Little Andrew: Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take another call. It is quite clear from the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill and from the debate we have had so far on it—and by the removal already before we even came to the Committee stage of the word “(Sustainability)” from the bill as was originally presented to Parliament—that this is not a bill about legal assistance at all. It has departed so vastly so greatly from that original objective that it cannot possibly be described as a legal assistance bill in any measure at all.This bill is fiscally driven. It is about this Government’s desperate bid to drive down the cost of legal aid. We know that legal aid is expensive. It comprises a significant proportion of the Ministry of Justice budget—I think about 50 percent and that is a big chunk. But that is because legal aid plays a very important part in the life of our justice system and I underscore “justice” because knowing what legal costs are in this country as they are in other developed countries without legal aid a large number of people would be deprived of the right to access our justice system. They would be deprived of the right to representation. So when we are considering matters of legal representation and the assistance that people need to get legal representation so that they can stand up and have their views heard in court and they can defend themselves whether it is against the power of the State or whether it is against the power of other citizens who are well funded and well founded then we should tread very carefully and very cautiously. And we should bear in mind the fundamental principle that there is no such thing as a justice system that shuts out a significant proportion of the population.We as a developed country celebrate our participation in and our adherence to the principle of the rule of law. I have talked about that before in this House and it is absolutely fundamental to a developed country. In fact one of the markers of a civilised and developed country is that we observe the principles of the rule of law and a fundamental principle of the rule of law is that all citizens have equal access to justice which means that they have equal access to the institutions of justice which include our court system. So when citizens are called upon to be in court because somebody else sues them or they are in a situation where they have faced an injustice—it might be a consumer malfeasance it might be a family matter it might be a criminal matter it might be a regulatory matter—and they are required to appear in court to argue their case or defend their position then those who cannot afford legal representation must be given assistance to do that. That is a constitutional principle. It is not about private rights. It is not about the private realm. It is a constitutional matter that if people are caught up in private disputes and must call upon the justice system or if people are called upon to answer the powerful hand of the State then they must be afforded proper support so that they can be represented and be advocated for in court.The legal aid system that we have at the moment already sets a very low threshold—in fact actually a very high threshold but a low income threshold which enables them to get access to State assistance to be represented in court—of $22000 a year. There are a lot of people who are earning considerably more than that who would have great difficulty affording the legal fees that would be required to mount even a small or brief legal case. Even a plea in mitigation for a small criminal matter is going to cost a few hundred dollars and if you are on $30000 $35000 or even $40000 a year an extra few hundred dollars at a point in time in your earning year is going to be a significant burden. Those people do not have access to legal assistance. If it is a serious criminal matter they may do but the income threshold that entitles a person to legal aid is very low.This bill compounds that situation when it comes to civil matters. The imposition of a $50 user charge to somebody who is on $22000 a year is a significant obstacle. Thatis a huge burden. That is the difference between buying some food that week paying the power bill that month or meeting other important costs and not. It might be a school bill or something like that. Fifty dollars is a significant imposition on somebody on $22000 a year but this bill puts it on them.This bill also potentially levies other costs. When it comes to a care of children matter a person on legal aid may be required to meet the cost of counsel for the child if the court appoints counsel for the child in a case in which they are involved. They may have access to time payments. There may be means for them to do that but that will be a significant burden on them as it would be obviously to somebody on much less than $22000 a year. The bill provides for debt collection measures which add to it and they include attachment orders and attachment orders to the extent of 40 percent of people’s net income—their net weekly pay. That is a huge proportion of their pay and that is enough to tip people over into absolute dire poverty.This bill is not about legal assistance. This bill might be more appropriately named the “Legal Costs (Imposition of a Cost Burden on the Poor) Bill” because that is what it will do. In a desperate bid by this Government to drive down the cost of legal aid it has lost sight of the wood for the trees. What is an important constitutional principle that is about access to justice has got completely lost in the Government’s desperate bid to recover costs and make its books look better. Although no one would argue against proper fiscal responsibility in the management of the Government books we cannot overlook the important principle that access to justice will be put at risk at least for some people as a consequence of this bill. So the title must reflect that. “Legal Assistance Amendment Bill” simply does not speak to the reality of this piece of legislation which is the imposition of significant hardship and a much greater burden on people who are least in a position to bear that. We are opposed to it for that reason.