunately in this case to the detriment of the ability of families to get access to justice for their children in these situations.That was certainly made clear by the Children’s Commissioner and I just want to read that quote once more to make the point. In that submission the Children’s Commissioner said that “the Bill makes no reference to the best interests of the child in the explanatory note to the Bill despite the fact that it will clearly impact upon children and young people who are involved in Family or Youth Court ...”. That also goes back to the access to justice issue which I know we have already debated in Part 1 but this is very much related to it around the fee that some families would have to pay to access legal aid. I understand and I may stand corrected that it was originally $100 but I think the select committee process has brought it down to a fee of $50. But I know certainly from the people in my area that they have been saying that if they have someone who comes along arrives at their reception area whom they have dealt with in the past—they have a history they have a relationship with that family—they are very reluctant to turn them away just because they cannot afford to perhaps pay $100 as it originally was or $50 as it stands now. So what they will do is more than likely accept the case because they know that the family does have a very important case to be heard and as I said there may be children involved.There are three options that could potentially happen in that situation. The provider will simply just pay that fee itself and wear the costs; all the clients will end up wearing the costs over that financial period or that financial year if they just aggregate all those fees; or in the end the legal provider will just end up slapping another $50 or what could have been potentially $100 on the bill that the Crown gets. We do not think that is necessarily the cleverest situation to be in especially when it is asking a lot of legal firms many of which are considering getting out of the legal aid arena to wear the additional costs of getting over the first hurdle for many of these families in order for them to access legal aid.So that was one of the concerns that were certainly raised in the Justice and Electoral Committee by a number of submitters and again it was raised by one very strident legal provider in my area who again knows the Minister in the chair quite well and who I am sure has had a conversation with him about it.We are concerned around the ability of this bill to look after the best needs of the children—that has been made pretty clear in the quote from the Children’s Commissioner that I have used twice—and the ability of families to access legal aid in that situation in order to get the best advocacy for children. Then on the other side of things we are also very concerned about the access and I guess some of the barriers that have been put up under this bill to access to justice for a lot of families.Just before I finish off I want also to commend the select committee. As I have said in a previous contribution on this bill I think the committee has taken what was an awful bill and made it just bad which is an improvement because I think the committee has taken into consideration some of the submissions that it heard through the process. I guess members on this side of the Chamber have tried to make some changes and there has been some movement from the Government to support changes around first of all reducing the fee from $100 to $50. That is an improvement but it is still we think a hindrance to access to justice. I do not want to be too harsh on that select committee because it has made some changes that make the bill better but we still do not think it is a very good bill in terms of making the legal aid arena more efficient and I guess a little bit more sustainable and also in terms of balancing that up against access to justice and fairness especially for those vulnerable families.I will leave it there and hopefully the Minister in the chair can answer some of those questions especially around section 131A in clause 27 in terms of serious hardship—if he could try to explain to the Committee what the spirit of that clause means where it says “the party’s inability to meet minimum living expenses according to normal community standards;”. If the Minister in the chair could elaborate on that for us it would be quite useful for this side of the Chamber.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice):I just want to address three points that have been raised by the previous two speakers and put their minds at rest in respect of those issues. In respect of clause 27 the point was made that the Children’s Commissioner had made a submission that the best interests of children were not mentioned in the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill. The fact is that clause 27 amends the Care of Children Act 2004 and the paramount principle of that Act is what is in the best interests of the child. When a decision is being made by a judge under these clauses that go to amend the Care of Children Act 2004 he must consider what is in the best interests of the child. So just because it is not mentioned in this bill it does not take anything away from the fact that when the Care of Children Act is amended by this bill the judge will have to make those considerations.Another question that was raised by the earlier speaker Mr Little was around how the costs of child contributions were going to be recovered by the court. I had I think quite extensively covered that in my previous speech which said that the regulations that willaccompany the bill make provision for the judge to be able to recover no more than two-thirds of the cost of counsel for the child. The judge can apportion that by default fifty-fifty but has the opportunity to move that or to remove it completely if he believes that there is hardship or that it is not in the best interests of the child to try to recover those costs.So then the question was around what “serious hardship” means and as this is not defined within the bill how a court could possibly understand what “serious hardship” means. The term “serious hardship” is a term that is used in other legislation and so is interpreted now by judges in the course of their deliberations in respect of these other Acts. Two examples are the Income Tax Act and the Tax Administration Act. This term has been defined by case law—by the common law—so judges seeking to interpret the term “serious hardship” have precedents that they can fall back on.I guess it is important to note in global comments in respect of this particular bill that the cost of legal aid had blown out by 55 percent over a 4-year period. That is something that any Government has to address. The previous Government which had the means and the resources to be able to do more in this area did a couple of unusual things. One of them was that it spent more money in this area by widening the boundaries for which legal aid could be granted. But what it did not do at all was take up the legal aid rates that legal aid lawyers were paid. So what we found when we came into Government was that there were a number of firms providing legal aid that were getting out as the previous member indicated. They were getting out because those levels of remuneration were not there.To be fair that member’s Government did nothing about it in the 9 years that it was there. I accept that what the National Government has done now is to restrict access to legal aid in some areas but at the same time it has extended it in others. Where an initial premise of restriction or constraint has been promoted in the bill and there have been submissions made against those constraints we have responded by way of folding those back. The previous speaker mentioned that too in respect of the filing fee moving from $100 back to $50.I can understand that there will be members of the Committee who will not be voting for this legislation. I understand that. I hope they do reconsider that if that is their current standpoint bearing in mind that even they accept—in rather derisory terms—that some improvements have been made. I believe that it is a bill that will ensure ongoing sustainability of legal aid. I do not expect that in a sector that is bound up in convention and tradition we are going to have huge accolades for changing anything until those changes have been proved to be worth their salt. Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I want to pick up on a couple of points that the Minister in the chair Chester Borrows has just made. He repeats the justification for a bill that in the end could not be justified. That is why when we look at Part 2 of the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill as in Part 1 page after page of the bill is struck out. Even “(Sustainability)” in the title is struck out. Can I suggest that the reason that the word “sustainability” has been struck out is that in relation to what the National Government was proposing in terms of fairness in terms of decency and in terms of having a justice system that actually deserves that title there was not anything that was sustainable in the original bill if you judge it on the basis of those particular principles.The Minister talks about the blowout as he terms it in legal aid. What the Minister does not tell the Committee is that before legal aid was increased under the last Government it had been static for 20 years. Legal aid had not been increased in 20 years and of course it was going to cost more when you decided that actually if the principle of legal aid—affording justice to all—is to be realised then you cannot makethe threshold for being eligible for legal aid as low as it is. The threshold it will surprise listeners to hear for a single person getting legal aid is an income of $22000 a year. That is less than what you get on the minimum wage. So effectively what we had and what this Government was seeking to worsen was a situation where if you are at the lowest level of income in society if you are on a benefit you could get legal aid but if you are out there working working every hour that you are able to to try to get things together for your family you would be rendered ineligible for legal aid because the threshold was—[Interruption ]—“you” meaning the person who is receiving it Mr Chairman—that they were not so poverty-stricken that they would get it.What this Government seems to be saying in this part of the bill and in the bill as a whole is that if you are absolutely poverty-stricken then you might get some assistance but the Government ignores the fact that a great many people—ordinary hard-working New Zealanders trying to get justice through the system—will get no assistance because the threshold levels are so low. You will be denied the right to justice. And there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who come into that category. So when the Minister talks about as he did a blowout of legal aid what he was effectively talking about was an extension of legal aid so that people who could not reasonably be expected to pay for the cost of justice themselves would not be denied justice.One of the basic principles by which you judge any society is that access to justice should not be based on the amount of money you earn. What this section of the bill shows more than anything is that Ministers on more than a quarter of a million dollars a year do not understand what it is like for people on $30000 $40000 or $50000 a year when they are confronted with the huge cost of legal bills. They cannot afford it they do not get represented and justice does not get done. Surely—surely—there would be bipartisan agreement in this House that a priority must be that nobody is denied justice by virtue of their inability to pay but the tragic reality of the system in New Zealand worsened by this bill is that time and again people are denied access to justice. Justice is for the rich. Justice is for those who can afford the Queen’s Counsel—and those who can afford