O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): Access to justice in most people's opinion these days is becoming more and more difficult—in fact far too difficult—because legal costs are very high even for relatively minor offences and of course legal aid was intended to solve that problem by providing representation for people who could not afford it themselves. But now the criteria for eligibility are so tough that many people simply do not qualify so a gap has emerged between those who qualify for legal aid and can therefore get representation and those who can actually afford it from their own resources. So there is a gap of people in the middle who neither qualify for legal aid nor can actually afford to get a lawyer. So that is the problem that we have got in the community and it is getting worse. I want to refer to some figures from the Estimates because those for 2016-17 show an appropriation of $137.7 million which is a reduction against the 2015-16 Budget figure of $141.85 million and also a reduction against the $139.3 million estimated actual cost 2015-16. Those reductions come from three places. First of all family legal aid cases are estimated to reduce by $1.6 million Waitangi Tribunal cases a reduction by about $1 million dollars and duty solicitors a reduction of nearly $2 million. On the other hand criminal legal aid is expected to require another $1.7 million in the current year—which appears to reflect an anticipated increase in crime and its accompanying legal aid costs—but civil legal aid is to go up by only about $1 million against the 2015-16 year. Yet although legally aided criminal cases are projected to stay about the same in number the number of legally aided civil cases is projected to increase from 1200 last year to 1350 for the current year. That is an increase of 12.5 percent. What that means is that despite a declaration in the Estimates document that the increase for civil legal aid is for increasing eligibility for civil legal aid" there is clearly not enough funding provided for in order to meet the demand if the thresholds are to be raised as stated in the document itself. I also want to refer to the current legal services regulations because they show as I say that the criteria are far too tough. This is what it says. The maximum levels of income for civil legal aid are "(a) $22366 per year for a single applicant: (b) $35420 per year for an applicant with—(i) a spouse or partner; or (ii) 1 dependent child: (c) $50934 per year for an applicant with—(i) a spouse or partner and 1 dependent child; or (ii) 2 dependent children:". The maximum level for disposable capital—the threshold for that is only $3500. That excludes of course a family home up to $80000 and if the applicant has a spouse or a partner or one or more dependent children the capital threshold then increases by another $1500. The point is these are very low thresholds and far too many people exceed those thresholds but still cannot afford to hire a lawyer and that is the fundamental problem we have got. We cannot see in these Budget documents whether there is intended to be a new schedule for those thresholds—it is just not available. But the point I am making is this: the amount provided for in the Budget and in the Estimates is simply not enough to provide for any significant change in those thresholds. So what we are going to get is a continuation of a situation where that gap continues."