Shearer David: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shearer David: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17009] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I am not a lawyer either but I feel compelled to say a few words. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s why you’re a nice guy. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I say thank you to Tau; that is very kind of him. I want to say a few words on the Legal Services Bill because as a number of people have said giving everybody access to the same quality of legal services and legal aid cuts to the heart of what makes us a fair and just society. That is what the purpose clause in Part 1 says. Clause 3(a) states: “provides legal services to people of insufficient means;”. That means everybody gets the same type of justice. It means that people who do not have the right sort of money can still get first-class legal representation. 
One of the key points here is not only that the current system according to the Bazley report is less cost-effective and not only that it is being rorted to some degree—and I do not want to overstate that; it was a controversy that came up over the weeks when the Bazley report came out—but also that it is important to provide people with confidence that they are receiving the same sort and quality of legal representation that they would receive if they had a lot of money and could track down the best lawyer. 
Coming back to the Bazley report it is worth mentioning in the context of why the bill is going through the House a couple of the things she brought up which cut to Part 2 and the delivery of those services in the most effective and efficient manner. The Minister of Justice mentioned that the hole or the gap in our ability to pay for our system as it stands at the moment is about $400 million. The bill will do something I believe to tighten that gap. It tests some of the old rules the old laws the old ways that the legal profession works in terms of how it is enabled and continues to work. It enables us to get the best quality and the best standards for the money we put up. 
Among the things the Bazley report focused on were complaints to the Law Society of dishonest behaviour. As I said before that issue has been talked about. Many lawyers felt aggrieved that they were being tarred by the actions of a few. The report seemed to suggest that lawyers and defendants were colluding to make sure that cases lasted as long as possible. By mutual arrangement they were able to ensure that the lawyers obtained the largest amount of fees possible for the case they were defending. 
The reason the Labour Party is supporting this bill is to make sure that one the people of New Zealand are confident that whether or not they have sufficient means whether or not they have money they are able to get the best legal defence a legal defence that is as good as what anybody else can get—that element of fairness cuts to the heart of this bill—and two that taxpayers are also confident that the people who provide representation do so in an effective and efficient manner that enables taxpayers and society more generally to know that defendants are getting fair representation. 
I have a couple of questions. Can we be sure that smaller centres will get the high-quality legal representation that people in those areas deserve and that people in Auckland Wellington Dunedin or Napier might get?