Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill. We come now to clause 1. This is the debate on the “Title” clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to check with the Minister for the Environment in terms of the title for this bill. Now, it would be no surprise for, I think, anyone in this Chamber to know that I do have an amendment here on the title, but I want to check something with the Minister first. Everyone is clear in terms of the purpose of this bill—we just discussed that in the second reading—but the question is if the term “distribution” is the best term to use for the title, if it actually represents what this bill does. To me, “distribution” is not so much in terms of how it is used, which is what we’re seeing in a later clause, or the circumstances in which the community law centres are able to use it, but more, “distribution” I would assume to be how that could be spread or distributed to other things that’s beyond, potentially, the scope of this bill, or potentially other law community initiatives.

I wonder if, for example, the Minister would consider my amendment that the “Legal Services (Expenditure of Special Funds) Amendment Bill”, or even “(Usage of Special Fund)”, might actually be a more accurate title that reflects what this bill does. I’m going to start with that particular question and see if the Minister is able to make any comments on my amendment. I don’t, unfortunately, have a number for the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his generous offer of that amendment, but, no, we won’t be accepting that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question here relates to some of the history of this bill. This begins with legislation that was passed in 2006, and it changed provisions that came before it, where the special fund also potentially funded the Law Foundation, as it was then. Because the special fund wasn’t at that stage accumulating sufficient funds, all the funds ended up going to community law centres anyway. With the 2006 changes, that was made very clear in terms of the distribution.

I’m just wondering, really, whether the Minister had considered tying the title to something that related specifically to community law. I could understand if that was not something the Minister wanted to do 10 years ago, because at that stage the community law movement probably wasn’t as cohesive as it is today. Certainly with Community Law Centres of Aotearoa Inc. now being well funded and the separate community law centres being extremely well coordinated and operating very much in unison most of the time, I think there’s an argument to say that we have currently this excellent model that operates across the country, who are coordinating in terms of their practice, and who, I understand, at one stage looked at how they could ensure that people who work at community law are all paid in a comparable way so that they truly do feel like they’re operating as one—whom the public see in the form of the community law manual. So, again it’s seen very much, I believe, as a Government service that people rely on and part of the essential access to justice architecture.

I think it’s potentially time that we recognise that this is a part of our legal access to justice architecture that deserves some protection in terms of the allocation of these funds. That will also allow community law to plan, and to grow—in, I think, a quite different way—and to know that not only is the funding for their legal services and support services guaranteed through legislation but that it’s guaranteed for the entities that they’ve set up. I think that that will help them develop further entities.

In recent years they’ve looked to set up Te Ara Ture, or the bridge to law, which is quite a novel concept. It’s a legal clearing house—Australia has a similar one—and that matches up pro bono lawyers with legal issues that are coming up in the community. I always thought that was extremely innovative, and so, again, if there was a change to the title that truly reflected the mana with which we hold community law, then I think that will continue to allow them to take bold steps into access to justice architecture that can more greatly support those who do need legal help.

One thing I’ve always thought about, given that I specialised in young people and providing them with legal advice, is how we help people who don’t know that they have a legal issue. Part of that is the education outreach work that community law centres do. Again, having that security, by being recognised specifically within legislation, will give community law centres that sense of trust that they need to grow programmes, to outreach to people, and engage with the entities that exist on the ground so that they can outreach and start providing almost pre-advice, if you like, to those people who need it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just wanting to take a short call on the first clause of the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill. This bill, I think, may have an acceptable name, but I think, perhaps, we could improve it, so one of the suggestions that I would make is a change to: “this Act is the ‘Legal Services (Clarification of Use of Special Fund) Amendment Bill’ ”; because that’s really what it’s doing. It’s already being distributed in this way, so it’s really a clarification bill. I think if we could get that in there, that would be good.

The other suggestion that I wanted to make was: it is a common thing in other countries to name bills after people that have been significant—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): This has not been taken—we are still on part—

CAMILLA BELICH: Title.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, sorry. My apologies. Carry on.

CAMILLA BELICH: That’s fine, Mr Chair. In other countries, often, famous people who are associated with particular movements are named in bills, and you’ll often see that in America, for example—you might see bills that were brought because of a particular person or to solve a particular issue being named after that person. That’s not a practice I’ve seen in New Zealand. I don’t know why that is, and I don’t know if there’s a good reason—maybe the Minister could clarify.

When I was researching the history of the community law centre, this is something that’s been around in New Zealand since the 1970s. As I understand, the first community law centre was founded in Grey Lynn, and one of the key people who was involved in the foundation of the community law movement, and who actually set up the Citizens Advice Bureau in Auckland as well, was an incredible man called Robert Ludbrook. He actually passed away only last year. I seriously think that a nice thing, when we do pass bills that are so closely associated with the contributions of people, to honour those people, would be to consider putting them in the title clause. That’s a suggestion made in good faith, and it was very interesting for me to learn about the origins of Community Law and how it came about. Like many things in our community, it’s something that people saw a need for. Obviously, in Robert Ludbrook’s particular situation, I think he actually received a Queen’s or King’s honour—not sure which exact date he received it on—but it was recognition for his service to doing this type of work: recognising that there was a need for Citizens Advice Bureaus and also for community law centres.

This, I suppose, is more aligned with a bill, hopefully, with slightly more aspiration for the community law service provision in New Zealand. I think, maybe, if we did start naming bills after very important New Zealanders, like this man, then we would maybe start to get some slightly more aspirational legislation through—and so that’s a suggestion.

Technical suggestions: go one way—look at it in relation to clarification of use, which is actually what it does, or have a more aspirational title which actually recognises the mana, the history, and the important figures that were involved in setting up Community Law in New Zealand.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just will have a brief mention on clause 1. The reason I want to do that is because a little later on I’ll be proposing an amendment which seeks to make sure that transactions already entered into can’t be revisited. That would then make this not only about the distribution of the special fund, but it would also make it a validation bill. It is common—we’ve seen in this House on a number of occasions, bills which have validation in the title, which, essentially, is a backward looking thing. It’s one of those “for the avoidance of doubt” things for clarity. Of course, our view is that it’s not needed, but the Government’s view is that this is needed. I’m perplexed as to why they haven’t addressed the validation problem. If they think that contracts have been entered into outside of the permitted phrase within the Act, then validation is absolutely needed. My view is that this bill should be—

Cameron Luxton: Hold on!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sorry? Are you going to take a call?

Cameron Luxton: No, no. I was just excited to hear what your title was going to be!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, thanks. Oh, yeah, well, it’s good to know. I’m excited as well. It’s exciting times here in Parliament!

I think we should just call it the “Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund and Validation of Contracts) Amendment Bill”. If we’re not going to go large and follow the advice of Camilla Belich, which is to identify in the bill the name of some of the doyens of the community law services—and the fact that in Grey Lynn it was established in 1978. I mean, I think it would be a great thing to do that, but, if not, “Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund and Validation of Contracts) Amendment Bill”. Let’s do it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the word “distribution” with “expenditure” be agreed to.