Wagner Nicky: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2040] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Although this bill is called the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) it focuses on only one legal service: legal aid. National like most Kiwis supports the philosophy behind the bill which is the right of all New Zealanders to have an equitable credible and accessible justice system. All New Zealanders should have confidence that each and every one of them will get equitable treatment in a court of law. It is not right that different people should get different results from the justice system because of their age—as Mr Bennett has told us—their sex their colour their knowledge of the system or—and this is why the bill is so important—their ability to pay for representation and the quality of that representation. 
The cost of going to court is a vexed issue for all who face legal proceedings whether they are eligible for legal aid or whether they have to pay their costs themselves. In a criminal case a person has very little choice. It is always wise to have legal representation because there is no doubt that with a competent lawyer a better result should be expected. 
Ron Mark 
: Is this competent lawyer reading again too? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: This is not about being a competent lawyer; it is an argument for the importance of legal aid. 
New Zealanders believe that it would be a miscarriage of justice if a person were unable to be represented in court simply because he or she could not afford a lawyer. A civil case is somewhat different. In civil cases complainants have more choice about whether it is worth going to court. They need to weigh up whether the result is worth the cost. Many people say that going to court however right a case may appear is a lose-lose situation simply because of the stress and the expense. Many people choose to settle out of court simply because the cost of going to court is not worth even a successful result. People who are not eligible for legal aid make those decisions every day and they often decide that their day in court is not worth the expense. That cost-benefit analysis is a valid way of dealing with civil issues. 
Getting legal aid should not encourage or promote litigation; nor should it lead to court proceedings continuing indefinitely simply because the State is paying the costs. We have seen situations where legal aid has paid for appeal after appeal on often quite spurious grounds. Although it is estimated that this bill will increase the percentage of legal aid recipients who are required to make repayments from 14 percent of those receiving support to 26 percent it will still mean that nearly three-quarters of the people who get legal aid will repay nothing. Legal aid in those cases should perhaps be called a legal grant. 
But the main reason National does not support this bill is that it does not address the issue of remuneration for lawyers and how they undertake legal aid work. The bill revises the terms of eligibility for legal aid and makes rules about merit testing and debt management so the mechanisms for providing representation are dealt with but the bill does nothing to guarantee the quality of that representation. This issue was brought up time and time again in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
 If we are to provide a legal aid system where everyone has a chance of receiving equitable treatment in a court of law we must be able to ensure that a competent lawyer will take the case. Right now that outcome must be debatable. With legal aid payments set at the 1996 remuneration level individual lawyers and whole practices are turning down that type of work. It is rare to see senior lawyers in court doing legal aid work which means that younger and less experienced new lawyers are left to carry the responsibility. 
A lack of involvement in the legal aid scheme by experienced and skilled lawyers destroys any chance of the equity of justice that is the whole purpose of legal aid and of this bill. So National opposes this bill because if we cannot guarantee the quality of legal representation how can we deliver equitable credible and accessible justice?