Wilkinson Kate: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2123] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I too would like to refer to some of the comments made yesterday albeit without notes by the honourable member Ron Mark. I have to say I am in total awe of his ability to speak without notes. Last night Mr Mark seemed to be fixated on how much money lawyers want. He said if we on this side of the Chamber could let him know how much we thought lawyers doing legal aid should get then we might get the support of New Zealand First. How much do we want to pay lawyers? What do we expect them to be paid? 
I see Mr Mark is here with his notes tonight. I repeat that the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) is not about lawyers; it is about access to justice. If the environment of legal aid is correctly pitched by this House then the market will determine what the rate of legal aid remuneration should be. If the environment of legal aid is correctly pitched the exodus of lawyers declining legal aid work may be halted. But in this bill it is not correctly pitched. When prosecuting counsel have significant advantages in terms of time preparation resources and remuneration—when the prosecuting counsel are at such an advantage over the defence counsel—it is not a level playing field and it is not fair access to justice. 
We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion in this debate. We on this side of the Chamber are concerned very much with the wider and more vital issue of access to justice. Those on the other side of the Chamber seem to be talking with envy about lawyers. I suggest that the wider issue of access to justice is the far more important issue that we should be debating in this House. 
A legal aid system that is financially disadvantageous to legal providers and thereby discourages acceptance of legal aid assignments by experienced practitioners will undermine that access to justice in two key ways. It will affect the principle of counsel of choice. Insufficient remuneration rates will hamper that choice as more and more lawyers are forced to exit from the system. It is not uncommon for eligible members of the public to have to contact several practitioners before finding one who will be available to act for them. A system that is financially disadvantageous to legal providers will encourage the likelihood of less experienced counsel undertaking legal aid work with greater risk of errors miscarriage of justice and less skilled judgments and consequently more appeals at even greater cost. 
At present there are huge financial disincentives for lawyers to undertake legal aid work. There are also huge bureaucratic disincentives for lawyers to undertake legal aid work. The bill is deficient in that area. For example the bureaucratic disincentives include a multiplicity of forms prescribed by the Legal Services Agency that correspond to each stage and each type of proceeding. Lawyers normally fill out those forms on behalf of their clients—a task that is both time-consuming and largely unpaid. Legal aid grants unduly restrict the hours allowed for in each step of the proceedings. Preparation time is limited yet it is significantly shorter for the accused than it is for the prosecuting counsels. Disbursements relating to a legal aid matter must be paid for by the lawyer in advance then claimed back after the matter is disposed of. Why should the lawyer have to cover those disbursements in advance? A complicated comprehensive scheme for prior approval of estimates examination of invoices and auditing of completed work also adds to the bureaucracy that is imposed by the bill. 
All of those additional regimes create greater compliance costs for legal aid providers and are further disincentives to undertake legal aid work.