Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call at the second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. Can I start just by joining with other colleagues who've expressed their deep sympathies at the atrocious events that have happened in Auckland this morning but also joining with colleagues in commending the work that the police force do for us and have done today.I had the privilege of spending nine years in Community Law where I frequently came across the saying The opposite of poverty isn't wealth; it's access to justice." That was very much our day to day. We saw young people under 25 coming in seeking legal advice and on a number of occasions we would see their eyes light up and the sense of recognition when we gave them advice that showed they had a potential case. Then you would see that look of hopelessness as they realised they weren't going to access justice; they could not apply for legal aid because it was too prohibitive to pay the fee—the user fee—but also take on the interest payments.Yes some of these were people who were judged to be able to take on that interest payment as well but they were often young single parents—they had a series of expenses to deal with. So it just wasn't going to be an option for them. So it is very surprising to me that the Opposition aren't going to be coming to the party and supporting this very important bill today.But before I respond to the arguments made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith I did just want to make a side note and give almost an ode to regulations. Regulations have a truly special quality about them—some might say an almost magical quality—because in this instance we're passing law that has actually already changed in regulation. So the regulations relating to the $50 user charge as well as the interest rates are contained in the Legal Services Regulations 2011 and the amendments to those two aspects to the regulations actually came into force in January this year. That is already law.What this law does is ensures that there's consistency between our primary legislation and those regulations. So it just does give me a certain amount of delight that while Opposition members might believe that they're arguing against a legal change they are not; they are simply arguing against consistency between our primary legislation and our secondary legislation.But I will address the arguments made by my colleague across the floor as well in substance—although the law has already changed. So one of the arguments that Mr Goldsmith has spoken to in the past was the user charge. While it's wonderful to hear that he's come around on that point I believe their differing view states that they disagreed with that because their sense was for most types of loans you are required to pay a user charge to access the service. But that's not always the case and there must be a sense that there's a public interest test that applies.In fact the Hon Chris Finlayson often spoke beautifully about access to justice and this idea of a principle of equity being one of the things that you should turn your minds to when you're looking for guidance on when fees should be imposed. Indeed we also have OECD Guidelines and our own Office of the Controller and Auditor-General guidelines on fees for services which say that equity is a first principle. This is not unusual. So it's absolutely acceptable to remove that $50 charge.Mr Goldsmith also made the argument that if there's no interest people won't repay—it removes the incentive. But at select committee to the whole committee we were advised that if people do not pay their legal aid debts the Legal Services Commissioner has the power to issue deduction notices directly to their employer or bank. So the commissioner also has the option to secure debt by placing a charge or a caveat on the legal aid recipient's property as a condition of the grant. There are consequences. We were advised this in the room. That is not an argument for not supporting this bill.The third argument that was raised—a substantial amount of the start of Mr Goldsmith's speech was around the most powerful thing that the Government could do which is speeding up the legal system ensuring that people have timely access to justice. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Goldsmith on that point. However he has been part of processes where we've proven that the Government is doing just this: in the coronial space and in the Family Court space.So to be honest I just remain puzzled at why our National Party colleagues aren't supporting this critical bill in its entirety. Those last two arguments simply don't fly. This is an essential bill and I commend it to the House."