RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
I come to this bill with a particular passion passed on from my father, the late John Hippolite. Some 36 years ago, in 1972, along with Dr Oliver Sutherland, he wrote a paper entitled Justice and Race: A Monocultural System in a Multicultural Society. The basic premise of this paper arose out of a period in which a group of Māori started monitoring the activities of the Nelson Magistrate’s Court out of their concern about the high incidence of convictions of Māori defendants. They reached the conclusion that in order for Māori defendants to have a fair hearing, it was necessary to have legal representation. It was their finding that by having this, the court’s Māori imprisonment rate was lowered by one-third. Extending that finding to the rest of the country, they argued that a third of Māori prisoners should not be in jail. This was radical in the truest sense of the word—getting to the fundamental root of the problem. As I mentioned in my maiden speech—which now seems so long ago—this ultimately led to legal aid being extended to criminal matters, and it motivates me in debate on this bill, as in every bill, to uphold justice.
The Māori Party is founded on our commitment to honour justice. It was the matter of justice that led Māori to walk in their thousands to oppose the Draconian confiscation known as the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It is the question of justice that plagues our collective soul as a nation when we continue to see the substantial inequalities between the outcomes for Māori and the outcomes for other New Zealanders. It is our commitment to justice that has motivated us to advocate for this nation to address the shame of a Government that rejected the call to endorse the statement of aspiration for all indigenous peoples—that is, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And so it is entirely right and proper that, in upholding our support for a restorative justice system where victims are empowered, we stand in support of this bill.
This bill stands as a historic hallmark of the action required to ensure that victims do not face any additional stress leading up to the process of legal aid grants. It emerges out of the traumatic administration error of January 2008, when the Legal Services Agency billed the widow of Karl Kuchenbecker for $19,000 granted in legal aid for the inquest into his death. We now have terms for this type of situation: “re-victimisation” or “secondary victimisation”. This refers to the way in which early experiences of victimisation can become the precursors to later episodes of victimisation. But what we saw with that particular case might fit better what researcher Pia Van de Zandt describes as “State-sanctioned victimisation” when referring to the impact of court processes on rape victims. This bill, then, is to address the State-sanctioned victimisation that has occurred when victims of crime attending a Parole Board hearing or a coronial inquest were subjected to financial eligibility testing and, in a final blow, were asked to meet stringent repayment conditions.
The concept of victims is not something that sits easily with Māori. We prefer to think in terms of survivors, of people determining our own destiny, rather than the more passive association of victimhood. Yet the statistics and the commentators persist in presenting a picture in which Māori are reported as experiencing almost twice as many victimisations as non-Māori, and that in particular Māori women victims have the highest victimisation rates, with an average number of reported offences per victim of 4.8. Of course, the State-sanctioned victimisation of Māori is well established, as this comment from prominent political analyst Colin James reflects: “… Maori as a race are victims—of, in the past, colonial rapine and plunder, which stripped them of their culture and their economy, and, in the present, for as long as the endemic demoralisation that resulted persists.” At the recent colloquium on Māori and the criminal justice system, Ani Mikaere delivered a paper that encapsulates this view. Her paper was entitled Three Million Strikes and Still Not Out; The Crown as the Ultimate Recidivist.
The Legal Services Amendment Bill builds on a context of victimhood, but it moves us forward in a way in which justice can be seen to be done. We welcome the thinking that any definition of victim—or survivor—will now include the parent or legal guardian of a child or young person, and a member of the immediate family of a person who has died or is rendered incapable by any offence. Although there are caveats around this, namely that they do not apply if the individual is charged with, convicted of, or pleads guilty to the offence, the intention to ensure a broader definition of family is adopted is one that we in the Māori Party support.
The issue of costs is another feature that receives our support. In this bill, the proposal is that the Legal Services Agency may decide not to recover debt when enforcement of the debt would cause serious hardship to the aided person, the cost of enforcing the debt is likely to exceed the debt owed, or the agency considers it would be just and equitable not to recover the debt. This is a very significant innovation, and we commend the Minister for his insight in this area.
