Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to clause 3, the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Look, there’s so much to talk about in clause 3. Of course, clause 3 identifies the principal Act—the Legal Services Act 2011—and says, “This Act amends the Legal Services Act”. Of course, on this side of the House we don’t think it does.

We don’t think it amends the Legal Services Act at all. It just says the blindingly and bleatingly obvious—namely, that when you enter into a contract with a community law centre, that contract can be not only for community legal services but also for funding, facilitating, and otherwise supporting the provision of community legal services. I think that it should just say: “This Act relates to the Legal Services Act 2011.”, because that’s all it really does. It doesn’t actually change anything. It sort of just waves vaguely in the direction of the Legal Services Act and says, “Why don’t we just add some unnecessary and largely meaningless words to it?”

I think let’s call it: “This Act relates to”. Actually, you could probably do better than that: “This Act unnecessarily points towards and vaguely changes the Legal Services Act.” If this Government wants to waste taxpayer money on legislation like this, so be it. Let’s say it. Maybe that’s what it should say somewhere.

We passed the title clause; we could have put a wasting money and time title, but we won’t do that. We won’t do that; there you go. Let’s say that the Act does what, in fact, it does: just sort of vaguely points towards and adds some unnecessary words to the Legal Service Act 2011.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a question on clause 3, the principal Act. As the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, articulated, this bill assumes an amendment to the Legal Services Act, but I actually don’t want to talk about the use of the verb here but talk specifically in terms of the Legal Services Act itself—noting that, in the Legal Services Act, the sections pertaining to the community law centre are sections 93 to 96. Indeed, in the next, subsequent clause—we’ll get to it soon—we are amending section 94.

However, what is interesting is where the section that relates to community law centres sits. It sits under Part 3 of the Legal Services Act 2011, which is the administration of legal service systems. The issue then comes to the fact that, when you are looking at the other parts of Part 3—for example, “Function of Secretary for Justice and Legal Service Commissioner” is Subpart 1; “Quality assurance systems for providers” is Subpart 2—it doesn’t relate to the context and the detail of some of the elements that we see in sections 93 and 96. For example, in section 93, immediately preceding the section that we are amending in this bill, it talks about the definition of the community law centre.

I want to check with the Minister of Justice, then: if that is the case, when this bill was first considered and introduced, why wasn’t there a broader consideration of potentially reshuffling or moving around some of the sections of the community law centre, potentially into another part or as a separate and distinct part—as you see in some of the earlier parts with legal aid—so that it stands alone as its individual part?

Now, the other reason that I’m suggesting—and again, this then potentially would have allayed the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s, I guess, reminder—that this bill in itself is not necessarily the most substantial bill, but I’m just suggesting that there could have been other things that could have been done that packaged things together. If there was any consideration of the Minister that other parts of it were considered to be separated out, also considering that the special fund element only relates to this part, which means that there is a special place of this part—so I think that the legal services or the community law centre aspect should deserve its own sections. That’s my second question: whether the Minister or the officials ever considered having, rather than this being a Subpart 3 of Part 3, to have to be a standalone part within the Legal Services Act 2011.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to stand to make a similar but different point to Dr Duncan Webb, which is that, yes, while this on its face says that it amends the Legal Services Act, in fact, the change that the Government want to make doesn’t. The way in which the Government have worded this change amends it, in my view, for the worst—for the worst.

Maybe you can get away with saying that you do amend the Act, but I think the language used in the amendment actually adds a level of unclarity, and therefore I hope that, in the next part, when I speak to the amendments that I’m proposing, the Government will accept those amendments to actually make the law clear. In which case, we go back to Duncan Webb’s argument that it’s not needed because the Act already says that.

It is very perplexing, once again, why the Government believe that this is truly an amendment that changes the law and, again, why it was needed. The advice from the Minister is that Crown Law said that clarity would be useful. I’m a little bit puzzled as to whether there are other circumstances at play in terms of Crown Law’s advice that the committee isn’t aware of. It just seems to me to be—I mean, with any Government you, of course, have to prioritise what you’re doing. There will be times when there is law that should be tweaked or clarified.

I spoke to Geoffrey Palmer the other day, who said to me there’s a—[Interruption] Let me tell you about that conversation. He said to me there’s a whole host of legislation—[Interruption] Oh, I can’t believe you don’t want to hear what Sir Geoffrey said.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I can’t hear the member speaking, so that means it’s too noisy.

VANUSHI WALTERS: He said to me that there is a whole host of legislation, both primary and secondary, on the book that really ought to be repealed—not even tweaked, but actually repealed—because it simply doesn’t apply to modern New Zealand. His view was that a good way for a Government to spend time, if you were serious about clarifying the law, would be to ask the Law Commission to undertake a project where they assess past primary legislation and secondary legislation and recommend repeals or updates. You could have the equivalent of kind of the slab bill which we dealt with in the last Parliament, but it would be a mass repeals bill that would really tidy up and clarify the law.

Now, that’s a good way to spend one’s time. The question is: why look at this one on its own and make a tweak which is unnecessary? Again, it really does seem very unusual, and I’m looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both that as well as to Sir Geoffrey’s suggestion.

While I acknowledge that a number of members of the Opposition consider their advice to the Government might be superior to that of Crown Law, the Government did, in fact, seek advice from Crown Law and, after considering that advice, decided that it would be preferable to make this clarification with this amendment.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I just have a very short question—just to acknowledge the fact that I thank you for your engagement, Minister, but if you wouldn’t mind responding to my question as well, that would be greatly appreciated.

Just further on, in terms of the question that I had, I guess the reason I’ve asked if the Minister has considered taking this particular part out of a subpart of Part 3, under the “Administration of legal services system”, and into this undistinctive part—very similar to Part 2, “Legal Aid”—is because the concern that I will have then is whether we’re still going to be looking at the Special Fund being able to be ring-fenced for the use of the community law centre or whether it will also be looking at being used by other parts of Part 3 or other aspects of the legal services system, like the surveyor or assurers that I mentioned before.

In answer to the earlier question from that member, I will note that the Government sought advice from Crown Law, took note of the advice from Crown Law, gave it consideration, and came up with this amendment from it. This is the amendment that we chose.

I move, That debate on this question now close.