the Queen’s Counsel end up getting away with things that they probably should not—and those people at the bottom who are struggling to see justice done are denied justice by this Government. I refuse to believe that this is about the fact that the Government cannot afford to pay for it. The Government could afford to give John Key a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year in tax cuts. Surely it can afford to ensure justice for people. In this clause of the bill surely it can afford to give justice to the child who might otherwise be unrepresented—the child the most vulnerable person in the system. If there is a need for counsel for the child that means that their life has been pretty miserable they have had a hard go of it and they do deserve justice. But this bill constantly in every clause that was put into it by Simon Power denies people justice.If you look at the report back and the summary from the Justice and Electoral Committee you will see how appallingly bad this legislation was when it was introduced. It was so appallingly bad that a new Minister of Justice coming in could not sustain it particularly not one with leadership ambitions and trying to take away the flinty-faced image that she had. She realised that this was poison to her and particularly poison to her when justice to children is being denied. But the Minister has not realised that very effectively because this is the second bill that we have had in the Chamber this afternoon that has sought to take away the rights of representation that children can have. I think that that is an absolute disgrace. This legislation has been gutted of about maybe 70 percent of the appalling—appalling—original clauses that it had in it. What I am saying to members today is that the remaining 30 percent is not worth the paper that it is printed on either.When you look at it there are so many extra procedural things that the court will have to go through that this will not be saving money; this will be costing money. This becomes a bureaucratic nightmare when you work out what the interests of justice involve and where there is serious hardship all for the saving of $50 as a fee on legal aid or for trying under Part 2 to force the parents to pay the cost of counsel for the child. There will be battles between the parents who may be at odds with each other. In the end for the sake of saving a little bit of cash up front there will be huge administrative costs and the child runs the risk of not seeing justice done in his or her case.The regulatory impact analysis of this bill applying to Part 2 says that “The purpose of the legal aid scheme is to provide access to justice by providing legal services to people of insufficient means. It contributes to fairer outcomes by ensuring that parties with unequal financial resources have equal access to justice. Consequently legal aid helps underpin confidence in the justice system.” That is the Government’s own regulatory impact statement. I want the new Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment to explain how in any way Part 2 of this bill—or for that matter Part 1—meets the objectives set out in the regulatory impact statement. How is it that this bill helps provide access to justice? The whole purpose of this bill is to deny access to justice. It is to deny access to justice to save money. There are many areas where the Government could save money without denying access to justice and particularly without the punitive areas that are involved with changes to the Care of Children Act that are made in Part 2 of this bill. The Minister of Justice under the pressure of submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee has tried to make this bill acceptable. She has taken out some of the worst features of it but she has equally left features that render this bill unacceptable to our side of the Chamber.In relation to clause 27 of the bill the Minister previously in the chair the Minister for Courts said the paramount principle of the Care of the Children Act was the best interests of the child and that because that was in the principal Act it did not need to be included in Part 2 of this bill. That is not a very good reason. It is abundantly apparent that when you are charging for counsel for the child and putting in obstacles in the way done by this bill and the previous bill that the Parliament has just considered the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill you are not acting in the best interests—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: “You” meaning the generic “you” Mr Chairman. I am sure that you would want to see the best interests of the child protected in this bill. You are a very good Chair and member of the Parliament. We are interested in upholding what every New Zealander believes should be upheld: that the interests of the child should be paramount. Why is it that this bill is so miserable—SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is always very interesting to follow the Hon Phil Goff and particularly one of his vein-popping angry presentations. That was I think probably an indication that he has been following Australian politics very closely this week. One of my colleagues was unkind enough to think that maybe a new name for him might be “Phil Rudd” but probably I should refer to him always by his true and proper name which is the honourable member for Mt Roskill.Speaking in the Committee stage on Part 2 of this Legal Assistance Amendment Bill there are several point that I would like to make. Part 2 is the part that makes amendments to other Acts—notably amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and the Care of Children Act 2004. Clause 26 relates to the costs of court-appointed counsel: “the court may if it thinks it is appropriate order a party to the proceedings to refund to the Crown an amount the court specifies in respect of any fees and expenses that relate to” the appointment of counsel. During the select committeestage the Justice and Electoral Committee considered