Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. This bill was tabled before Parliament rose prior to the last general election, and was originally put before the House by, I believe, the Hon Annette King, but I stand to be corrected about that. We are progressing this legislation on a more fast-track timetable, thereby reflecting this Government’s view of the bill’s importance.

The bill makes another important contribution to the recognition of the rights of victims. It will 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 bill also makes some adjustments of a procedural nature that will ensure that the legal aid system is more responsive—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): There is a lot of noise in the House. If people are going to have conversations, can they please go outside and give the Minister on his feet the opportunity to be heard.

Hon SIMON POWER: The bill also makes some adjustments of a procedural nature that will ensure that the legal aid system is more responsive in the future, where the interests of justice require it to be so. Two unfortunate incidents highlighted a lack of flexibility in the repayment provisions of the Legal Services Act 2000, leading to an adverse impact on victims seeking legal aid for coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings. This bill proposes removing financial eligibility testing and repayment conditions for victims of crime who wish to attend coronial inquests or said Parole Board hearings. This bill also improves administrative practice by enabling the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the process. This will provide certainty for applicants with 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. A regulation-making power will enable a swift response to future situations where exemptions may be desired.

The overall impact here, as I understand was emphasised by the Hon Annette King when this bill was first brought to the House sometime before the last election, is to remove the possibility of victims of crime being placed under additional stress. After promising some urgent action following the Kuchenbecker incident, this bill made it to the Order Paper—

Hon Annette King: It was quite complex actually.

Hon SIMON POWER: It is quite complex. This bill made it to the Order Paper but was not introduced until August. However, this Government, as I said, is pleased to advance the legislation. I hope that the original sponsor of the bill will ensure that the Opposition benches also continue to sponsor and support it.

The Justice and Electoral Committee received six written submissions on the bill, and heard from two of these submitters. The submitters were broadly in favour of the changes proposed in the bill, although most argued that more could be done to support the needs of victims, either through the legal aid system or through the justice system. I agree with the committee. However, these changes are best considered in a broader context. I can tell the House that, although I have not received Dame Margaret Bazley’s final review of the legal aid system, this bill, with its focus on making things easier for those people who need access to justice, is consistent with where the legal aid system needs to move. This bill provides a focused amendment to a specific problem in the Legal Services Act, and builds in some flexibility to more efficiently remedy any similar problems in the future

The committee recommended some changes to the bill during the course of its deliberations. New clause 4A has been inserted, which, by inserting new subsection (1A) to section 7, clarifies that section 7(1)(e)(v) of the principal Act includes coronial inquests for the purposes of Part 3 of the Coroners Act 2006 and hearings of the New Zealand Parole Board to make it consistent with previous decisions of the Legal Aid Review Panel and the High Court. In turn, this requires consequential amendments to clauses 5 and 6 of the bill as introduced. There are also a number of minor and technical changes to certain clauses.

I want to acknowledge the original intent of the author of the original bill, the Hon Annette King. I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill. I want to thank all those members of the New Zealand public who made a contribution to this bill, and I am pleased that this Government is able to advance the provisions of this bill in a straightforward and uncomplicated way. This bill makes an important change to the Legal Services Act, as it applies to victims of crime. It will provide the Government with the flexibility to quickly respond to other situations that may appear unfair in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I think that speech was the first time in the entire time that Labour has been sitting on this side of the House that I have heard the Minister of Justice acknowledge the work of our previous Minister of Justice.

Hon Simon Power: You should have been here for the domestic violence bill last night, because I did it then, too.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I said it was the first time that I had heard it. It is interesting that the Minister chips me about this particular matter; I think he must be sensitive about it. I have written to the Minister on two occasions asking him to work collaboratively with the Opposition on important issues that go across party lines. I have had no response from him on either of those matters. The previous Labour Government had a very good track record on both domestic violence and children’s issues; we invited the Opposition to be part of a cross-party operation. In fact, every other party in Parliament participated in that process except for the National Opposition. I think there are some issues where it is important that we work across party lines.

