Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21747] 
6.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How much has been spent in legal aid on treaty claims and settlements broken down for each year ending June since 1999? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Expenditure on legal aid for treaty settlement process has increased as the Government has worked to settle historical claims so that we can start to look to the future. The number of open cases with the Legal Services Agency has increased from 151 in 1999-2000 to 377 in 2003-04. Legal aid expenditure on these claims for each of the financial years for which we have full-year information from 1999-2000 to 2003-04 is as follows: $3.1 million $4.4 million $5.6 million $7.2 million and $6.9 million. Those figures are rounded. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the legal aid system is being used effectively for this purpose of treaty claims given that in the period mentioned by him Treaty of Waitangi settlement claims cost the taxpayer about $22 million in legal aid costs and given that in this time only six claims were settled; and does he agree that wastage is going on in what the race relations Minister calls the “treaty industry”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Act sets out clear criteria by which the Legal Services Agency makes its decisions on granting legal aid. I think in terms of the sums of money expended they reflect not wastage but rather the complexity of the claims and the need for the research to be done thoroughly. If we are to settle this process properly and put it behind us then we have to do it in that way. We have to have proper representation it needs to be thorough it needs to be independent and both sides need to respect the finding at the end. 
Tim Barnett 
: Why is it important to ensure that treaty claimants are adequately represented? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If we want settlements of the historical grievances that are robust and durable it is important that claimants are properly represented. Failure to provide legal assistance would be counterproductive if the objective is to settle the grievances—and they are genuine grievances in many cases—and move forward as a nation. This is the policy objective for the Government and apparently for New Zealand First and National as well both of which provided legal aid for Treaty of Waitangi processes when they were in Government. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen any projections as to how much the legal aid bill is likely to increase now that the Government intends appointing six new judges to the Maori Land Court; and has he seen any projections for what legal aid would cost if it were to be available to those making claims to the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Legal aid cannot be used for foreshore and seabed cases. The short answer to the member’s question is that I have not seen such forecasts. National’s policy is to accelerate the claims process settling all grievances by 2010. If National puts that in place it will not need just six new judges; it will probably need about another 26 judges to settle the claims in that time frame. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Government intend to put a cap on the amount of legal aid that can be granted for specific treaty claims or perhaps to limit them to certain specific law firms given that some firms are claiming over $1 million per year in treaty legal aid alone; and does he now realise why New Zealand First supported the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 on the proviso that legal aid would not be made available to those seeking customary rights orders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has been a lawyer for many years and I think he has probably done legal aid cases. He will know that legal aid has never been capped in the sense of a dollar sum but rather has been restricted by virtue of the criteria that are applied. To do it in the way that the member is supposedly suggesting would obviously produce major anomalies and injustices. It could not be done that way. In terms of the legal firms doing the work if it is brought to our attention that any firm is acting improperly and against the law then action will be taken against that firm or particular individuals within it.