this point carefully. It is appropriate that I just mention the good work of the committee. These were issues that were in some cases quite technical quite complicated and committee members addressed themselves to them with full keenness vigour and attention to that detail.The clause that I was referring to goes on to say that “no order under section 131A may be made against—(a) the Crown … (b) a person in whose custody the child concerned has been placed [following] an order made under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.” Proposed new sections 131A through to 131C have been inserted into the bill. Proposed new section 131A allows for an order requiring refund of payments in respect of a lawyer acting for the child. Proposed new section 131A(2) says that each party must pay an equal share of the prescribed proportion and that such an order may be declined to be made by the court against a party if the court is satisfied that the order would cause serious hardship to the party or serious hardship to the dependent child of the party. The court would need to be satisfied that in its view of the circumstances of the case including the conduct of any party—that is important the conduct of any party—it would be inappropriate to require the amount payable in accordance with the court’s view.The test for serious hardship is important and one that I know the courts already take seriously and it is well considered in other legislation. Kris Faafoi in his contribution to this debate a few minutes ago spoke about this. Serious hardship includes significant financial difficulties that arise for a variety of reasons. Those reasons can include such matters as the party’s inability to meet minimum living expenses according to what is known as normal community standards. Also relevant for consideration in a determination of serious hardship will be the cost of medical treatment for an illness or injury of the party or a dependent child of the party and I think that is right and appropriate. Serious illness suffered by the party or by a dependent child of the party is also to be considered in the measure of what serious hardship is and I am pleased to see that the cost of education for a dependent child is another relevant factor the court would take into consideration in determining serious hardship.The clause goes on to exclude some factors that are not to be included in the definition of serious hardship. Again I think the legislation will address those matters appropriately. For instance social activities and the entertainment of the party or the dependent child are not to be considered. The party’s inability to merely fund or afford goods or services that are expensive or of a higher quality or standard than the normal community standard of goods and services is also excluded from the consideration in terms of the definition of serious hardship.As I said the committee has dealt very carefully with these sections. They are complicated. They are worthy of the careful consideration of this Committee. I am very grateful for the work done by all members of the select committee.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take another call. It is quite clear from the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill and from the debate we have had so far on it—and by the removal already before we even came to the Committee stage of the word “(Sustainability)” from the bill as was originally presented to Parliament—that this is not a bill about legal assistance at all. It has departed so vastly so greatly from that original objective that it cannot possibly be described as a legal assistance bill in any measure at all.This bill is fiscally driven. It is about this Government’s desperate bid to drive down the cost of legal aid. We know that legal aid is expensive. It comprises a significant proportion of the Ministry of Justice budget—I think about 50 percent and that is a big chunk. But that is because legal aid plays a very important part in the life of our justice system and I underscore “justice” because knowing what legal costs are in this country as they are in other developed countries without legal aid a large number of people would be deprived of the right to access our justice system. They would be deprived of the right to representation. So when we are considering matters of legal representation and the assistance that people need to get legal representation so that they can stand up and have their views heard in court and they can defend themselves whether it is against the power of the State or whether it is against the power of other citizens who are well funded and well founded then we should tread very carefully and very cautiously. And we should bear in mind the fundamental principle that there is no such thing as a justice system that shuts out a significant proportion of the population.We as a developed country celebrate our participation in and our adherence to the principle of the rule of law. I have talked about that before in this House and it is absolutely fundamental to a developed country. In fact one of the markers of a civilised and developed country is that we observe the principles of the rule of law and a fundamental principle of the rule of law is that all citizens have equal access to justice which means that they have equal access to the institutions of justice which include our court system. So when citizens are called upon to be in court because somebody else sues them or they are in a situation where they have faced an injustice—it might be a consumer malfeasance it might be a family matter it might be a criminal matter it might be a regulatory matter—and they are required to appear in court to argue their case or defend their position then those who cannot afford legal representation must be given assistance to do that. That is a constitutional principle. It is not about private rights. It is not about the private realm. It is a constitutional matter that if people are caught up in private disputes and must call upon the justice