On the question of the drivers of crime, the Minister was kind enough to invite me to attend the meeting he held on the matter. I went away, considered all of the information that had been provided at that meeting, did some independent research, and took the matter to our caucus. Our caucus agreed that it would be a good idea to offer a collaborative approach to the Government, but the Government has not responded to that offer in the way that I would have thought would be appropriate in terms of the spirit in which it was made.

The second area where I offered to work with the Government very closely was community law centres. I attended the conference of community law centres yesterday, and I know that the Minister did, as well. I made the point at that conference that legal aid, which is relevant to this bill, could take in a lot of the work that the community law centres do. In fact, the community law centres could become the regional hubs, as it were, of the provision of civil services in terms of our legal advice and legal advocacy, and the citizens advice bureaus could essentially be the spokes. I think Labour is putting up a very practical solution, but, again, we are not regarded as stakeholders by those conducting the review. We are seen merely as participants by way of submissions to the review, and I do not think that is sufficient. I certainly did not operate in that way when I was Minister of Commerce; I had in the Opposition spokesperson on commerce, and, indeed, the ACT spokesperson, who is now the Minister for Regulatory Reform. I did that for a reason: there are certain issues that go beyond party politics. They are more important than party politics, and this is one of them.

It is perfectly legitimate for me to say that that speech was the first time I had heard the Minister acknowledge the work of a predecessor—in this case, the Hon Annette King. I want to put on record the tremendous work that she did in the time that she was Minister of Justice. It was for only a short period of time, but in that time she contributed a significant amount of legislation to the statute book but also to the Order Paper—legislation that this Government has picked up. So I think we are on the same wavelength in respect of this bill, and I do not know why the Minister reacted in such a strong way.

There are a couple of points I want to make. I want this legislation, whose second reading we are debating, to be extended a little bit further. Maybe that is something we could consider when we come to the Committee stage. The bill focuses entirely on victims of crime. So there has to be a victim of crime in order for the provisions of the bill to take effect. I want people to cast their minds back in time to the mid-1990s when there was a crisis at Christchurch Public Hospital, as it used to be known. At that time, allegations were made that a number of patients had died because of a lack of attention being provided to them, and that that lack of attention was a result of systemic failure within the public health system under the former National Government—that perhaps those deaths were untimely and could have been prevented. Four of those instances ended up before the Coroner’s Court. I attended the Coroner’s Court hearings with the families of the individuals whose cases had been brought to the public attention. When the cases were called—and this is something I want the House to take serious notice of—I noted that everyone was represented by a lawyer. The doctors had their own lawyer, the nurses had their own lawyer, the other allied health professionals had their own lawyer, and the then Crown health enterprise had its own lawyer. Everyone there was legally represented, except for the family of the person who had died.

I stood alongside those individual family members and was given permission by the coroner to ask questions on behalf of the family of different people giving evidence. That was not something I could do as of right; it was simply that there was nobody else there to ask questions on behalf of the family of the person who had died. I think those families should have been able to apply for legal assistance and legal aid. When the circumstances surrounding a death are challenged in a setting like that, I think family members should be covered by this legislation, as well.

A victim of crime is when there has been an unlawful taking of a life. A victim of systemic failure is when death has occurred in circumstances where it could have been preventable. I would find it very hard to make a call between the two. One could say that there was criminal negligence in some cases. There was certainly a criminal element to the systemic failure that we saw within our health system back in the 1990s. The point I am making is that when we come to the Committee stage perhaps we as a Parliament collectively could look at this particular issue, to see whether we could expand coverage beyond straight victims of crime to those who need legal representation in a coroner’s hearing—which this bill covers—in circumstances where others are able to be represented in that situation but the family is not. I think that would add some weight to the point the Minister was making that this measure is to expand the availability of legal aid to those who have suffered from wrongful loss of life, even though it may not be to the extent of being a victim of a crime—a victim of an offence as such.

