Graham Kennedy: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16763] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Let me begin by reiterating not for the first time an appreciation of the manner in which the Justice and Electoral Committee operates under the benign and competent chairmanship of Chester Borrows. We tend to repeat this every time and I just wonder whether Mr Borrows is starting to feel certain ennui in terms of the accolades that are being given to him every time; perhaps we can relieve him of this in the future and regard it as read each time. But I do not intend in any way to diminish the sincerity with which I say that. It is a good committee; it cooperates very well indeed. That said I would not wish the House to wax under the misapprehension that Mr Quinn offered—that all was total harmony and sweetness and light on the Legal Services Bill. The Green Party does remain opposed to it. Although for reasons that I will explain later I do take personal responsibility for part of that misapprehension arising. 
Let us recall for the moment the basic aim of the bill is to reform the legal aid system by replacing the Legal Services Act 2000 and that aim and method is based on the Bazley report which of course was delivered not just by one person but by a group of people. The report recommended a variety of reforms which can be boiled down to four principal reforms. The first is to disestablish the Legal Services Agency transfer the administration thereof into the Ministry of Justice and create a separate independent statutory officer. Secondly it recommended replacing the Legal Aid Review Panel with the Legal Aid Tribunal. Thirdly it recommended increasing the quality assurance performance management and application processes for the greater efficiency of justice. Its fourth and final recommendation was to clarify that legal aid can be obtained for Waitangi Tribunal proceedings. 
The Greens certainly have no difficulty with the fourth point; we are in favour of that. But we did have difficulty with the other three reforms such as the transformation of the Legal Services Agency to be folded into the Ministry of Justice. We prefer that it remain at arm’s length from the Government to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Jacinda Ardern spoke about a certain confidence level from the public being required for that without really offering views as to how that could be obtained. For our part we are a little less convinced that that would be obtained automatically. So we are not convinced on the merits of that. The second reform of replacing the panel with a tribunal that would be chaired by a non-lawyer is one that we remain opposed to notwithstanding the committee’s deliberations. We think that casts an aspersion on the legal profession that is unwarranted. The third reform deals with the zeal for administrative savings and greater efficiency and value for public funds is a principle. But if it tarnishes the equal or greater principle of natural justice then we have to pause. We are fearful that natural justice is being tarnished. So with due regard to the constructive discussions within the committee itself we are not persuaded that our basic concerns have been met and we are not alone. 
I will quote simply one submission from a well-recognised legal authority in New Zealand Tony Ellis: “The Bazley report upon which the Bill is premised is not the silver bullet many believe it to be. The report contained many unsubstantiated and unnecessary attacks on lawyers particularly on those from Manukau and Palmerston North which were unsupported by any meaningful evidence. This exposes the legislation to what in reality is happening. There is no real effort to attack the problems within the system just a smoke screen brought about by a desire to save money triggered by a public denunciation of lawyers’ incompetence by the Bazley report.” I know these matters are complicated and I know there are problems within the legal aid system. But let us not engage in the misapprehension that this bill which will no doubt become law is the silver bullet to all of that or that opposition to it is misguided because it is shared by learned legal authorities. It is not for the first time I think that legislation being pushed through the House by the Government with great respect to the Minister and the chairman is not necessarily perfect. So for our part we feel constrained to continue to oppose it. 
That said I will say a word on the procedure with a note of personal apology. We in the Green Party had offered opposition as I have described and I did my best in the committee to explore those issues. It so happened that at the end of last year at the beginning of December on personal family reasons I was called away from the House and from Wellington. I missed to the day the draft report coming out on 2 December and the committee discussion on 9 December—the 10-day period I was away covered those dates. As a small party we were unable to have someone present at the time. I take the responsibility upon myself that I should have got word through that we continued to oppose it which would have meant that the select committee report would have read “by majority”. But I was so preoccupied that I did not do that. I apologise to the House. I would just like it understood that the Greens continue to oppose this bill in the second reading. We look forward to further discussion perhaps in the Committee of the whole House and in the third reading but it would take something for us to alter our minds at this stage.