Hughes Gareth: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Legal Services Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13516] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. We acknowledge some of the concerns raised by the Labour Party and we would also have appreciated some consultation on the select committee process but in looking at this Legal Services Bill we believe we have considered the legislation carefully and we do not feel confident that its provisions provide sufficient protection for those in need of legal aid from undue interference by the Government. We also do not agree with many of the findings in Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on which this legislation is based. Therefore we will not be voting to support this bill at its first reading but we look forward to seeking further information during the select committee process. 
The legal aid system as described in the regulatory impact statement is designed to assist those who cannot afford legal representation when they need it. The legal aid system helps to uphold the principles of and access to justice equality before the law and natural justice which helps to build and maintain public confidence in the legal system. The regulatory impact statement notes that there is a clear relationship between justice sector outcomes and the provision of publicly funded legal aid services. So the provision of publicly funded legal aid is critical and it must be undertaken with the greatest care for natural justice principles. 
The Bazley review came out of concerns raised about the legal aid system including concerns based on rising costs problems with access and the impact of the system on the courts. Her report notes that the Legal Services Agency was established to administer the legal aid system to maintain a list of lawyers who could provide legally aided services and to grant legal aid. As a Crown agent the Legal Services Agency performs these functions at arm’s length from the Government. That is important because it avoids any conflicts of interest that the Government may have when funding legal aid for people who are involved in litigation with the Crown such as when the Crown is prosecuting a crime or when people are suing the Crown. We believe that this is an extremely important principle to uphold. It is not appropriate for the Crown to be the decision maker on what funding is made available to those who are litigating against the Crown. 
The report notes: “The new tribunal should have an explicit requirement to have regard to both access to justice considerations and responsible expenditure of public monies. To this end the Chair of the new tribunal should not be a lawyer.” I find it incredible that the Bazley report should recommend that the chair of any new tribunal should not be a lawyer. This highlights the entire tone of the Bazley review—that lawyers cannot be trusted with public moneys. I wonder whether John Key should perhaps be watching out for Chris Finlayson. 
Reading through the legislation it seems to me that the recommendation to deny anyone from the legal profession the chance to head the tribunal has been dropped and that is a good thing. However the Green Party is an evidence-based party and we see that this legislation will scrap the current Legal Aid Review Panel. We have not seen any evidence that that panel has not been doing a good job but some snide comments were made in the Bazley report and—poof—the panel is gone. I understand that the staff of the Legal Services Agency will be carrying on but it will not be the same for those at the review panel. Once this legislation is enacted they will be gone. That topic needs to be addressed by the Minister of Justice. I ask what the Legal Aid Review Panel did wrong and why it is going. 
It is also worth noting that Ms Bazley’s report was concerned that the Legal Aid Review Panel’s funding was through the Legal Services Agency. Now both organisations will fall under the purview of the Ministry of Justice and I am not sure how that will assist. We already have a breach of this principle when it comes to the Treaty settlement process. That process is clearly flawed because in large part the accused party determines the funding for the aggrieved party. So it is with dismay that we see that the recommendation from the Bazley report states that because the legal aid system is essential to the operation of the justice system it is recommended that the administration of the legal aid system and the procurement of legal aid services be centralised and kept close to the Crown. 
Throughout the Bazley report which was the catalyst for the legislation in front of us today there is an implied suggestion that lawyers cannot be trusted with the public’s money. Should applicants be denied legal aid they can currently apply to the Legal Aid Review Panel to look at the Legal Services Agency’s decision-making process. But Ms Bazley in her report suggests scrapping the Legal Aid Review Panel—which is what this legislation does—and replacing it with a tribunal that will work from and within the Ministry of Justice. This is what Ms Bazley stated about the prospect of a lawyer heading a tribunal that will be assessing legal aid decisions: “In reviewing decisions of the [Legal Services Agency] the new tribunal should have regard to both access to justice considerations and responsible expenditure of public monies. I am not confident that a Chair drawn from the legal profession will necessarily achieve the appropriate balance between these considerations. Therefore I consider that the opportunity should be taken to appoint a non-lawyer as the Chair of the new tribunal.” We cannot agree to this view and we believe that it undermines the legitimate concerns raised within the report. 
We do not agree that the issues raised in the report about the operation of legal services are best remedied by bringing the agency under the purview of the Crown and thereby breaching one of the principles of natural justice. The structural solution being proposed in the wake of the report will end the independence of the Legal Aid Services Agency whatever its faults may be and fold it back into the Ministry of Justice. There will be genuine accusations of political interference in the decisions to grant or to refuse legal aid applications. That will erode public confidence in the legal aid system and it could undermine access to legal aid by members of the public who are concerned about privacy and political interference. 
We are also very concerned that the principles of natural justice are being undermined in an attempt to make administrative savings. Although some of these concerns could be remedied in the select committee process—and we will welcome that discussion—we are not satisfied that this bill as it is promotes and protects public access to justice builds confidence in the legal profession or meets the precepts of natural justice. We will be opposing this bill.