system or if people are called upon to answer the powerful hand of the State then they must be afforded proper support so that they can be represented and be advocated for in court.The legal aid system that we have at the moment already sets a very low threshold—in fact actually a very high threshold but a low income threshold which enables them to get access to State assistance to be represented in court—of $22000 a year. There are a lot of people who are earning considerably more than that who would have great difficulty affording the legal fees that would be required to mount even a small or brief legal case. Even a plea in mitigation for a small criminal matter is going to cost a few hundred dollars and if you are on $30000 $35000 or even $40000 a year an extra few hundred dollars at a point in time in your earning year is going to be a significant burden. Those people do not have access to legal assistance. If it is a serious criminal matter they may do but the income threshold that entitles a person to legal aid is very low.This bill compounds that situation when it comes to civil matters. The imposition of a $50 user charge to somebody who is on $22000 a year is a significant obstacle. Thatis a huge burden. That is the difference between buying some food that week paying the power bill that month or meeting other important costs and not. It might be a school bill or something like that. Fifty dollars is a significant imposition on somebody on $22000 a year but this bill puts it on them.This bill also potentially levies other costs. When it comes to a care of children matter a person on legal aid may be required to meet the cost of counsel for the child if the court appoints counsel for the child in a case in which they are involved. They may have access to time payments. There may be means for them to do that but that will be a significant burden on them as it would be obviously to somebody on much less than $22000 a year. The bill provides for debt collection measures which add to it and they include attachment orders and attachment orders to the extent of 40 percent of people’s net income—their net weekly pay. That is a huge proportion of their pay and that is enough to tip people over into absolute dire poverty.This bill is not about legal assistance. This bill might be more appropriately named the “Legal Costs (Imposition of a Cost Burden on the Poor) Bill” because that is what it will do. In a desperate bid by this Government to drive down the cost of legal aid it has lost sight of the wood for the trees. What is an important constitutional principle that is about access to justice has got completely lost in the Government’s desperate bid to recover costs and make its books look better. Although no one would argue against proper fiscal responsibility in the management of the Government books we cannot overlook the important principle that access to justice will be put at risk at least for some people as a consequence of this bill. So the title must reflect that. “Legal Assistance Amendment Bill” simply does not speak to the reality of this piece of legislation which is the imposition of significant hardship and a much greater burden on people who are least in a position to bear that. We are opposed to it for that reason.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):The title and commencement clauses debate for bills is usually an opportunity for members of Parliament to take some licence and have some fun with the titles of bills. But in this instance I am certainly not going to do that because this is simply not a funny issue at all and to do that would be belittling the effect of what this bill is having on our communities. It is a serious issue.As it stands I believe the title of the bill is the “Legal Assistance Amendment Bill”; the word “(Sustainability)” has been struck out by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The question has to be asked—and I have commended the select committee for making such changes—as to why the select committee thought it fit to remove one word from the title that being “Sustainability”. Wanting to be accurate the Chair has given me the ability to borrow his dictionary. It does not exactly have the word “sustainability” but under “sustain” one of the descriptions is “to provide for or give support to esp. by supplying necessities:”.Therein lies the reason why this select committee has taken out the word “Sustainability” from the title of the bill. It is because this certainly does not provide for or give support “especially by supplying necessities” to the legal assistance arena of our justice system. In fact we would argue that it does exactly the opposite of that by taking away support for and not supplying the necessities for legal assistance especially for our most vulnerable families. As Andrew Little argued we do not want to get to the stage where access to justice and the ability to go through the justice system whether it be a civil matter or a criminal matter is all based on how much money you have in your bank account.We believe that the motivation for this bill is simply fiscal and that is to cut costs. Unfortunately one of the effects of that is as we fear that access to justice for many New Zealanders will be removed. So we do believe when looking at the dictionary here that the select committee was right to remove the word “sustainability” from thetitle because this bill does not provide any support and it certainly does not provide the legal assistance arena with the necessities to do what we believe the legal assistance provisions in our justice system are there to do. We do think it does exactly the opposite.We need to think of this from three different perspectives. One is as I have mentioned before the perspective of the child. There are no words in the title at the moment that I can see that point towards it being in the best interests of the child nor in the explanatory note and that was a point that was made by the Children’s Commissioner. I will take the liberty of taking some quotes