The Māori Party has been very concerned to ensure that Māori are not disadvantaged in seeking legal aid. We know that there are longstanding concerns about the difficulties that many Māori applicants for legal aid still face. The perceived cost of lawyers’ fees prevents a significant number of Māori from seeking help, more so than New Zealanders on average. In the Report on the 2006 National Survey of Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Services, over a third of Māori with problems—that is, 34 percent—felt that perceived costs had stopped them from approaching a lawyer to help them with their problem or to see whether they could get legal aid. So the amendments today, which enable the Legal Services Agency to write off legal aid debt when it will be inequitable to seek recovery of that debt, are a step in the right direction if we are really seeking to increase access to justice.
The Māori Party has been solid in our support for a restorative justice system, where victims are empowered. We believe that what is required in any assessment of the justice system is a fundamental shift in values. Any assessment of public outrage and media headlines would show that society has, at large, become more vindictive since the 1980s, and what is urgently needed is robust debate about crime prevention and how to create communities where justice means what is morally right and fair, rather than the administration of a court sentence. We can take our lead from iwi who are doing things differently. Just up the line, Te Wānanga o Raukawa has a kaupapa dispute resolution process, and over in Kahungunu they have been training people in dispute resolutions and encouraging people to learn to trust the process. These are just two approaches to Māori mediation, which is showing us a new way. The crux of the matter is that if we are to believe the Ministry of Justice prison forecast report from 2006, the projections are that by 2010 Māori will be the most imprisoned people per capita in the world. We cannot have that, not for the sake of Māori, nor for the reputation of Aotearoa. Gaining access to justice through legal aid, and assisting Māori to enjoy the rights that all citizens enjoy—to receive the best possible legal representation—is a key means of changing this forecast for ever.
This bill does not address the issue of quality representation—that is for another day—but it does make some progress in amending the Legal Services Act to improve and increase access to justice. We will certainly be supporting this bill, and we look forward to debate around what Ngāpuhi / Te Rōroa and Ngāti Porou researcher Khylee Quince has described as the tikanga around justice—namely “a desire to reintegrate offenders into communities, heal victims, and maintain a balance between the acknowledgment of past behaviour and moving on.” Kia ora.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this
It is an unusual thing about our Westminster Parliament that someone who is a farmer, who has no knowledge of the legal aspects of debate in regard to something like legal aid, and who is not on the Law and Order Committee ends up having to speak in debate on that subject, on a bill such as the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I acknowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not speaking about you.
To that end, I start my speech by saying that an old statement in Parliament is that bad cases make bad law. When I first became aware that I was going to have to speak in this debate, I thought I would go back and look at a bit of the history of the bill. I realised that it came about primarily as a result of a dreadful set of circumstances: the murder of Karl Kuchenbecker by Graeme Burton, and the fact that his family was then left having to potentially fund its own legal representation in the coronial inquest and the investigations that took place. I notice that the bill had its genesis in the last Parliament under Annette King, who, of course, was the Minister of Justice at the time. National supported the bill then, having given it some consideration.
Having said that bad cases make bad law, looking at this bill I suspect that that statement was taken into consideration, and it appears that what is being attempted here, in fact, probably should have been addressed some time ago. We have in this country, unfortunately, some very bad cases against people, and often those people are left out of pocket or unable to support themselves legally to the extent they would like to, because of the rules as they stand. This bill is designed to do something about that situation.
The bill aims to remove eligibility testing requirements for legal aid for victims who are to attend a coronial inquest or a Parole Board hearing, or who make victims’ claims. Obviously, that sounds like a sensible suggestion and a sensible move forward. The legislation is also intended to grant the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waiver its right to recover legal aid debt where individual circumstances mean that enforcement would cause serious hardship or be uneconomic, or where the agency would find itself in a position that was inequitable or unenforceable. The bill also gives the Governor-General the power to make regulations that exempt specific classes of people, or proceedings, from eligibility restrictions or repayment obligations. Those amendments are pretty basic and fundamental, and obviously the group of National members looking at this bill concluded that it is a sensible way forward.
