Dalziel Lianne: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDalziel Lianne: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):I too rise to speak on the third reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill with the word “Sustainability” having dropped out of the title. The reason for that is that of course the proposal that originally came to the House was not sustainable and that is why we have had to drop any reference to it.There were a number of submissions to this bill that I have referred to in various stages of the bill and I want to particularly refer to elements of the Criminal Bar Association’s submission. But the first thing I want to do is again remind the House of the regulatory impact analysis which provided a degree of warning to us about what happens when we do not take into account some of the potential problems that arise when we pass legislation. I do not think that after we see the implementation of this legislation—and I do accept that it is nowhere near as bad as it originally was but that does not mean that it is perfect—we can in the future say that there were unintended consequences.This Parliament is voting for intended consequences and they are spelt out in the regulatory impact statement. The first of these—these are the risks that were highlighted—is that a change of purchase approach is required but is likely to be resisted by some parts of the legal profession and this is likely to lead to an increase in a number of legal challenges of legal aid grants as well as public concern. We have already got a tick on that one. We know that that is the case and we know indeed that there are going to be many many more costs associated with the increased concern around the legal challenges of legal aid grants.Reductions in the price paid to lawyers could create gaps in provision particularly in the family and civil jurisdictions where there is more choice of private work and in some smaller centres where there are already supply issues. We have already seen that. I went up to Whangarei with my colleague Andrew Little and we heard very clearly that there were issues already in that area and I know that in other parts of the country that has been the case.The people who will actually suffer as a result of that are not the lawyers. In fact it is the people whom they would otherwise serve. As I said in one of the other readings—and I think in the Committee stage—a lawyer came before the Justice and Electoral Committee in respect of the Family Court proceedings legislation and it was her decision to leave the law practice she was working for at the time and set up her own independent practice because the larger firm that she worked for prior to that decided that it would stop doing all legal aid work.She felt in all good conscience that she could not stop serving the needs of our migrant and refugee community. She felt that they would be incredibly disadvantaged if her experience was no longer available to them and as a result she had to leave that firm. It was a very very brave decision for somebody in post-earthquake Christchurch to leave the comfort of an established well-respected law firm and set up on her own and that is what she has done. I take my hat off to her. I felt that her submission was incredibly powerful because not only was it made to the Family Court proceedings legislation but it reached right across to this legislation here—the one that we are considering in the third reading tonight.The introduction of income and asset thresholds for the criminal means test will be in tension with section 24(f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act providing for the right to an affordable defence. It could also delay some court cases if judges defer proceedings because of inadequate representation. We have had those examples brought to us already both in the context of this law and also in the context of the Family Court proceedings legislation. We have heard so many times about the problems that are confronted by courts that have to deal with so-called self-represented litigants. Self-represented litigants cause a real problem often in terms of the time delays that they can cause but also in terms of their completely unrealistic expectation of what the court is there to do. Also they may not be completely au fait with all of the background to the particular case they may be arguing.Restrictions to eligibility will disadvantage people on low incomes who have few options to find legal services elsewhere. Generally this includes young Māori men in the criminal jurisdiction and women and children in the family jurisdiction. I did notice that the Māori Party I believe is not voting for this bill and I believe that this is thereason why it is not voting for thisbill.As I did describe in one of the readings—I think in my second reading speech—we all know that young Māori men are exposed to far greater risk of being stopped in the street of being questioned of being arrested of being charged of being charged with more serious offences of being charged with more offences of ending up in court having to defend them of ending up being convicted and of ending up in jail. That is a matter of fact. I mean it is on the record. You only need to look at it.I know nobody likes to talk about systemic racism. It is not a judgmental statement; it is just a statement of fact. It is what happens when you have systemic system failure and that is what we have in this country. We will continue to have it until somebody has got the courage to stand up and deal with it. The regulatory impact statement says: “Withdrawing legal aid for low income groups is likely to lead to additional costs elsewhere in the justice system. In particular it may increase the number of self-represented litigants with flow on costs due to delays additional assistance required from court staff and the judiciary and higher numbers of appeals of decisions.”In here in the regulatory impact statement it does not say “as described self-represented litigants”. It just says “self-represented litigants”. Can I just do away with that myth? This was the point that was made at the select committee on more than one occasion. These people are not self-represented. They are unrepresented—completely unrepresented. No one is standing up with them—nobody with the legal background the experience and the knowledge to defend their case. Nobody stands there with the legal knowledge and experience to present their case. Nobody is on their side. They are not self-represented; they are unrepresented. The regulatory impact statement stands in defiance of common sense and proper interpretation of the English language by using that term.I want to quote from the Criminal Bar Association’s submission because it talked about a negative impact upon the judiciary. This is the long-term issue that nobody really sees when you are dealing with a short-term problem. The Government has got a short-term problem—it wants to cut the Budget. This is about money; it is about nothing else. Here is a quote from the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge: “The longer-term problem arises in the context of legal aid which we are talking about now. I am not going into the whys and wherefores of the legal aid issue in terms of cuts but can I just address one long-term consequence? A lot of people working in the criminal world and on family work do so on the basis of legal aid. There are shining men and women who go into the commercial court world. They do fine—they do the Chancery Division. But an awful lot of the judicial work at the coalface—the sentencing of the rapists; the trial of the terrorists; and so on and so forth—is done by people whose background is legal aid criminal work prosecuting criminal cases and family work.If we cannot attract young men and women of real talent into doing criminal and family work on the basis of what is available on legal aid we shall lose a significant part of the practising Bar which is from minority ethnic backgrounds and women. If we lose them or don’t collect them in 20 years’ time the Judicial Appointments Commission will have fewer applicants from these backgrounds than they have at present which will in its turn stultify the progress towards a more diverse judiciary. I see those two questions running side by side although one is a much longer-term problem.”Nobody has talked about the longer-term impact on our entire legal system when we actually discourage those whom we need to be encouraging into taking up these positions. That unfortunately is one of the unforeseen consequences of this legislation.