out of his submission to the select committee. He made a number of very good points. He noted that “the Bill makes no reference to the best interests of the child in the explanatory note to the Bill despite the fact that it will clearly impact upon children and young people who are involved in Family or Youth Court proceedings.” He went on to say that “These children and young people are among the most vulnerable in our community and it is therefore imperative that their interests are given primary consideration.”You cannot argue with the Children’s Commissioner on that. You may think that his being the primary advocate for children in our Government set-up would mean that he is purely focused on that but as we can see and as I have referenced before there is no reference to children in either the explanatory note or the title.The recommendations that the Children’s Commissioner made were basically not to proceed with this bill. His recommendations were “That the Bill is amended to expressly provide for the continuation of the current Court-administered selection processes;”. Also basically he thought that the provisions for access to justice for the best interests of the children were not in the best interests of the children.There are other pieces of legislation that are going through this House that we also think are down to cost cutting and one has been on the Order Paper earlier today. I do want to read a quote from Mark Henaghan from Otago University. This is going back to working in the best interests of the children. Professor Mark Henaghan expressed his feelings in a very concise quote on the removal of child advocates and this is certainly something that is covered in this bill. He said—it is a very quick quote—“So if we take their representation out we kind of doom them to not be heard.” In essence if we do make the barriers much higher for families to access justice which is what we are doing here in the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill I think that Mr Henaghan’s quote becomes quite apt. As Mr Little said we believe that one of the effects of this bill is there will be fewer child advocate counsels being able to be accessed by families and we do think that is of major concern to a lot of communities.Certainly as I have mentioned in my community in Porirua the legal fraternity is very worried. Family lawyers are very worried about their ability to be able to act for families that they have had a relationship with for many many years. I think they are a bit frustrated with some of the commentary that came back in their direction when they were opposing the moves that the Government is making—that the lawyers were trying to keep the gravy train going and that they were concerned only about the fees that could be got out of prolonging what is already in place or taking away any legal assistance that might be open to them. There was a deep level of frustration at that and I think that is well founded because if you go to most communities around New Zealand and you talk to lawyers who are acting in Family Court proceedings or family proceedings they very much have the interests of children and families at heart. I am sure some of them also need to eat so they want to make sure that they get paid but the insinuation that these lawyers were basically out to look after themselves was something from the Government that certainly upset them.As I said this is not one of those title and commencement debates where you have fun with the title of the bill or with the commencement of the bill—not that I think anyone has ever had any fun talking about the commencement of a bill. This is a serious issue. I note that the word “Sustainability” has been removed from the title. I have noted that this dictionary which has been loaned to me momentarily talks about sustainability being the ability “to provide for or give support to esp. by supplying necessities:”. We do not believe that this bill does that to the legal aid framework. We believe it does the exact opposite. It is appropriate that that word “Sustainability” was removed from the title. Maybe the Government should not have put it in there in the first place and it has been exposed for that. We do not believe that the bill does make the legal aid framework sustainable. We think it takes away the rights for many many New Zealanders to access justice especially for the most vulnerable. Especially on this side of the Chamber we do not want to get to the stage where access to justice depends on whether you can afford it or not.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):I would like to follow on from that excellent contribution from my colleague Kris Faafoi where he basically ended with reference to the original name of the bill the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. Of course the word “Sustainability” has been removed. I too agree with him that “Sustainability” should have been removed from the bill and probably should not have been in there in the first place although it was there for a particular reason and that was that it was a cue for explaining what the Government was actually trying to do which was to cut costs—cut the costs of legal aid.Of course when one cuts costs in one area there is something else that always happens somewhere else. And is it not unusual that normally speaking in a regulatory impact statement you cannot find where that blowout is going to occur because it looks only at the short-term impact and the impact on the particular budget and it is not looking in the long term. But actually in this regulatory impact statement they have done an excellent job and I want to congratulate those who put it together unfortunately without the benefit of wide public input because of time pressures and the budget-sensitive nature of the issues under consideration. We were told that the select committee process would of course substitute for the public input. I actually do not think we do justice to the need for public input on matters as important as this by saying that