The bill’s purpose, of course, is to exempt victims from suffering the indignity that was found concerning the family in the tragic Graeme Burton case; I do not know whether anybody could speak against that purpose. The former Associate Minister of Justice, Lianne Dalziel, who spoke earlier in the debate, highlighted a number of other issues. There have been quite horrendous examples of, in particular, child sex abuse cases where families had been subjected to almost a second trial, as it were. They became victims twice—I guess that is the way to put it—because they were required, but unable, to properly represent themselves. The former Minister stated that in some cases they even asked the local member of Parliament to make a representation on their behalf because they did not have access to sufficient legal aid to employ people who would properly represent them. You know, it does not take Einstein to figure out that those changes are very, very good.
The Act will come into force 2 months after the bill receives the Royal assent, and the bill’s changes will apply only to applications for legal aid made after the date the Act comes into force. In other words, there is no retrospective aspect to the bill, and that is the reason, I presume, that the House is applying its mind to it at the moment—so that there are no more cases where people are subjected to the things we have mentioned before.
The bill is yet another example of the long, long 9 years that we had of the Labour Government not delivering on some of the key comments it made early in its time in office, and it was not until the horrendous case that we spoke of that it actually decided to do something about it. But the question still remains, given the campaign pledges that took place over three elections, as to why the bill was introduced in the dying hours of the forty-eighth Parliament; here in the forty-ninth Parliament, under a National Government, the bill is finally proceeding through Parliament. I guess that the only explanation we can give is that the Labour Government did not place the priority on it that it said it was going to, as we can see if we go back through some of its comments early in its time in office.
Decisions not to recover legal aid obviously have to be made at a reasonably senior level, and the bill gives jurisdiction to make those decisions to those who would be described in that way. If that could not be done, then those decisions could not be made, and people would then be subjected to a long period of painful repayment for something they never wanted, did not want to be involved in, and really only got involved in because they were victims themselves and thought it was in their best interests and the best interests of justice to be part of the process that would get to the nub of what exactly happened to one of their family members.
I think this is excellent legislation that has been brought to Parliament today, and it is my intention also to support it in my comments.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I was a little bit perplexed by Shane Ardern’s comments about Labour’s lack of commitment on this bill, and perhaps a little later in my speech I will be able to enlighten the member. I think he shares the forgetfulness that many of his colleagues have the misfortune of sharing. This bill was introduced by Labour and was drafted under some very, very sad circumstances. I have heard many members speaking on this bill acknowledging that matter. The bill ensures that when victims of crime attend a Parole Board hearing or coronial inquest they will no longer be subject to financial eligibility testing. This bill also enables—as other speakers have said—the Legal Services Agency to write off legal debt at any time during the legal proceedings, rather than, as was the case before, waiting until the proceedings are concluded. That takes away a lot of stress and anxiety from people who are in very, very difficult circumstances. Also, the new regulation-making power enables the Governor-General to exempt particular groups of people from financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions. This bill will allow greater consideration of individual circumstances and, in particular, will better support victims of crime who have been through very, very trying and tragic circumstances.
This bill—and I am sure Mr Ardern will be very interested in this—builds on the Legal Services Act, which came into force in 2001. The aim of that Act was to ensure that legal aid was delivered consistently and efficiently. If we think about the purpose of the Legal Services Agency we know that it is to provide the legal aid scheme that will assist people who have insufficient means to pay for legal services, so that they will still have access to those services. It also provides for other means of legal assistance, and it supports legal services through community law centres. Those are very, very worthwhile purposes for the Legal Services Agency. As other people have said, the stress on victims of crime when there is not the clarity about available legal support and they are subject to financial eligibility testing has created the need for this bill.
