Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. Though as others have said it is a small change proposed by this bill in some cases it will go far in the context of the lives and the financial situations of those who are impacted by it. I remain on the legal aid roster as a barrister and I worked in that system for years. So I know that actually $50 is quite often a very real barrier to those bringing civil cases as others have spoken about such as in the Family Court where the most egregious of those cases that may be barred by this fee would be those seeking for example a protection order to be safe from violence and others who would be bringing other cases to do with the care and protection of children for example—some of the most basic of our rights as they are touched upon by the substantive right which is access to justice in the context of this bill.But I do want to also talk about the criminal cases because they seem not to be the ones that people want to talk about as much and they are affected by the introduction under a previous National and ACT Party Government of this obligation to pay back legal aid and the interest that's accrued by that. It is an obligation of us as a Government to provide for the right to justice and that means an equal access to justice. The components of that right include the right to mount a legal defence to have that provided for by the State and resourced by the State if a defendant can't afford it but also that that legal service or legal advice is of a high quality and that it is in fact provided for freely. No one in New Zealand should be choosing between whether to challenge detention in a prison challenge search and seizure rights that may have been breached challenge a use of force by the police or in fact defend themselves against a criminal charge that will have some of the most dire and serious of consequences on their rights and their liberties because they're choosing between paying rent paying a mortgage—and I did know people who had to sell the family home to defend themselves against charges sometimes and you never get that money back—or in fact given the cost of living crisis that we live in the basics like food. We shouldn't be living in a society where someone may choose to plead guilty and go to prison rather than rightly challenge a case against them because their family will be obligated to pay off a debt even after they have been assessed not to be able to afford those legal services.Therein lies the aspect of this bill that absolutely does not go far enough which is that we live in a justice system where legal aid is not in fact legal aid. It's not free at all; it's just a debt. It wasn't always the case and it isn't the case in other similar judicial systems. Legal aid is the recognition that justice shouldn't be up for sale and available only to those who can afford it.In fact when the amendments and when the changes to the legal aid system were brought in under that previous justice Minister—and I remember it because I was a member of the executive of the Criminal Bar Association it was the Hon Judith Collins. We mounted a challenge—the criminal bar represents judges prosecutors and defence lawyers including also police prosecutor—to that legal aid system that is the one that's under scrutiny and is being changed somewhat by this bill. The case went all the way up to the Court of Appeal and the legal aid provisions and the changes that were put in place that system were found to be unlawful. That judgment still stands.So the reforms that are needed that this bill tries to address are not just rectifying a system or progressing it somewhat; it's actually to bring our legal aid system in line with the law. The legal aid Act says that policy should only be made for legal aid by the Minister in terms of their discretion for the purpose of providing high-quality legal services for the accused in terms of that criminal legal aid service. The court found that in fact the policy that we're still talking about right now was unlawful because it was made for the purpose of cutting costs. That's not a legal purpose that the Act provides for and we really should be aware of that because the right to justice is one of the fundamental rights that makes this a democracy.The rights that are taken away and touched upon if people can't access justice in our criminal courts as well as in Family Court and other civil proceedings are some of the most fundamental. Equality before the law is one of the most fundamental ways that every other right can be undermined or upheld.So these changes are good and they will mean something to those who are impacted. The $50 isn't nothing. The interest on legal aid debt is absolutely crippling for the families who are dealing with it and you absolutely don't get a cent of it back if you're found not guilty if you're acquitted if you win your protection order case—that's just gone; so you are choosing between a debilitating debt or justice or protection or safety or freedom. But they absolutely also don't go far enough.Our legal aid system does need an overhaul at the very least to bring it in line with the empowering legislation. It absolutely needs to focus on providing high-quality legal services equality before the courts and access to justice that's substantive. But I do commend the bill to the House.