the select committee process will do. You can put in a written submission and then turn up and have your time in front of the committee for 5 or 10 minutes as an individual. I think that that is a bit of a problem.I will quote from an individual’s submission because I want people to know that this is not about what lawyers think or about what people who work within the system necessarily think. It is the very direct and real impact that makes this bill not sustainable. That is why the word “Sustainability” has appropriately been withdrawn. But let me just read out the number of risks that were discerned. One was that a change of purchase approach is required but is likely to be resisted by some parts of the legal profession. Well that has happened. There are people who have pulled out of legal aid all around the country. In fact we heard evidence from one person down in Christchurch who had actually left her firm and set up her own practice so that she could continue to offer a degree of legal aid work to her client base which was largely made up of refugees and migrants. I say good on her. She was extraordinary.The regulatory impact statement states: “Reductions in the price paid to lawyers could create gaps in provision particularly in the family and civil jurisdictions …” which is exactly what has happened particularly in smaller centres; “The introduction of income and asset thresholds for the criminal means test will be in tension withsection 24(f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act” and that was something raised by this individual submission that I am going to refer to; and “It could also delay some court cases if judges defer proceedings because of inadequate representation. Restrictions to eligibility will disadvantage people on low incomes who have few options to find legal services elsewhere. Generally this includes young Māori men in the criminal jurisdiction and women and children in the family jurisdiction.” I went through the list of the sequence of events that actually discriminates—not deliberately but in fact discriminates—against Māori and that is why we have a higher proportion of Māori in our prisons. It starts right from when they get stopped in the street all the way through the process. They are much more likely to end up in jail for longer.The final risk which was the interesting one because it is raised in another submission that I want to refer to is that “Withdrawing legal aid for low income groups is likely to lead to additional costs elsewhere in the justice system. In particular it may increase the number of self-represented litigants with flow on costs dues to delays additional assistance required from court staff and the judiciary and higher numbers of appeals of decisions.”This refers me to Anita Cochrane from Auckland who has made this submission saying that she believes it to be “a travesty and makes a mockery of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act …”. I congratulate her on being so forthright in her presentation to us. What she was saying was that section 24(f) of the Act makes it absolutely clear that people “shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance;”. She talks about not having the right to get a fair hearing if you cannot afford to pay for a lawyer and I think that that is a statement that is well made.What she went on to do was to speak of her own experience and she did not talk about the particular matter that took her to court but it was a case that took her “1 year and 5 court attendances 4 of which were all remanded by the prosecution due to some reason”—for example the documents were not there it lost some evidence or there was another important case going on. She says: “It was only on the 5th attendance and the 5th attempt by the prosecution to remand the case yet again that I demanded that the case go to court or they withdraw their charges.” Each time she had to pay her lawyer $2000 to appear. She makes the point that she earned $51000 owns a car worth $2000 could not afford to own her own house and had no capital or other assets. “The opposition”—meaning the prosecution—“then tried to bully me into pleading guilty. I had to weigh up the cost of trying to find more money as I had paid out so much and still had not even seen a judge or the possibility of the end of the case. So what did I do? I was forced to agree to a $500 fine and pay court costs. It was cheaper than trying to find more money for the Lawyer yet the prosecution had lost the evidence!”.This was in 2010 under the current arrangements. She asks: “Has anyone looked at how much a person earning $22000 a year actually is in real terms? After tax a person earning $22000 takes home $330 a week. The cheapest rent for 1 bedroom in Auckland is approx $200 a week. That [leaves] $130 for food transport medical and possibly child care. They could possibly have 1 dependent. What portion of New Zealand earners are in that area? Those people working in the fast food business waitress staff and the likes. Students working part time shelf packers … The low income earners.” Then she went on to talk about her daughter falling into that bracket but owning a car—again that being her only asset. “The changes to the current bill”—she says—“will require 90% of the population to pay for their own defence. From the person packing shelves right up to the company directors and owners. The 10% of the population who can get legal aid are the Zero to $21000 a year earners. These are people that are unemployed or on sick benefits maternity benefits or other benefits or those that fall into this criteria … who take home $315 a week after tax.Where is the fairness in saying only 10% of the people are entitled to assisted legal representation?”