I will talk about how this bill came about. It came about under very tragic circumstances, when the family of a victim were asked to repay $19,000 in legal aid. The then Minister of Justice, Annette King, found that situation to be absolutely inappropriate. She asked for an urgent report and for victims in these circumstances to be treated in a caring and compassionate way, and looked at how we could address the issue. Subsequently, the debt was written off. That was very appropriate and is what led to the introduction of this bill.
I will also address some of the points that Shane Ardern made. He said that Labour had not really done much in this area. As Labour’s spokesperson on victims’ rights, I will talk about some of the things that Labour implemented, such as the Sentencing Act 2002. That Act recognised the potential of restorative justice to make offenders more accountable to victims through a number of rights, such as rights to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements.
Labour passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, which ensured that victims of inmates awarded compensation could claim against that compensation.
Labour introduced the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6), which included a provision to ensure that victims of youth crime can attend Youth Court hearings to ensure that victims are kept properly informed.
I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos in this Chamber because in 2008 he initiated an inquiry into victims’ rights with the Justice and Electoral Committee. As a result of that inquiry, the committee travelled to Australia to look at victims’ compensation and victims’ schemes there, and it came back with some very good information. Unfortunately, National members declined to travel and find out about the schemes there, but they were very keen to sign their names—
Hon Simon PowerIt was so last year. National members signed their names to the select committee report and they certainly went along with its recommendations.
As a result of that report, the Victims Charter was developed, as well as an 0800 victims line so that victims of crime could have 24/7 access to an 0800 line and could get up-to-date information and support when they needed it most. I was very proud to be part of a Government that introduced that support for victims, and as a current member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am very keen to monitor the effectiveness and funding of that initiative under a National Government. We will certainly be looking at holding the National Government to account on the initiative to ensure that victims in New Zealand get the rights they are entitled to. We want to ensure not only that victims receive those rights but that every possible effort is made for them to be aware of their rights in those situations.
I reiterate that this bill is a very good bill. Shane Ardern pointed out that it was brought in later in Labour’s term, but it was later in Labour’s term when the gross injustice came to light. I challenge the National Government and say that it would have been great if it had introduced this bill in its first 100 days of action, rather than dealing to workers, cutting KiwiSaver, and introducing the 90-day bill and all the flimflam that did nothing.
The bill has complete support from every party in the House. If the National Government had felt that this issue was so important, and we all agree it is, and had put it on the Order Paper in the Government’s first 100 days of action, then the Government would have received accolades, but it did not have that foresight. However, the bill is before the House now. The bill was introduced under a Labour Government, and I am very proud to stand as a member of the Labour Party to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
We have already heard this afternoon that the Legal Services Amendment Bill has multipartisan support across the House. I rise to support the bill because it fulfils one of our Government’s promises, which was to address some of the issues around victims of crime. This bill addresses some issues, as do other measures we have taken. Tax cuts came into force yesterday, and the ReStart package has been introduced.
The Government is a supporter of social justice in this country. It is a supporter of victims’ rights and of a victim’s right to justice. One of the primary roles of a Government is to protect its people. Sadly, crimes hurt people and lead to suffering, but bills such as this address some of that suffering and allow victims’ needs and rights to be addressed.
The bill has three key provisions The first provision, which many speakers have already alluded to, is the removal of the eligibility test required of victims who apply for legal aid to attend coronial inquests or Parole Board hearings. Secondly, the bill gives the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waive its right to recover legal aid debts where an individual’s circumstances would mean that enforcing the debt would lead to inequitable consequences or serious hardship. Thirdly, the bill provides flexibility by creating a regulation-making power that allows for other classes of people and proceedings to be exempt from eligibility restrictions and repayment obligations. Therefore, the bill is flexible, fair, and equitable and it protects the rights of victims.
Hon Dr Richard WorthPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA Link to this
It is a very worthy bill.
