Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou. It is difficult to speak for just a short few minutes on some of the significant issues that exist in the justice system more broadly at the moment. My colleague Stuart Nash has already talked about the shortfalls for police funding. We have significant issues in the Department of Corrections. I want to talk a little bit about some of the issues that the Minister of Justice herself raised.When we have a crime perpetrated against an individual or someone who for whatever reason may find themselves needing to access the court access to justice issues become critical. It is a critical part of a well-functioning society and a well-functioning democracy. Being able to access that justice system whether it is to prosecute a case—a civil case perhaps—or to defend yourself if we do not have mechanisms in place that enable people whatever their circumstances to do that then everything falls apart. I have seen within the justice system significant issues in that area. Access to legal aid is one way that we can make sure that we have an accessible justice system. The thresholds in New Zealand for accessing legal aid are incredibly difficult. You basically cannot earn the minimum wage and be eligible. Yes it has shifted marginally for civil legal aid but I would have to say that I imagine that the Minister has almost had her hand forced on that because of the increase we have seen in self-representation. That causes a number of issues not only for individuals who often struggle with the complex legal system but also for the courts and it tends to slow down cases going through the courts. So that is a significant issue and I want to give a graphic illustration of how thresholds to legal aid can really affect those who need to access our justice system.Protection orders—most people in New Zealand would probably think that a protection order was free and accessible but actually we have hundreds of cases of predominantly women who are trying to access legal aid in order to have a protection order who seek the assistance of a lawyer to have an urgent protection order issued and who are being denied legal aid for that purpose. When you have an income test that could for instance assess the family home as deeming you ineligible for legal aid that is obviously problematic when it may be a partner whom you are seeking a protection order against but you are being income tested in that relationship. It should be that either community law centres are funded to help issue protection orders or we just make a legal aid application automatically approved if it is for a protection order. Something needs to be done in that area.That leads me neatly to the issues in the Family Court. It just defies belief to me that the Government would not want to review the massive reforms it implemented given the huge issues that are now manifesting. Not only do we have issues accessing protection orders—and actually I have had numerous cases now come before me where a protection order which is meant to be for natural justice purposes is able to be challenged in a court within a set period of time—but cases have not been heard before the court within 6 months after a protection order has been issued and these are cases that involve children and that have significant safety concerns attached to them. Access is one of the things that needs to be discussed in the Family Court and those people cannot access the court. It is a significant problem one I continually raise with the Minister. The Principal Family Court Judge Laurence Ryan acknowledged that there has been an astounding increase in without notice applications and that is indicative of people trying to avoid some of the processes that have been established through the reforms and get straight to the court so that they can have a lawyer represent them. The reforms in many ways have failed. They must be reviewed urgently. I want to speak briefly on community law centres. They have had static funding at $10.9 million for some time since 2008. The Minister boasted that there had been an increase; there has not. In fact all there is is contingency funding if the special fund dips in order to bring them up to that static funding. They do huge work on behalf of us as MPs too I must add. They must be funded properly. I would urge the banks as a starter to drop the take of the special fund that they are taking. It is ridiculous to claim 40 percent in costs and charges to administer the special fund that those banks—and they know who they are—should be passing on.