. She made the point that actually in the Crimes Act—she quotes the Crimes Act—“ ‘The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him’ The reality is that many people are ignorant of the law.” She says: “There are so many laws. The people trust Parliament with the making of the laws to protect them [not] to disadvantage them so they can represent themselves in court or plead guilty due to ignorance of the law.” That is the problem: she pleaded guilty due to ignorance of the law. She was not guilty of the offence; she would have got off if she had been able to defend herself but the system failed her. The system let her down.That is what my major concern is and that is exactly what the concern was when it was expressed in the regulatory impact statement. Be careful what you wish for. Be careful what you do. The regulatory impact statement states: “Withdrawing legal aid for low income groups is likely to lead to additional costs elsewhere in the justice system. In particular it may increase the number of self-represented litigants with flow on costs due to delays additional assistance required from court staff and the judiciary and higher numbers of appeals of decisions.” And the one they missed out? Pleading guilty to a crime you did not commit. And that is going to happen time and time and time again because it is much cheaper to plead guilty and end up with a conviction—$500 and court costs—despite the fact that the prosecution has lost the evidence. I wanted to mention a real case a real submission in front of our Justice and Electoral Committee because I think it makes it real for this Committee.ALFRED NGARO (National):I rise to take a call on the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill especially in regards to its title clause. I actually do agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I think that hearing those real cases of real people and real places and the impact that they have is important because when we are doing this we take those into consideration with the regulatory impact statement. The member Kris Faafoi talked about the word “sustainability”. If the member would actually read the bill he would see that the intent talks about the importance that legal assistance be affordable into the future and available to those who need it most. I think that really is our concern.When we look at the ongoing growing costs that there are we know that for instance the honourable member Lianne Dalziel and former member of Parliament Charles Chauvel petitioned the Minister of Justice to consider pausing the progress of the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill so that we could take into account the review that was taking place in the Ministry of Justice in regards to the Family Court. It is acknowledged that that time was taken the Family Court review was then conducted and completed and then therefore the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill was taken into consideration with that. So it is important to be able to see that the fact is that when we talk about electorates our communities that we are talking about—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but ever since he started speaking the level of interjection particularly from Mr Cunliffe has been unreasonable and I would ask you—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that.ALFRED NGARO: It very much was the concern of the Justice and Electoral Committee when we heard the submissions to ensure that legal aid was available but most important not just for now but into the future as well. Sustainability was absolutely important to us. We realise the importance of that at the moment. The budget for 2011 included $103.5 million in short-term funding while longer-term sustainability issues were addressed through both this bill and the wider review of the Family Court which would include $138 million over 4 years.We know that adjusting the eligibility for legal aid was important and it does make it sustainable in this. The reforms include tightening the merits test by no longer needing to take into account the interests of other vulnerable parties and adjusting thespecial circumstances consideration in the means test for family and civil cases so that it focuses on expensive cases. We know—and I know Mr Faafoi knows in his community in the electorate of Mana and even the legal fraternity there talks about it—that in the number of cases and for the number of our people who needed legal aid and should have accessed legal aid this bill will not remove it from them. In fact if anything it will make it easier and more accessible and if he reads the details he will see that. He will see that. What is important is that—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that under the Standing Orders governing misrepresentation the member has misrepresented the Government’s position—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No sit down. Look that is not a point of order; those are debating points.ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Chair for your wise counsel. We know that adjusting eligibility for legal aid is important. The reforms include removing the requirement to index means thresholds to movements in the Consumers Price Index and simplifying the administration of funding of legal aid for offenders for Parole Board appearances so that all such cases are classified as criminal legal aid. This bill increases payments by legally aided people. This change encourages people to actually take consideration of whether they need legal aid or not and to think about whether they wish to proceed with litigation and it provides incentives for repayment of legal aid.We believe that the changes that are being made through this legislation in consideration of the wider context of the Family Court review and the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill not only are sustainable for the future but also make legal aid accessible to our communities of need and to our vulnerable communities. I commend this clause.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Legal Services Amendment Bill the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill and the Property (Relationships) Amendment Billpursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 251.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.