The purpose of exempting victims from eligibility tests and repayment requirements in some circumstances is to reduce stress for people. It is stressful enough for a person to lose a family member or a friend. It is stressful enough to have to sit through a court case and listen to gruesome facts about how the family member or friend suffered at the hands of criminals. It is stressful enough to go through that and then go through a coronial hearing, and it is even more stressful to then be targeted with a large and substantial legal bill for attending those hearings. So those exemptions are really just and fair in such circumstances in terms of victims’ rights.
The previous speaker, Lynne Pillay—the previous honourable member for Waitakere—alluded to the fact that there have been other measures over the years to protect victims, including the Sentencing Act 2002 and a number of other measures that both Labour Governments and National Governments have enacted. An earlier speaker from the Māori Party said the bill is in keeping with some restorative justice principles and aims, which our justice system is taking on board over time.
So much focus has been put on the offender, but it is interesting to look at the definition of “victim” in the bill. The definition is quite wide. A victim has been defined as “a person against whom an offence is committed by another person;”, but it is expressed more widely as “a person who, through, or by means of, an offence committed by another person, suffers physical injury or loss of, or damage to, property;”. It is equitable to include that wide definition. It is not just emotional stress that is created by such crimes. There is also physical stress, loss of property, loss of dignity, and, in many ways, a real spiritual hurt comes with the commission of crimes in this country.
Many in the House have already alluded to the Kuchenbecker case. In that case the mother of the children whose father, sadly, was murdered by Graeme Burton was asked to repay money to the Legal Services Agency for legal representation provided to her sons. It sad indeed that after she had gone through a coronial hearing and had seen, in the media, the nasty and grossly repugnant behaviour of this gentlemen—who, as Mr Garrett has said, has allegedly committed another crime today—she was then given a bill for legal services. In the eyes of many people, that was totally unjust.
Sometimes it hits close to home when people are affected by crime. Last week, in my electorate, I came across the wife of a murder victim at a Neighbourhood Support group meeting. She was the victim of a nasty crime, and she was also subject to media scrutiny in relation to a high-profile murder case in my electorate. Thankfully for her, she had the support of relatives. She had chosen to forgive the reprehensible character who carried out the nasty crime. The sentencing will occur next week. She said to me that she was supported but that she would have been happy to have the support of Legal Services Agency in dealing with the coronial hearing. She has decided to move on, but there are many, many people out there who go through this process alone, without the funds to carry on, and in a state of high grief and suffering.
This bill, really, is about natural justice. It gives people the ability to participate meaningfully in the processes around parole and coronial hearings. They are able to engage legal counsel without the worry of negative economic consequences, whereas previously they often had to face offenders without experienced support people around them. It is unreasonable for victims to be further burdened by costs. This measure obviously has multiparty support. I certainly support it, and I think that most New Zealanders would applaud this Government and this Parliament for enacting it.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
It is pleasing to hear so much universal support from around the House for the intention of the Legal Services Amendment Bill.
However, I want to rectify something that Mr Ardern implied, perhaps inadvertently, about the introduction of this bill. He implied that Labour, whilst in Government, somehow had known all along that this particular situation existed in law, and had ignored it until a high-profile case arose. That is not the case. It is quite obvious from statements made by Minister Annette King at the time that the Graeme Burton case came up that it was a situation that, had Labour known about it, it would have rectified. In fact, on 28 January Annette King stated: “If the legal aid system is producing this sort of result for victims, it has to be changed urgently.” That is what the Labour Government proceeded to do at that time. It moved swiftly to review what had happened in that situation, and I am pleased the current National Government continues to take this bill through the House.
I also want to endorse the statements made by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel when she highlighted the importance of victim representation at coronial inquests. I thought she also raised an interesting issue for the select committee to consider in relation to civil cases, and I think it will be interesting for the select committee members to report back to the House their view on that issue.
