Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much. Continuing the Dickens theme these are Hard Times for our justice system. Of course that's not to be confused with the quote that the member Vanushi Walters has made from A Tale of Two Cities—the name of a novel in itself. But hard times" is a very fair description of the legal system and the appalling state of lack of access to justice in this country at the moment. The system was in need of reform for many years admittedly including across successive Governments. It has steadily deteriorated over the last six years. COVID didn't help admittedly but the lack of imagination energy and impetus to do much about that is frankly appalling and that responsibility lies with every branch of Government. I know that's not a thing one should lightly say but the fact of the matter is the matter has been allowed to slide in a in a fashion that is frankly hopeless.As far as this bill goes and what it does and doesn't do I pick up on the theme initially of the comments made by my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith. He notes that there's not much in the bill. Of course you know that can be deceptive—I suppose you could have a good idea or a major policy change reflected in relatively few words. In this case basically every second word is either "repeal" or "delete". Again that shouldn't necessarily mean that we don't find favour with it. Repealing and deleting is a legislative activity I would very much like the opportunity to do quite a lot of 51 days from now. But I think it does show lack of imagination because nothing constructive is being done by this bill. It is merely at best lessening pain only to a minor extent. It is a band-aid on the weeping seeping wound of our lack of access to justice in this country for all the reasons that we have already described.In terms of the cost barriers the greatest cost barrier is the extraordinary amount of time and therefore expense that is involved in taking legal claims at any level whatsoever of our justice system courts and tribunals alike. That would be the single best thing that could be done to achieve more cost-effective justice as well as more effective justice and justice that is less delayed and therefore less denied than we currently have.We've heard from the previous contributor to the debate Vanushi Walters that the Government has been undertaking various measures in the space to improve matters. That's true as far as it goes and I think it's worth acknowledging the point that she's made. But also it's fair to acknowledge National has supported in good faith all of those measures. Associates have been appointed there's lots of talk about various reforms—not much more than talk in the case of a couple of the programmes which is disappointing. But to a large extent that blame lies with not only the current Government but this branch of Government.So not much has been effective. There's been not much more than tinkering. Members opposite may disagree with that characterisation but the results speak for themselves and the results are of a justice system where the time frames and the backlogs are out of control. It is deeply dispiriting deeply disheartening and merely waving relatively small amounts of money here and there simply will not cut it. There's no good reason that we should pretend that it is anything more than that.It's also worth noting that to some extent this is unnecessary because there is already a mechanism available under which the applicant—that is someone who's applying for legal aid—can have considered grounds of financial hardship which of course is a directly relevant one when we're talking about the costs involved or for any other reasons that they believe should be considered. These are under the headings of "just and equitable" reasons. So the mechanism exists already but nevertheless the Government sees fit to apply a blanket provision whereby we are to understand that society as a whole is to pay all the contribution; the person involved himself or herself none of the contribution. That seems wrong to me. If there is no skin in the game—not even a nominal amount of interest not even a nominal co-payment—then there is no reason for people to accept responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves.So for all these reasons we don't think that it is worth supporting this bill. There are many more things that would have been much more helpful. Again at this the final reading of the bill we do not support it and we will not support it. But we will if given the chance in a very short space of time make real tangible effective measures to actually improve access to justice in this country."