Brown Peter: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20643] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I confess from the outset that I am not a lawyer so I have had no specific dealings with legal aid and I certainly have not applied for legal aid. So I have sat and listened with quite some interest to the debate on this bill thus far. I was intrigued by what the Minister said. He stated quite categorically that more people will require legal aid. That is borne out by the explanatory note to the bill which states: “The changes introduced in this Bill are estimated to make legal aid available to 1.2 million New Zealanders (up from 765000).” That is a very very significant increase. I then listened with interest as other members spoke and I was particularly intrigued by Judith Collins. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: A very intriguing woman! 
PETER BROWN 
: She is a very intriguing woman when it comes to the law. I am not being critical of Judith Collins; I listened with interest from a layman’s perspective. I just want to put on record what I understood her to say. She said that legal aid is not available to a lot of people in this country to whom it should be available. She then went on to say that it is available to a lot of people to whom it should not be available. Further she said that legal aid in this country has been very much abused and that drug dealers and gang leaders can in certain circumstances receive legal aid. That is a very damning statement of the situation in this country—very damning indeed. 
I think it was Judith Collins who also made the comment that legal aid is vastly abused in the Family Court system. I thought: “My goodness! Can anybody tell us anything worse than that?”. I am not disputing what Judith Collins said at all. To me she comes across as being a very competent lawyer and I do not doubt that she knows what she is talking about. But then Stephen Franks took a call and made a great play in terms of the new section 40 “Liability of aided persons for costs” which is proposed to be inserted into the Legal Services Act by clause 26 of the bill. 
Section 40(2) states: “No order for costs may be made against an aided person in a civil proceeding unless the court is satisfied that there is misconduct by the aided person in the course of the proceeding.” That provision simply says to me that somebody can go along get legal aid—never mind whether that person is telling the truth to get it—go forever— 
Stephen Franks 
: And appeal 
PETER BROWN 
: —and appeal and get away with virtually pushing the other person metaphorically speaking into the ground and that other party has no chance of a claim against that person or the State. In other words the State in these circumstances could be underwriting crooks. I notice that the honourable member is nodding. 
Stephen Franks 
: Win by exhaustion—merits don’t matter. 
PETER BROWN 
: And the State is funding it. This is terrible—absolutely disgraceful! I do not doubt those members. They are competent lawyers who have been in practice for many many years. I am just a simple sailor and I am quite horrified to learn what I am hearing now. So from that perspective New Zealand First supports this bill going to select committee because we want the whole lot tidied up and addressed. 
Further I think it was Stephen Franks who said that false allegations of violence have been made in order to receive legal aid. The Government members are looking at me with blank faces but I ask whether that is true. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s a criminal offence to make a false allegation. 
PETER BROWN 
: But has that been happening? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In this bill costs will be awarded against the person who does that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Could the Minister tell me which clause that provision is in because as I have said I am a simple sailor. I have read the bill but in this context I do not know or understand the actual current law in terms of legal aid. It seems to me that it is better than a Lotto ticket. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The member’s all at sea. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is not all at sea. The member who said that should take note that there is one member in this House who is taking a legitimate concern about where taxpayers’ money is going. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Then that’s all right. We’re not all washed up. Mr Goff can fix it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I hope that he will. He is a Minister who is willing to help. I hope his intentions with regard to this bill are sincere and genuine. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Absolutely! 
PETER BROWN 
: “Absolutely” he says. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You can take my word for it. 
PETER BROWN 
:Well I will not take it too far but never mind. Maybe members are having an unofficial question time now Mr Assistant Speaker so I hope you are understanding about the questions that are flying across from one side of the Chamber to the other. But as I make the rounds on behalf of New Zealand First—and I know that this is true of my colleagues—we are asked how much taxpayers have paid in terms of legal aid towards Zaoui’s case. 
We have been told—I think from answers to questions in the House—that it is something like $2 million. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s up from that now. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is it something like that? What is it—$1.5 million $3 million? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I think it’s about $300000. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh! 
Ron Mark 
: Rubbish! We’ve had that in questions already. 
PETER BROWN 
: We have had questions about that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: So far grants to Mr Zaoui are $375248.86. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is that legal aid—$370000? That is 10 times the average wage. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s only a tenth of what the member estimates. 
PETER BROWN 
: No we have been told the total cost. I was going to say that the majority of the total cost was going to be— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The member asked and I responded. 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the Minister for that. That is reassuring. I have read this bill and I ask whether it excludes or includes a person who may fly into this country tear up his or her documents—whatever they are—put them down the toilet and come into the country with nothing. Will that person get legal aid? Subsection (4) of section 9 “When legal aid may be granted: civil matters” inserted by clause 5 states that the agency may also refuse legal aid to an applicant in any of the following circumstances: “(c) the applicant is not resident in New Zealand”—that sounds pretty good—“and the Agency considers that the proceedings might reasonably be brought in a jurisdiction other than New Zealand:”. I cannot see that occurring anywhere else. If the person has come in torn up his or her documents put them down the aircraft loo and is now standing in front of an immigration person in New Zealand I cannot see that that would be applicable. So it seems to me that we are not closing a door on anybody who wants to abuse the system. 
Ron Mark 
: They’re all Labour voters. 
PETER BROWN 
: They are all Labour voters. Nevertheless the legal aid system is so much in need of repair that we need a bill to address the flaws. If this bill is the best we have then New Zealand First says that with reservation we will support it to the select committee. But New Zealand First will take a very keen interest in this bill and we hope to tidy it up. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Who’s on the select committee? 
PETER BROWN 
: My colleague Dail Jones will be on the select committee. The member cringes; I can see it on her face. That horrifies her. That is good news. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I’m delighted. 
PETER BROWN 
: That was not the expression that came through on the member’s face. The fact that the member is worried that Dail Jones will be there delights me. We will be taking a keen interest in this bill and we will be fixing it. Members have heard the old saying: “Can we fix it?”. Yes New Zealand First can. We will be doing that.