Bridges Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2388] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak after what was a thoughtful and eloquent speech if I might say so by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Her anecdotes from the coronial inquest and parole board hearing put into a powerful story form what this Legal Services Amendment Bill is about and why this bill will be achieving some great purposes and doing a good job towards justice and access to justice in this country. This bill is about two things. Firstly it is about victims’ rights—and I will talk about that. It is about removing the eligibility testing requirements for legal aid for victims who either attend coronial inquests or parole board hearings or for the making of victims’ claims. Secondly it is about flexibility. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach it grants the Legal Services Agency discretion to waive its right to recover legal aid debts in cases where individual circumstances mean enforcement would cause serious hardship or would be uneconomic or where it is just inequitable to enforce the debt. This bill creates the power to make regulations exempting specific classes of people or proceedings from eligibility restrictions or repayment obligations. 
It is a good bill and I want to go back to the basics in relation to legal aid. Legal aid is important in our society and in criminal law because where the State brings a case against an individual the individual must be able to defend himself or herself. It is a basic fact that he or she may not always have the wherewithal to do that. Criminal law however is not just about that basic “State versus the individual” scenario; cases of the  
Queen v Smith 
 and the  
Queen v Jones 
 reflect that basic relationship between the State that brings the charges and prosecutes and the individual who is forced to defend himself or herself. 
But importantly our criminal law system is about the redressing of criminal wrongs for victims. As we as a society have become more sophisticated and—can I say—humane we have increasingly recognised victims’ rights. We have recognised that things are not just about the State and the individual charged but that victims have an important role to play and are significant actors in the criminal justice system. Just as individuals who are up against the State—defending charges going to parole hearings and the like—have costs in the criminal case so do victims who have very real costs in advocating their position in the criminal process. Although it is basic the point I make is a pretty fundamental one: that victims deserve and have a right to financial assistance just as the accused pre-conviction and the prisoner post-conviction also have a right to legal aid in certain circumstances—certainly when they cannot afford it themselves. 
I want to dwell on the victims’ rights movement. Some time ago traditionally victims in the court process did not have any rights at all. There is still some way to go and in my view we are on a journey towards much better victims’ rights. I want to highlight some parts of the journey that I think this House has proceeded with and worked through. There is the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 by my recollection which was brought in by the previous Labour Government. It allows victims to read victim impact statements in court. I have seen that happen many times. It can be an emotional and cathartic experience for the victims and for the prisoners—that was a step forward. We have also had—much more recently under this Government—the victim compensation law. It provides for a levy and it is on its way to a select committee—I look forward to robust discussion there. 
We now have this bill which is a further step in the journey towards victims’ rights. The provisions of this bill ensure that victims of crime attending Parole Board hearings or coronial inquests are not subject to financial eligibility testing. In my view that is hard to argue against. The people of Tauranga certainly would not argue against that. We heard some examples from Lianne Dalziel. Another example is the case of the mother of two boys whose father was murdered by Graeme Burton. It is my understanding that because of the financial eligibility testing she was asked to pay the money back for the legal representation she provided to her sons at the coronial inquest hearing—that is not good enough. It is another powerful example of why we as a House united have brought this bill here. 
The bill that we debated earlier today—and again with the exception of the Greens there was nearly unanimous accession—was the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. It specifically relates to child sex offenders. Those cases clearly show again the value of this bill. When child sex offenders come up for parole the victims and their families should be able to raise their issues effectively. As Lianne Dalziel said sometimes they will want to do that in person but also through counselling should they think that appropriate. The definition of “victim” in this bill before the House makes it quite clear that primary victims and the parents of those victims—if the victims are still children—will be able to now do that without means testing. A basic but important point is that it takes away the eligibility testing for victims in two situations: post-conviction and on the death of a person. We still have financial eligibility testing in a vast majority of cases but here in relation to victims we do not add insult to injury and make them go through the means testing. In an example of parents whose son has died in a motor manslaughter case as a society I do not think that we want to add insult to injury and have them pay for their legal representation at coronial inquests. Nor do we want to see parents or victims in child sex offender cases put to expense for the parole hearings. I commend this bill to the House. I think it is another step in the journey for victims in this country.