Beaumont Carol: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20630] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I join colleagues in rising to speak against the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. I will comment on some of the points made by the previous speaker Simon Bridges. Given the level of Government debt that National inherited when it came into power—that is zero Government debt—I think that for him to say that the previous Labour Government had a champagne lifestyle is somewhat ironic. Particularly ironic are his comments about having to make important services sustainable because of tough economic times when the Government has cut taxes for the wealthy which has led to blowing-out debt problems in this country. I honestly think it is absolutely extraordinary that that speaker can get up and make those sorts of comments without flinching. 
Labour members oppose this bill. We have concerns about the Government’s overall direction in the justice area. We believe that this bill will inhibit access to justice—that is a very real risk with very significant consequences—and that it has the potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. My colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Charles Chauvel have outlined that very carefully as has the Green speaker Kennedy Graham. This Government has one response to issues. That response makes it look like it is reacting to particular problems but it is actually not about substance; it is all about image. Instead of dealing with the reason why legal costs may be increasing which is probably that more people are being charged with crimes—and I ask what is underlying that—this Government says that costs are blowing out. It needs to be seen to be doing something so it will cut access to legal services. Well that is just unbelievable. 
There are other alternatives and I want to touch on some of those but first and foremost I say that all members in this House should all be concerned about accessible justice systems. Every citizen of this country has the right to fair legal representation in order to defend themselves to ensure that they are not unjustly convicted or unjustly imprisoned. That should be something that each and every member of this House is committed to. Concerns about tensions with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which Kennedy Graham outlined are very serious matters that again every member of this House should be worried about. 
Essentially the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill will introduce higher levels of means testing and limit what can be covered by legal services. If the bill passes its first reading—and a number of parties are saying they will vote against it—it will go to the Justice and Electoral Committee which I am on. I along with my colleagues will certainly be scrutinising the bill very carefully and encouraging people to make submissions on it because there are some very serious risks with it. 
When Labour was in power it introduced a new repayment and debt management scheme which is where the focus on sustainability for legal aid should be. The focus should be on making sure that we can manage repayment and debt management so that it is sustainable rather than penalising low and modest-income people who genuinely need a lawyer in order that people can access legal representation. It is a fundamental part of our justice system that people have the right to representation. 
I want to talk about the Public Defence Service as well because that was initiated under Labour and has been used by the Minister of Justice to justify some of the changes here. We are very concerned that this has been done in a way that is not transparent not evidence-based and not looking at the real costs. At the heart of the so-called reform that we are talking about here is the proposal to ramp up the Public Defence Service to take up over 50 percent of criminal legal aid cases in Auckland Hamilton and Wellington and later extending to Tauranga Hastings Dunedin and Christchurch. 
As I said that scheme was initiated by Labour so it is not that we do not support the Public Defence Service. We believe in a balanced system and that must continue to include access to legal aid and legal assistance from private lawyers as well as the Public Defence Service. It needs to have those checks and balances in the system. We are concerned that the Public Defence Service has been looked at as a cheaper system that will be a way of managing costs but in fact nothing could be further from the truth. 
Looking at the figures from the Legal Services Agency annual review it seems that in fact the average cost of a case under the Public Defence Service was $1612 whereas the average legal aid bill per case from a private practice lawyer over the same period was $1343. In other words the Public Defence Service cost $269 more per case than a private sector lawyer. Labour members support funding the Public Defence Service as well as resourcing private sector lawyers and bodies like community law centres adequately. If the right balance is struck between each of these they can provide a useful check against each other in terms of cost and quality. We need to ensure that everybody irrespective of their income has access to fair representation—good-quality legal representation—to ensure that they are not unjustly prosecuted unjustly convicted or unjustly imprisoned. So it is really important to get this right. 
There was reference earlier to England and Wales and one of the members opposite scoffed at that and said: “Well we’re in New Zealand.” but evidence-based lawmaking warrants us looking at what is happening in similar jurisdictions with similar services. The latest review of the Public Defender Service in England and Wales shows that Minister Power’s solution of a vastly expanded Public Defence Service will cost the taxpayer considerably more than it does currently. There needs to be proper transparency around the costs of the Public Defence Service which is what we are seeing muddled here. 
I also agreed with Charles Chauvel when he said that the provisions in the bill are being presented using very comforting terms such as “maintaining access to service” and “balance” and all of that and I have heard them from members opposite. Charles Chauvel listed a number of very serious offences that would be beyond assistance for offenders earning more than $22000. Nobody in this House could argue that that is a substantial income. That is an absolutely pitiful level of income and it would be very difficult for someone earning that to afford legal assistance. Some of the examples he gave were various assault cases offensive weapons cases and concealing dead babies—very serious offences. 
He also talked about—and I thought this was really important to repeat—this bill potentially seeing children missing out on representation because it requires the parents in those cases to contribute to the cost of independent legal representation for children. We all know sadly that in many cases when children get in the middle of legal disputes adults are not doing the best thing for children. For Labour children are at the centre of what we are doing. We must get it right for our children and that includes ensuring that all children have independent legal representation irrespective of the income of their parents. 
Other things in this bill that worry me are the ability to further change and restrict by regulation—that is outlined in the provision about placing additional civil matters on the schedule—and the removal of the requirement to index means thresholds so that over time they will become even lower if you like. 
Labour members believe in justice and opportunity for all. We think it is important to get a balanced package whereas this bill is a short-term response. It is the Government being seen to be doing something in the same way that it has reacted to things like industry training. The Government is being seen to do something rather than dealing with the real issues. That was also the case with loan sharks. Again 3 months out from the election the Government suddenly needs to be seen to be doing something. It is a short-term response by the Government having done nothing of substance. 
I think there are some very serious matters here. Again I repeat the concern about tensions with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I would say that the consequences are important. I acknowledge Rahui Katene for raising the issue about potential consequences for Maori of this legislation going wrong and limiting people’s right to justice. I recently visited Arohata Women’s Prison and was absolutely appalled and shocked to find out that 84 percent of the women in the prison are Maori. There is something wrong in our justice system and making it hard for people to get good representation will make that worse. We need to be serious about dealing with the causes of crime and with issues like poverty jobs and training. Thank you.