Worth Richard: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20635] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 In the dying days of the current session with a Government poised to change on September 17 there is only one thing I can really agree with in what the previous speaker said. He said that access to justice is a fundamental principle. There could scarcely be any doubt about that. 
Does it not highlight for us that this triumvirate of people—I call them people—who are involved in the justice portfolio in the present Government know nothing about where it is at? Three Ministers are involved in that great task and it is a great task. The rule of law is a critical underpinning of our society. Who are those three people? They are the Minister of Justice Phil Goff who was a political science lecturer; Rick Barker who was a trade union official of some standing in the community on the East Coast; and Michael Cullen who was an economics and history teacher. Those are the people who stand before us and propound that the rule of law is important and that access to justice is a fundamental principle. It is absolutely disgraceful because in Parliament on the opposite side of the Chamber where the Minister of Justice is sitting there are lawyers of repute who are silenced. They are not prepared apparently not able and not supported sufficiently to make a contribution on these critical issues. 
Stephen Franks 
: Or Russell Fairbrother. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Russell Fairbrother is a criminal lawyer of substantial experience. These are matters that he would know about in the context of criminal legal aid. He has been completely muzzled. I call upon Mr Fairbrother as he sits there in the body of the Chamber to make some comment to Parliament and to people who may be listening on what he thinks about these truly important issues. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: He could say anything and it would make more sense than this member’s contribution. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The Minister in the chair Phil Goff is entitled to interrupt and the public can judge whether his interruptions are worthwhile. 
A line that Mr Goff has probably never heard of is: the courts are open to everyone like the Ritz Hotel. It is a very sad statement because what it is all about is that those who are wealthy can afford the provision of legal services and those who are less wealthy—“underwealthy” if that is the current expression doing the rounds in the Labour caucus—can secure legal aid but unfortunately those in the middle cannot afford access to the courts. That is why National supports the reference of this bill to a select committee. But we are doing so with reservations because part of our policy is that there should be a sweeping review carried out on issues such as the eligibility for legal aid and also the excesses of the current system—something that Mr Goff Dr Cullen and Mr Barker have done nothing to deal with. Why would they deal with it? They know nothing about it. That is the tragedy of the whole sorry event. 
National supports the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) going to a select committee with the reservation that those on the Government side of the House who speak in support of doing that really do not understand the issues. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: This member hasn’t read the bill. I can tell. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Mr Goff is interrupting to say that I know nothing about the bill. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I’m saying that the member hasn’t read the bill because he hasn’t referred to it in the first 5 minutes of his speech. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I hope those comments are recorded in  
Hansard 
 because I have had a substantial involvement in legal aid. I have read the bill. 
I hope that the Minister has read the bill because he will know that it touches on three really important issues. The first issue is that of eligibility. In the explanatory note the Government states that there is the prospect of wider eligibility in the bill. I tell the Minister that National hopes that will truly be the case. That is the first point about the bill. The Minister told me I had not read the bill. What a foolish comment! How would the Minister know that? 
The second point is that the bill looks at the issue of merit testing which is something that National is particularly interested in. The Minister will not know because he does not know much about legal aid that two standards are appropriate in the context of granting legal aid. One is for civil legal aid and one is for criminal legal aid. There is a fundamental difference which if he had read the bill the Minister might have some appreciation of. We are keen to explore that issue more closely. 
The third issue is the issue the Minister briefly touched on and members of the House who will have observed what the Minister had to say on the bill will know that he read poorly from a close script. The third issue concerns the question of repayment of legal aid which touches the question of whether legal aid in a particular case will be a grant or be something more in the nature of a loan. If it is to be something more in the nature of a loan then we are talking about a debt-management regime. If the Minister had taken the trouble to find out—but I am sure he has not—he would have found that one of the Legal Services Agency’s concerns was about the issue of what is known colloquially as the legal aid charge. 
Legal aid is an important element in the context of providing human and civil rights; it is all about access to justice. But there is no doubt that the present system is subject to significant rorting. If the Minister had been following what has been occurring in the media he would have come across—but he did not choose to refer to—a number of instances where there have been significant rorts. National is on to that. We want that issue looked at closely because substantial public funds are involved in the provision of legal aid and it is really important that there be transparency in the system. I have to say—and I would not say it unless the Minister had interrupted with his foolish comments—that the time has come for legal aid to be looked at critically and for the Government to become involved in providing as it can do lawyers of competence on its side of the House to speak about these legal aid issues. 
There is also an issue of eligibility of legal aid which I touched on briefly in response to the Minister’s comments. People cannot get legal aid for a number of things. They cannot get it for divorce for example. They cannot get it in situations where a lawyer is needed but no court case is involved. They cannot get it where there are not good reasons for taking or defending a case and they cannot get it to go to the disputes tribunal. They cannot get it for most immigration matters excluding those concerning refugees. They cannot get it for court cases outside New Zealand. They cannot get it as employers nor in relation to companies or groups except for limited cases such as class actions and Waitangi Tribunal claims. I am a bit surprised that the Minister did not find it appropriate to talk about why there is no case for looking at those issues but I guess that ignorance was for him the watchword and that those issues were not considered. 
One of the things I think we have to consider very carefully as a Parliament is the issue of eligibility for criminal legal aid. There is no doubt about it that in a legal aid setting in a criminal context legal aid is granted in circumstances where many would say that it should not be granted. I hope—and I trust too—that the Justice and Electoral Committee will look at that issue when this bill is referred to it. 
I think that a good thing the Government has done—well it would not have been the Government; it would have been its policy advisers probably—is the introduction of the new merit tests. In the case of criminal legal aid it should not be the case that it will be a gravy train for lawyers who choose to specialise in that particular area. This is an access-to-justice issue; it is important that it be properly dealt with.