Sepuloni Carmel: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16769] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 It is always nice to stand and speak on a bill that we agree on in the House. It is my preference to speak on bills that we agree on. I thank Mr Bakshi for his contribution and also my colleagues who have contributed to this bill. I am new to the Justice and Electoral Committee so I have taken advice from my colleagues who have been members of it. I will speak on some of the issues they have raised. I listened intently to Simon Bridges’ contribution earlier as I always listen intently to whatever Simon Bridges has to say. I noticed that he mentioned the hip-hop tour that happened under the previous Labour Government. I really do not know what that has to do with anything. I point out the fact that yes the hip-hop tour occurred under a Labour Government and yes we support every form of performing arts and every form of the arts. 
I also point out that the Prime Minister took a hip-hop group on a tour of the Pacific. So I thought that I would coin a new term—because there is a certain word starting with “h” that we cannot use—called “hiphopcrisy”. Perhaps that was what Simon Bridges was demonstrating earlier with his comments. I still do not understand how he was relating that to the bill but that is OK—I will continue on. 
This bill overhauls the legal services system. It is the legislative result of Dame Margaret Bazley’s review of legal aid which was completed last year. The report found serious failings in the delivery of publicly funded legal services. This bill will replace the Legal Services Act 2000. As I said Labour supports this bill. Labour believes the reforms are positive especially the emphasis on the public defender system and the community law centres. We are very pleased that there will be a focus on quality assurance. However we are concerned that the “three strikes” policy will place further pressure on publicly funded legal services and will negate some of the good work that has been done. 
Dame Margaret Bazley’s report uncovered some serious problems with how New Zealand’s legal aid system operates. We agree on all sides of the House that that is the case. As a result this bill is necessary to restore taxpayer confidence in legal aid which is an indispensible part of our justice system. We are very pleased that the Public Defence Service will be expanded—a system launched by a former Minister of Justice Phil Goff in 2004. The Public Defence Service is a good way to meet the rising costs of fees charged by barristers and solicitors in private practice. It creates a system of salaried public defenders and it will standardise a high quality of defence. It is a good alternative to legal aid. 
We are pleased that the Government is placing greater emphasis on community law centres as my colleague Lynne Pillay spoke about earlier and that the Secretary for Justice will have the flexibility to utilise different means of delivering legal services. Unfortunately though we fear that those vital reforms will be undermined by the Government’s ridiculous “three strikes” policy. As I mentioned earlier the reforms in this bill aim to curb the out-of-control costs of legal aid—criminal legal aid in particular—yet the “three strikes” policy will incentivise not-guilty pleas. That will prolong the length of trials and place extra cost pressure on the justice system. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Stop reading your research notes. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That is what we are concerned about I say to Mr Mapp. I do not know what he is mumbling about but I am sure that it is not important at all. 
Lianne Dalziel has previously expressed concern that many allegations in Dame Margaret’s report were unsubstantiated and she called on Simon Power to meet with members of the Manukau Bar who claim their reputations have been unfairly hurt by the report. We have some concerns about legal aid and employment disputes. The current system disadvantages union members because they pay $300 to $500 per year for their membership which includes an insurance fee to cover the cost of representation for personal grievance claims. However non-union members have to contribute only $50 placing them at an advantage. Some of the changes that I think are important to mention are that the administration of legal services is overhauled as suggested by Dame Margaret’s report; the bill transfers the administration of publicly funded legal services from the Legal Services Agency to the Ministry of Justice; the position of Legal Services Commissioner is created; the Legal Aid Review Panel will be disbanded and the legal aid review function will now be carried out by— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.