Collins Judith: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20637] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate this evening and I will comment on a few other matters before I get stuck into this bill. First I listened to the Minister the Hon Phil Goff who gave a good workmanlike speech—read prepared clearly by someone else and full of the sorts of words that Labour loves words like “empowerment”: “This bill is going to empower a better legal aid system.” The next thing I thought he was going to start to talk about was partnership between criminals and the Government. 
The fact is that this Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) is unfortunately a bill that will not do what the Minister hopes it will do. However National will give the bill the benefit of the doubt and is very much supporting it going to a select committee because legal aid needs to be looked at—not once not twice and not with just a little cursory look as this bill takes but with a really good look. 
Legal aid in this country is not available to an awful lot of people it should be available to and it is available to an awful lot of people to whom it should not be available. Legal aid in this country is not available for various reasons and when I hear the Minister talk about access to justice—and the previous speaker from Labour also mentioned it—I know they are right there should be access to justice. But if they cared so much about access to justice why did they put the court fees up to the most appalling levels so that it costs about $1000 to get anything filed in the courts these days? Of course they do not care about access to justice or else they would not have made it so difficult for people who are owed money or people who want to bring a very legitimate claim—people who are paying their own way—to actually be able to afford to file the documents let alone do anything else. 
This bill serves two purposes for the Labour Government. It lets the Government tell people that it is doing something about the legal aid system which a lot of people think needs an awful lot done to it. The second thing it does is tell an awful lot of people that maybe they might be eligible for legal aid when really some of them might be but some will not and they will be disappointed. 
The system of legal aid in this country has been very much abused and it will continue to be very much abused. That does not mean to say that we should not have it and I am one of those people who believes that in relation to criminal matters where a term of imprisonment is likely to come about if someone is found guilty legal aid must be available if the person cannot afford to defend himself or herself. But I do say to the House that some people who get legal aid are drug-dealing heads of gangs. They do not have money to pay their legal fees but they do have money to buy their Mercedes or limousines. They do have money to buy through their trust houses and all sorts of other operations but they do not have money to pay their own legal fees. Really if we are to have any sort of system of legal aid that looks at issues about people who wrongly get legal aid we should be able to look closely at what assets these people own what they control where they live and the whole circumstances. There are some situations where in fact legal aid should not be granted but currently it is. 
Legal aid is one of the areas that is very vastly abused in the Family Court system. Six percent of matters that go to the Family Court are likely to end up in a defended hearing. In my view a tremendous number of matters that are filed in the Family Court are never intended to go anywhere other than a filing in the court. That is because so much of Family Court work that goes on is in fact driven by the need for legal aid fees. Speaking as a lawyer of some experience I believe that one of the great tragedies is that we have a system in the family service whereby so many people are pushed into an adversarial situation when all they really need to do is to sort out access and custody in relation to their children and who takes them to sport on Saturdays. They do not need to go to court. Unfortunately from what the Minister said and having read the bill I see very little in there—in fact nothing—that will deal with those sorts of issues. 
There is a good little point in the bill about what we could do in relation to merit but actually the existing system already requires there be some merit in civil legal aid cases in order for legal aid to be granted. Yet in my time on the legal services subcommittee at the Auckland District Law Society I saw matters go through that I was somewhat uncomfortable about. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s why we changed the system in 2000. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I thank the Minister. I was very very concerned about some of them. I see instances still and just the other day I talked to those who operate in the family law area where so much of it is being driven by legal aid. Most family matters do not need to go anywhere near a court. In most family matters if they have lawyers who actually understand that and want to keep their clients out of court they will stop those things from happening. But when some Family Court lawyers get all or a majority of their income from legal aid we are liable to get a real abuse of this system. I know that many family lawyers out there will hate the fact that I am saying this but unfortunately it is true. We will see an awful lot of that sort of abuse as we do now. 
One of the things that has always guaranteed someone to get legal aid is to accuse the partner or former partner of violence. Of course anyone who is subject to violence needs to have that matter dealt with but it does not make it right to accuse one’s partner or former partner of violence in order to secure legal aid. That is another of those tragedies and travesties because the person may well be able to get legal aid for a particular matter and may well think they will not need to pay for this or if they do they will have to pay it back later but without interest and they can afford it. They are told by people at particular women’s refuges or by particular lawyers: “This is what you do …”. But the people who ultimately suffer are the children and the person’s own self-esteem and honesty. 
So legal aid is one of those thorny issues that sensible people try to deal with and think how they can ration this to the point where the people who receive legal aid grants get it because they need it not because they simply want it. Yet when we look at some of the decisions—no matter what it says in the rhetoric—that have come out over the years in relation to some legal aid we have to wonder. I have looked at some and been surprised they have not been granted legal aid. Sometimes it is because the person is taking a test case and sometimes that test case is against the Government. I am a little concerned that the requirement is always that there is a “reasonable chance of success”. Sometimes it is actually important for the law and the development of the law that test cases be brought. Sometimes those test cases are by their very nature very very risky ventures. Just sometimes it is important that they happen; that they actually go on the public record; that they are not like the majority of civil cases these days which simply go through mediation or adjudication and avoid the court process for various reasons—such as the costs involved lack of privacy and of course court filing fees and the time involved. That is what happens. 
It is concerning that we are getting some sort of piecemeal legislation. But I am pleased we have some legislation. I hope the Minister is not planning on sending this bill off to the Government Administration Committee. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Justice and Electoral Committee. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think that is a good decision and shows that the Minister is taking this issue seriously.