Worth Richard: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2121] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is a continuation of an important debate on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2). I start by observing that one of the things the Government has done in what I regard as an overly sneaky gesture is to issue instructions to parliamentary counsel so there are minimal parts to debate. That is a clumsy attempt to stifle debate on what is clearly important legislation. 
In earlier parts of the process National made it clear that it has been really concerned about two aspects of the bill. Although it acknowledges the importance of legal aid and its importance in a system that must work for the provision of legal aid to both offenders and people involved in the civil process we have nevertheless been truly concerned about two aspects of the bill. Those two aspects are related to the way the bill was drafted—first with those discretionary aspects that make it so unclear as to eligibility for legal aid and second in respect of what we think is a glaring gap in the bill related to protecting the position of lawyers who are asked to undertake legal aid work. 
I am conscious in making those last few comments that there will be those on the other side of the House who have no sympathy for lawyers who undertake legal aid work at rates that are way below the benchmark. I remind those members opposite that legal aid rates were set in 1996. The salaries of judges have moved on in an overly dramatic way and the salaries of other professions have moved on so it is surprising that the salaries of lawyers remain static. 
I am comforted by the presence of the Attorney-General in the Chamber. I am sure that the background Dr Cullen brings to the legal profession and the obligations he owes to advance and protect its interests will be followed through faithfully in support of what we have judged to be a gap in the legislation. Certainly it is appropriate to welcome him back to the role of Attorney-General. 
The absence in the bill of an appropriate provision to fix legal aid rates—to advance that particular cause—breaches fairness and equity. At an earlier stage I had an opportunity to talk about one aspect that is known under the tag line of the equality of arms principle. That is all about the fact that the Crown has huge resources in a criminal context particularly to prosecute offenders. So it is only reasonable in a just and fair democracy that those who are tasked to defend people accused of crime have a similar degree of protection and resource. It is quite right to say that criminal legal aid remuneration rates are too low to the extent that they breach that principle of equality of arms. The principle is that the defence counsel should have the opportunity to prepare and present his or her case on a footing equal to that of the prosecution. 
I ask tonight why the Government did not take up the proposal that the bill should have further provisions in it related to Part 1 which we are now debating in the Committee stage to deal with that issue of legal aid. It is scarcely satisfactory and I ask the Minister of Justice the Minister in the chair who is ready willing and eager to take a call why an opportunity was not taken to deal with that significant issue. 
I also say that the provision of adequate representation to people accused of crime is a principle that has been recognised in New Zealand case law as an essential facet of a fair trial and as a fundamental human right that the Government must uphold.