The second point that I want to make in relation to this bill is that the question of the writing off of legal aid debt creates an issue around whether the family can rely on the fact that the Legal Services Agency will write off the debt. The fact that this bill gives the agency the opportunity to write off the debt during the legal proceedings, rather than only when the proceedings are concluded, is an excellent provision. I think it will give considerable certainty to those who wish to seek legal aid in order to support them through either a Parole Board hearing or a coronial inquest.

I am very supportive of the bill. I think a little bit of tweaking in the Committee stage would expand its coverage in a way that fits within the intention of the legislation. I think that issue was not picked up, simply because of the focus on victims of crime. I hope that members of this House will consider supporting an amendment to the bill when we come to the Committee stage, as that issue is something I certainly would like to see resolved.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : It is great to take a call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill, and I take up the comments that Lianne Dalziel just made that this is an issue that is wider than party politics. Indeed, it is great to see that, coming up to the anniversary of this new Government, the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, has gone on with the 100-day legislation of this new Government by bringing this bill into the House.

I acknowledge the work of Chester Borrows and his Justice and Electoral Committee colleagues for getting this bill through so quickly. It is particularly important that this bill is in front of the House today. The National Government is committed to addressing the physical, emotional, and financial stress that victims face. We are also committed to making our communities safer for victims of crime. Everyone will be aware that Parliament has been particularly busy this week focusing on law and order. With quite a bit of support from across the House, this Government passed legislation that means that convicted offenders will pay a $50 levy. That will enable $13.6 million to be collected over 4 years that will support victims of crime. That is a big part of this Government’s priority on law and order. It also comes into this very important bill, as well.

This bill does a couple of important things. It removes financial eligibility testing, and it improves the administrative practice of not recovering legal aid debt during the legal proceedings process. I want to make a couple of further comments about those things. This bill came about partly with the high-profile cases such as the unfortunate loss of Mr Kuchenbecker as a result of Graeme Burton running loose on parole. I bumped into an old university rugby mate on Lambton Quay. He had been caught in the crossfire that afternoon on his mountain bike out on the hills there, and he had had his arm blown to bits. When I saw him, he had all sorts of gadgets and screws out the side of his arm. He was so thankful and pleased to be alive, even though he was unsure whether he would have the full use of his arm again. It is good to see this Government getting on top of what is a very important issue.

The select committee received six submissions, and two submitters were heard. Some felt that this bill does not go far enough. It is good to see that a review is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Bazley on legal aid. I heard the Hon Simon Power say that he is looking forward to receiving the final report from her. That report is particularly important because we all acknowledge, certainly on this side of the House and I am sure around the House too, that the legal aid system needs some improvement. Another important thing is that victims are placed under a huge amount of additional pressure when going through the legal process. This bill will help streamline that and give them some sense of natural justice.

With those remarks, I say that it is great that we can support this bill in its second reading. I look forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Paper that has been flagged by the other side of the House. I thank Chester Borrows and the Justice and Electoral Committee for their good work, and I support this second reading.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : I stand to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill. The bill recognises the importance of acknowledging the rights of victims of crime. Victims suffer not only the physical or mental trauma of crimes committed against them but also additional injuries. They have to outlay costs and expenses incurred for legal fees that are most likely to be beyond their means.

These amendments to the Legal Services Act are designed to ensure that victims are not subjected to financial eligibility tests and do not need to repay legal aid grants for lawyers when attending inquests and Parole Board hearings. The bill grants the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waive its right to recover legal aid where an individual’s circumstances would mean that that would cause serious hardship or would not be viable, or where it is inequitable to enforce the debt.

It is not acceptable that victims should be treated in such a way. Often the individuals or members of the family, while grieving for their loved ones, are presented with an account to pay an extensive amount of money when, without a doubt, they should not be accountable in such a situation.

This bill inserts the definitions “offender” and “victim” into the Legal Services Act 2000. The term “offender” is defined as “a person convicted of the crime or offence that affected the victim”. The term “victim” is defined as “a person against whom an offence is committed by another person;”.