In reflecting specifically on the bill itself, it is an amendment to the Legal Services Act 2000, which established, as we all know, the Legal Services Agency. That agency has an overarching primary goal that is quite simple, and that is to promote access to justice. There are three fundamental ways in which the Legal Services Agency ensures that happens. The first is through the provision of a legal aid scheme that assists people who have insufficient means to pay for legal services to, none the less, have access to them. That is probably the primary role that we all know the Legal Services Agency exists for. The two other mechanisms are providing other means of legal assistance, and supporting community legal services by funding community law centres, education, and research. I want to come back to that third point later on.
As core purposes go, I think the House will agree that these ones are well intentioned and well structured. Last year those three objectives ensured that over 58,000 people had access to legal services, which is something we can rightfully be pleased about. But the Legal Services Act, as it stands, has a fundamental oversight, and that was highlighted in the tragedy that arose around the Graeme Burton case. The amendments before us now seek to deal with that oversight.
What do they explicitly do? They amend the Act to ensure that victims of crime attending a coronial inquest are not subject to financial eligibility tests. Secondly, the amendments give the Legal Services Agency the ability and the discretion not to recover debt. But there is a probably more important layer here. In the particular case of Graeme Burton, the Legal Services Agency expressed a willingness to look at the circumstances of the victims, but it was the timing that was problematic. As it currently stands, debt can be written off but only at the end of a case. This bill gives the Legal Services Agency the ability to make a decision at any time, and I think that flexibility is really important as a preventive measure to ensure that situation does not arise again.
The third issue that this amendment bill seeks to address is that it gives the foresight to ensure that such a situation does not arise again. As members of Parliament we all know that changes to Acts of Parliament take a long time, and exemptions from the Legal Services Act, which we are looking at, currently are able to be enacted only through changes to primary legislation. This bill introduces regulation-making powers, which will enable the Governor-General to make further amendments and to allow further discretion as required. The Minister of Justice, Simon Power, however, must first be satisfied it is in the public interest, and, of course, the Regulations Review Committee will have a role in reviewing whether those powers have been used appropriately, and I think that is very fitting.
It is clear that this amendment bill enhances what the Legal Services Agency is there to do, which—as I have already mentioned—is to promote access to justice, in line with the principles of fairness and also public expectation. The public would have expected flexibility in this case, and we are making sure that that happens.
I think this is an opportune time to reflect on whether other aspects of the Legal Services Agency could be enhanced. If we reflect on the access to justice issue, we find that it is important that this House and its members continually reflect on the judgment call that is made around whether an individual has insufficient means, thereby giving that person eligibility to use legal aid. The Minister today announced in question time that he would be reviewing legal aid. We have not yet seen the scope of that review—what the review will explicitly cover—but it would be helpful if the Minister considered the access to justice question, not just around legal issues that are prompted by a charge or conviction, but also around access to legal services that may have an element of discretion to them.
A good example of that might be a victim’s access to, and use of, protection orders. We hear a complaint within the sector that works with protection orders that there are access issues because of the cost of going through the legal process to have a protection order enacted. I would be interested to hear about that, and I would encourage the Minister to use this example as a bit of a test case to demonstrate to what extent financial eligibility tests at the current level are prohibitive and perhaps lead victims, particularly in the case of domestic violence, not to access justice. It is an interesting question, because if we look at the specific example of protection orders in the context of the amendments that we are looking at right now, we see that this bill lifts financial eligibility tests for an individual who becomes a victim, but a quite harsh fiscal test is still used at the point at which we are able to prevent someone from becoming a victim. That is the very point of protection orders, but because of the cost of having them enacted, they may not be accessed at the point when they are necessary. That would be an interesting point for the Minister to consider.
