Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2353] 
Legal Services Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
Sadly this bill was born from tragedy. Members of the House will recall the senseless death of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of paroled murderer Graeme Burton. Members may also recall that in January 2008 Karl Kuchenbecker’s former partner received a letter from the Legal Services Agency. The letter set out the theoretical maximum amount of $19000 that she would be required to repay in respect of legal aid granted to her for representation at the coronial inquiry into Mr Kuchenbecker’s death. 
It is not acceptable that victims should be treated in this way adding insult to injury by raising the prospect that they may be liable for significant repayments. Within days the then Minister of Justice the Hon Annette King said “If the legal aid system is producing this sort of result for victims it has to be changed urgently. I have already spoken to the Secretary for Justice and asked for an urgent report that will examine what changes are needed to ensure that victims are treated in a caring and compassionate way. I am very serious about this. Victims should not be re-victimised under any circumstances.” I give credit to Mrs King for taking that stance. 
Unfortunately we were told that the bill would be introduced in May and passed soon after that. May rolled around and the then Prime Minister said that it seemed outrageous that Mr Kuchenbecker’s widow would face such a steep bill and that legislation was ready to be introduced into Parliament very quickly. On 14 August 7 months after the letter was received by Karl Kuchenbecker’s widow the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced to Parliament. In our first 100 days we have introduced a bill to Parliament to levy offenders to pay for enhanced services to victims. I can tell the House that the review of victims’ rights that we promised at the election is also under way. 
This bill amends the Legal Services Act 2000 to change the way the legal aid scheme operates for victims of crime who apply for legal aid in respect of coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings. The Act generally requires an applicant to meet financial eligibility criteria and to make repayments in respect of aid granted. There are existing exceptions to some of the general requirements in the Act notably in relation to victims’ claims proceedings. This bill ensures that victims affected by an offence including alleged offences not proven in court who seek legal aid to attend a coronial inquest or Parole Board hearing will not be subject to financial eligibility tests. It also ensures that no repayment of legal aid will be required. 
The bill also makes amendments of an administrative nature. Currently the Legal Services Agency has discretion to write off legal aid debt on a case by case basis if the agency considers it is just and equitable to do so. However this may occur only at the end of any legal proceedings. This bill enables the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the process. This will provide certainty for applicants in circumstances justifying a write-off as the agency will be able to let them know as early as possible that they will not be required to make repayments. 
The bill also introduces a regulation-making power so that the Governor-General can by Order in Council exempt particular classes of persons or proceedings from the financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions. There may be further unforeseen classes of persons or proceedings for which the requirements regarding financial eligibility for and the repayment of legal aid are not in the public interest do not facilitate access to justice and are not just and equitable in the circumstances. A regulation-making power will enable a swift response to unforeseen situations like the tragic Kuchenbecker case that may arise in the future—a swifter response I have to say than the time line this bill was on. 
We now rectify that matter seek the referral of the bill to a select committee and trust that the House will support this bill on such a delicate but important matter. I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted.