Finlayson Christopher: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2122] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Last night in the Committee stage of the bill we had a powerful address from Mr Fairbrother that showed just what a fine criminal lawyer he is. He said and I agree that service to the public is the hallmark of a profession. He said and I agree also that it is essential for young lawyers to understand their professional responsibilities. He said and again I agree that young lawyers need to enter the arena get on their feet and argue cases rather than just push paper—as too many do in the large law firms. 
But what a shame it was that that was all irrelevant to the critical issue facing the Committee last night which was the issue of access to justice for the poor. He accused me of delivering a generalised rant and said that I provided no evidence of the problem of the increasing disparity between the legal aid fund for criminal barristers and what Crown solicitors are paid. But I put it to the Committee that the evidence is overwhelming. Mr Fairbrother read as indeed I did the New Zealand Law Society submission on the topic. He read the submission of the community law centres. He read and I pointed out to him John Rowan’s article in this month’s  
New Zealand Law Journal 
 on the issue. 
Mr Fairbrother’s speech was a very impressive speech but it was not at all persuasive. Mr Mark on the other hand raised a very fair question. He gave National back-benchers an elocution lesson which was probably rude and unnecessary but as I said he asked a fair question: what will the cost be of increasing criminal legal aid rates? He is entitled to an answer and I give him an answer directly now. National says that the way to address the inadequacy of criminal legal aid rates is first to institute regular—that is annual—reviews of the legal aid rates using the methodology set out in the Crown solicitor’s regulations and second to have a good look at the market-based reforms that are planned for legal aid services in England. 
It is one of the great tragedies of New Zealand that when New Zealanders elect Labour Governments they tend to be left-wing Labour Governments looking for inspiration to Sweden and other parts of Scandinavia. But if they looked at their brothers and sisters in England they would find that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is actually coming up with proposals to reform legal aid that are market-based reforms. 
I refer the Minister in the chair Mark Burton to the February 2006 report—and I will get him a copy; I took it off the Internet last night—of Lord Carter on legal aid procurement. Essentially in a criminal context what Lord Carter is recommending and what will happen in England by 2009 is fixed pricing for all criminal legal aid work including work provided in police stations Magistrates’ Courts and Crown courts. It will be a managed market awarding contracts to efficient and good-quality suppliers that can take on more cases—either individual firms or collections of firms formed to deliver the benefits of scale. 
And the third way to address the issue is by managed price competition between efficient good-quality suppliers with safeguards to protect standards of quality coverage in rural areas and diversity. 
So members can see there are answers to this problem that do not necessarily result in a blow-out of legal aid rates or the legal aid budget. We have to be able to be creative and at the same time develop a system that will achieve what National has been going on about since last night—that is ensuring access to justice for the poor. 
Mr Harawira hit the nail on the head last night when he said that he had appeared in court on a number of occasions and after one occasion when he had a lawyer who was not up to the mark he had given up and represented himself. He could do that because he is a very bright and eloquent individual. But many people are simply not able to do that. They require the services of a lawyer and too often they get duds. That is the concern of National. It is not being addressed by the legislation and that is why we are opposing it.