I ask what other issues the review intends to look at. I think it is relevant in the context of this bill. The Minister stated: “I don’t need to tell you that in the current fiscal environment, legal aid systems are likely to face increasing challenges in achieving their objectives.” He is absolutely right. It is for two reasons, though. The first is shrinking budgets, and we are not talking about just legal aid directly but community law centres. The second is the increase in demand for services, and this is no more obvious and apparent than in the situation of community law centres. We have already seen them face decreasing budgets because they are reliant on the special fund that is administered by the Legal Services Agency. The community law centres rely on decent interest rates in order to ensure they have decent funding levels. As I have already outlined, one of the core three objectives of the Legal Services Agency is to ensure that community legal services are available. It seems inconsistent to me that that is one of its core functions, yet the funding for those bodies is reliant on a fund’s interest rate, which can fluctuate rapidly. We have seen that happen in this financial year. So I would also encourage the Minister to include more stable and consistent funding—perhaps through Vote Justice—as part of his review of access to legal aid and access to justice.
Having said that, though, I commend this bill to the House. I am pleased to see that we are progressing it at this point. I think it will achieve the core principles that the Legal Services Act is intended to ensure.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
I rise to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill. We have made this bill a priority. The honourable member Lynne Pillay was complaining that this bill was not brought in during the first 100 days of this Government, but at least we have put it forward as quickly as possible. In the first 100 days National delivered on what it promised in the election campaign.
Todd McClayKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI Link to this
We delivered. What did the Labour Government give us in its 9 long years in office? It gave us the Electoral Finance Act, which was useless. We have to repeal it. Our Minister of Justice has to work hard to repeal the Act and put up a fresh bill so that this country can have fair elections.
This bill provides a lot of support for victims. Victims are already under stress, as they might have lost their breadwinner, there might be elderly parents who have to be fed, or it might be a burden for someone to carry on the legacy of the family by feeding young children and parents. I have the example of Navtej Singh, who was killed in South Auckland. His parents are both aged about 70, and he has left behind kids ranging from 3 years to 10 years. It is very sad. If his family had the stress of paying the legal fees, it would be very unfortunate for them.
This bill ensures that the victims of crime, those who are affected by an alleged crime, or those who have committed an offence who are involved in a Parole Board hearing or coronial inquest will not be subject to financial eligibility tests. Those people will not need to repay legal aid grants when they need to be represented by a lawyer. The bill also enables the Legal Services Agency to write off legal aid for victims at the time when legal aid is granted. This provision ensures that the Government will be able to respond swiftly. New section 36A, which is inserted by clause 7, gives the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waive its right to recover legal aid when individual circumstances mean that enforcement would cause serious hardship, enforcement would be uneconomic, or it would be unjust and inequitable to enforce the debt.
I would also like to quote a recent example of a victim in South Auckland. This victim got in a legal battle as a result of using self-defence, and he was ultimately relieved of any conviction. I saw this man. He could not do his business, he could not go and attend to his family, and he was under a lot of stress. With burdens such as that, it would be a great injustice for him if he was not given financial aid.
This bill comes into force 2 months after the Royal assent is received. The bill’s changes will apply only for applications made after the date that the Act comes into force. Labour reviewed and updated the legal aid scheme in 2005, and it failed to pay attention to this issue. In fact, Labour increased the number of people required to repay the legal aid grant, with a specific focus on the area of permanent proceedings. In the Hon Phil Goff’s speech on the first reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) on 17 May 2005, he said: “Under the bill, approximately 22,000 legal aid recipients will be required to repay their legal aid grant, either partially or in full. This is an increase of 14,000 in the number of recipients required to make payment under the current regime. The same proportion of repayments will apply to criminal and civil legal aid, thereby increasing the proportion of criminal aid recipients required to make the repayments.”
The nature of justice gives victims the ability to actually participate meaningfully in these processes, as they are able to engage legal counsel, whereas previously they often had to confront the offender without the presence of experienced support people. National is delivering on its promises and is finishing what Labour failed to start. It is unreasonable to further burden victims with the financial cost of legal representation, especially in matters to do with crime.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI Link to this
They do not care.
National has promised to provide greater rights and support to victims of crime by progressing the bill. National is delivering on its promises. I assure this House that under the leadership of the honourable Prime Minister, John Key, this National Government will deliver on all the promises it made during the election campaign. We continue to work for the progress of this country. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.