Tanczos Nandor: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1754] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak to the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) after Mr Hone Harawira from the Maori Party. Although the Green Party takes a different approach from that of the Maori Party to the bill—in that we are supporting its passage through the House—Mr Harawira raised a number of issues that are profoundly important and that we need to take very seriously in the House. He raised a number of points around the very high proportion of Maori who are in prison. He alluded to the racism that is inherent in our justice system whereby the police are much more likely to take notice of young Maori males than of others and to stop them question them and search them. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing young Maori males are much more likely than others to be charged and if convicted they are then likely to receive a more serious punishment. That pattern runs all the way through the justice system. Mr Harawira was right in saying that the bill does not address that issue in any way. 
Neither does the bill address a dysfunctional approach to justice issues that sees the answer to reducing crime as simply locking people in jail without regard to what we do while they are in there—without regard to any attempts to rehabilitate them—or more significantly without regard to the need to invest in our young people in the early intervention measures that will keep people from committing crime in the first place. I note that the member comes from Northland where the Government has just spent some $150 million on building a new prison at the same time as it is closing local schools. 
So one has to ask what kind of justice we are really talking about. I have invited the justice spokespeople of all the political parties to meet to discuss the call from the Salvation Army for a cross-party accord on justice because it is time we started to move beyond the sloganeering and the rhetoric to look at the evidence about what works. It is time we stopped treating justice and crime as political footballs. We all owe that to people because I think we all have a very genuine concern to reduce crime and to reduce the number of victims and victimisation. 
The bill does not do any of those things but nevertheless I think it is worth supporting because it does do a number of useful things. The bill is important and legal aid is important because it means that when people do go to court we are able to do whatever we can to ensure they receive proper professional and competent representation so that they actually have a fair chance. The court is a place where people feel alienated. It is not just Maori who are alienated but also Pakeha. Anyone who goes into the court system and who is not legally trained is likely to be alienated by the process. It is like walking into a play and being the only person who does not know the script. People do get walked over by the system in that context. 
I agree with what Mr Harawira said. I have seen duty solicitors whose advice to their clients is to plead guilty regardless of whether they did the crime because the police are presenting evidence. Even when there is a very credible case to be made for the person’s innocence it is just simply easier to plead guilty and get it over with. Of course the other issue is that when people go to court if they are working they have to take time off work and they do not want their boss or their colleagues to know that they are in court. The whole thing is something that people want to get out of the way and it is easier to plead guilty than not guilty particularly to minor offences. So ensuring that people who are charged with offences have good representation is important. I was pleased to hear some of the comments from the Legal Services Agency about some of the measures they are trying to introduce in order to provide better representation at the first stage when people come into court. They gave that advice to our committee during the review. 
We support this legislation because it increases the eligibility to legal aid—it is estimated that an extra 400000 people will become eligible for legal aid—but we were disappointed that it did not increase collective eligibility. The Greens were instrumental in getting environmental legal aid provided because we are aware of community groups all over the country that out of a public interest take on powerful business interests with no resources. So environmental legal aid is available through the Ministry for the Environment and it is a shame that collective eligibility was not part of this review. Nevertheless a significant number of people—more people—will now have access to legal aid. 
Since we are discussing the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report it is worth drawing the attention of both members and the public to a number of issues one of which concerns the eligibility criteria. Mr Harawira raised the point that one of the factors to be considered is the likelihood of someone going to jail. Let me be clear: the intention was not to prejudge the outcome of a case but to say that if someone was being prosecuted for an offence for which if found guilty he or she was likely to go to jail then the seriousness of the effect of that outcome should be considered when the decision was made about whether to grant legal aid. 
One of the issues I raised in the committee was that people who had no previous convictions and who had been charged with a fairly minor offence for which they were unlikely to go to jail had to date not been eligible for legal aid. The argument was that those people were likely to receive only a fine or perhaps a bit of community service the effects of which were not significant. However the point I would like to make is that one’s first conviction is always significant. The first conviction a person receives will always have a disproportionate impact because of its effect on his or her employment prospects travel prospects and the like. So a first conviction is always a serious— 
Brian Connell 
: Speak for yourself. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I tell Mr Connell that I have no convictions. Neither have I been subject to serious fraud investigation. I am talking out of a genuine interest for the well-being of ordinary New Zealanders many of whom have gone to court but have not had legal representation—they have not been eligible for legal aid because of the point I have just raised. The advice they have sometimes had from duty solicitors was lacking so they have pleaded guilty for the reasons I outlined previously. So I am very pleased that it was I think a unanimous decision of the committee to make the question of whether the applicant has had any previous convictions one of the issues the Legal Services Agency must take into account when deciding whether to grant legal aid. 
One of the other issues we grappled with a lot was that of legal privilege. The bill as drafted required a lawyer who may have been providing legal aid to notify the agency about any changes to the income and disposable capital of the person who was being legally aided. But the bill stated that it removed legal privilege and the select committee was very concerned about the idea that legislation like this might remove legal privilege. Legal privilege is an ancient right and something that is a pretty significant cornerstone—well perhaps not a cornerstone but a significant block—of the justice system. So we looked at how we could amend that provision and we came up with a proposal by Mr Finlayson I think— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Yes. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
:—a very good and sensible proposal that when people apply for legal aid they themselves waive legal privilege. That of course is their right and it overcame the danger that we were by legislation impinging on the confidentiality that lawyers owe to their clients. 
The other issue that other members have raised is that of the pay rates and that is important. I am not sure I agree with Mr Harawira that all legal aid lawyers are “legal bunnies”. I know that Mr Fairbrother has done a lot of legal aid work in the past and I think he is a very experienced and competent lawyer. In fact although there is a concern at the disincentive for lawyers to take legal aid cases because of the poor pay rates I think that many legal aid lawyers are very good. They are people who do the work because of their real commitment to justice and they continue to do it despite the very low rates of pay. Nevertheless if we do not address that issue we will run into serious problems which is why we have recommended that there be a regular review of the pay rates.