Hipkins Chris: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Legal Services Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17021] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Legal Services Bill. The points that I will raise relate primarily to coverage under the legal aid system particularly with regard to clause 7 in Part 2 which relates to proceedings for which legal aid may be granted in the case of civil matters. One of the issues that I will raise with regard to this bill and with regard to what I believe is a growing inequity in the system is that ACC cases are not covered by the legal aid system according to the clauses in this bill up to the point at which they reach the District Court. 
We are seeing within the accident compensation system a dramatic increase in the number of ACC cases being declined and therefore a dramatic increase in the number of cases going to a disputes review. When people have had their accident compensation claim rejected and their cases go to an ACC disputes review the amount of legal assistance available is limited to something like $700 or $800. It is probably significantly less than what they would get if they were entitled to legal aid for that particular process. Through the ACC disputes process we are seeing that the Accident Compensation Corporation certainly has access to a lot of highly paid high-quality legal assistance but those who are seeking review and seeking some redress if they believe they have been treated unfairly do not have that same access to legal support. 
My question is that if the accident compensation system is to become a much more litigious system which seems to be happening under the tenure of this National Government then why should somebody taking a review proceedings through the ACC system not be able to obtain legal counsel and legal assistance? This is a very real issue. For example the number of surgery claims for accident compensation that were rejected doubled from 2008 to 2009. In other words under the National Government the number of people who have applied for elective surgery through ACC and who have been turned down has doubled. What has that resulted in? It has resulted in the number of reviews—in other words the number of people who have been saying that because their case has been rejected by ACC they want it reviewed by going to ACC’s Dispute Resolution Service—almost doubling during the tenure of the National Government as well. The number of decisions being overturned through that process has increased by about 400. We are seeing that ACC’s more instant reaction quite often is to decline a case on the basis that someone can then take a review. 
Basically the corporation is pushing people down a much more legal route in order to get their accident compensation entitlements. In relation to this bill and the coverage of the legal aid system if the Government is to take a much stricter approach towards ACC claimants it raises the question of why those claimants should not be able to get quality information and quality advice on their entitlements. Everybody pays into the accident compensation scheme; everybody gives up something in order to be covered by accident compensation. What do they give up? They give up their ability to sue in the case of accidents. They cannot sue in the case of accidents. But we are seeing that the corporation is basically clamping down and is not giving people the things they are entitled to under the scheme. If people are not getting what they are entitled to then I ask why they should not be able to get legal advice to make sure their entitlements are being upheld. They are paying for it and they are giving up their right under the common law to sue in order to be part of the ACC scheme. With the increasing number of complaints about the corporation and the increasing number of reviews there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether legal aid should be extended to those people. 
I will move on next to talk about proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal which are covered under this Legal Services Bill; I think that that is incredibly important. One of the issues we are seeing with State housing under the tenure of the National Government is that it is basically moving away from being a housing provider of last resort to one where the Government will use the legal processes available to it in order to evict tenants. In my electorate we have an example at the moment where the Housing New Zealand Corporation is using a 90-day eviction notice to remove some people from the neighbourhood of Pomare because it cannot actually make a case before the Tenancy Tribunal to remove them. The Government is basically using the 90-day notice period which cannot be appealed through the Tenancy Tribunal to evict people. That is a small example of where we are seeing the Housing New Zealand Corporation using many more legal proceedings against its tenants. Therefore I think it is really important that those tenants have full access to the Tenancy Tribunal’s services. I do not believe that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is upholding its part of the bargain with regard to providing quality tenancies for State house tenants. For example it is not living up to its maintenance criteria as it should do and tenants should therefore be able to take relevant action where they need to do so. 
Those are the points I had with regard to coverage. I will also pick up the points raised earlier with regard to the financial criteria that are used to determine whether somebody is eligible for legal aid and the asset tests that they are subjected to. The principle behind this should be that in order for a certain asset to be considered under the financial test the person has to have reasonable access to that resource. The principle is that the State should not be providing legal assistance to somebody who has the financial means to provide it for themselves. If that is the principle then I fail to see why Maori land which is shared and cannot be disposed of can possibly come within that financial test. It is not as though the person who will potentially be declined legal aid will turn round and say that he or she needs money for a lawyer and will therefore hock it off. That person simply could not do it. Therefore to allow for the situation where someone could be denied legal aid because of some interest in Maori land that he or she cannot sell and cannot dispose of simply means that person will be declined legal aid when otherwise he or she would get it. That is an unjust outcome and it is blatantly unfair. 
I am looking forward to the contributions from the Maori Party—from Tariana Turia the co-leader of the Maori Party who has been conferring I think with the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs about this matter for the last 10 minutes or so. I am assuming that they are working out what they will do about it and that in a few moments one of them will stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it because it is blatantly unfair. I think that if Maori Party members claim to be the representatives of Maori interests in this Parliament—and I do not believe they are—then this is something they should have a view on. I look forward— 
John Hayes 
: So who is—Hone? Metiria Turei? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Hone Harawira might well come to the Chamber later on and have a go on it. I would quite like to hear what he has to say on that matter and I think he may well take a call on that. I would like to hear what Simon Bridges has to say on that matter. I would like to hear what Paul Quinn has to say on that matter so rather— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No don’t go that far. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I would even go that far. I would quite like to hear whether Paul Quinn has a view on whether Maori land should be taken into account when somebody is being denied access to legal aid. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s part of the definition of disposable assets. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes it is part of the definition of “disposable capital”. I think Paul Quinn should have a view on that. 
Paul Quinn 
: It has to be disposable to be disposable. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is exactly the point. I note for the benefit of people who are listening at home or watching on TV that Paul Quinn says that it has to be disposable to be disposable. That is what he has been yelling at us yet the bill does not actually cover that. The bill as it is being passed means that it will be considered. I think that Simon Bridges should have a chat to Paul Quinn to stop him making a bit of a fool of himself and read the bill slowly to him. Perhaps then he might— 
Paul Quinn 
: You’re the fool. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am not the fool in this. The member cannot use the word “you”. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you very much Mr Chair. By and large clause 2 tidies up access to legal aid. I think that is really important particularly in the current context when people are out there battling away and struggling to find money for the basics. I think it is important that when they find themselves involved in any kind of legal proceeding they should have financial assistance to do so. If they cannot afford to pay the power bill and to put food on the table for their families—which increasing numbers of people are finding under the National Government—then they certainly will not find the money to fund a legal proceeding. Making sure that we have a legal aid system that provides for those people is very important. This bill tidies up the legal aid system and addresses many of those concerns.