The bill is a response to two high-profile cases in which victims were told they had to repay their legal aid grants. The main case was that of a senseless murder, that of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of Graeme Burton. The deceased’s former partner received a letter from the Legal Services Agency. This letter estimated that the maximum fee would be $19,000, which she would be required to pay in respect of a legal aid grant made to her during the coronial inquiry into the death of her partner. This caused a great deal of stress for her and upset her greatly. Victims should always be treated in a caring and sympathetic manner; certainly not victimised.

During the select committee process we received six submissions from interested groups and individuals. Two submissions were heard in person.

In conclusion, the measures proposed in this bill will support victims. It will give victims peace of mind, no longer burdened by the financial cost of legal representation in ongoing legal matters to do with the Crown.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) : I rise to take a call to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government and was drafted in very sad and tragic circumstances. I have heard members acknowledge the matter where the family of a victim was asked to repay $19,000 in legal aid. The then Labour Minister of Justice, the Hon Annette King, asked the Secretary for Justice for an urgent report examining what changes were needed to ensure that victims were treated in a caring and compassionate way. The Legal Services Agency subsequently wrote to the family of that victim saying that the debt would be written off, and the family’s circumstances changed significantly. Against that background, the Legal Services Amendment Bill was introduced.

The bill amends the Legal Services Act 2000 in respect of the legal aid scheme. Amendments include: first, ensuring that victims of crime attending a Parole Board hearing or coronial inquest are not subject to financial eligibility testing; secondly, enabling the Legal Services Agency to write off legal aid debt at any time during legal proceedings, rather than only when proceedings are concluded; and, thirdly, a new regulation-making power to enable the Governor-General to exempt particular classes of people from financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions.

In the bill’s second reading I should say that although there was support for the general intent of the bill, the Justice and Electoral Committee heard suggestions that it does not go far enough. Submitters sought further changes to either the legal aid scheme or to the wider justice system to provide more support for victims of crime. We acknowledged those suggestions but noted that many of them are outside of the scope of the bill. We further noted that reviews being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice of the legal aid system and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 will hopefully cover those issues. We recommended inserting new clause 4A to clarify that section 7(1)(e)(v) of the principal Act applies to coronial inquests for the purposes of Part 3 of the Coroners Act 2006 and to hearings of the Parole Board. Section 7(1)(e)(v) of the principal Act enables legal aid to be granted for proceedings in certain administrative tribunals or judicial authorities where the Legal Services Agency considers legal representation is required and where the applicant would suffer financial hardship if aid was not granted. We recommended consequential amendments to clauses 5 and 6 of this bill as introduced, and those amendments are important.

The Legal Services Act was passed in October 2000, and it established the Legal Services Agency in February 2001. The aim was to ensure that legal aid services are delivered consistently and efficiently. The Legal Services Agency is responsible for helping people to access justice by funding legal aid, initial criminal legal services, and community law centres. It also produces law-related education and information. In the past year the agency helped 58,314 people access legal services and made 73,905 grants of legal aid. In addition to legal aid services, the agency funded 766 lawyers to provide duty solicitor services. A duty solicitor assists people who have no legal representation at their first court appearance. The agency also funded 27 community law centres, and together they delivered 80,000 hours of casework, 24,000 hours of legal information services, and 110,000 hours of law-related education services to their communities.

It is particularly important for us to ensure that ordinary Kiwis be able to access justice at a time when we are facing a big challenge in respect of issues concerning intergenerational equity.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : The Green Party is happy to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill through the second reading.

We note that, in essence, the bill addresses issues of natural justice in the context of victims’ rights. I recollect the comments of our Māori Party colleague in the first reading. One might say that almost an emotional attachment to the objectives of the bill was expressed by Rahui Katene at the time. I say that we understand where she and her party are coming from, having listened to some of the stories that are involved. We certainly recognise and support the main objectives of this bill: the removal of financial eligibility testing and the improvement of administrative practices.

The only area of contention, if that is the word, pertains to whether the bill could have gone further in its current drafting, but I accept the explanation of the Minister of Justice that these issues can be considered later and that they should await the review of the legal services aid system. The Green Party is happy to do that, and we look forward to that review.

On balance, we have been pleased to be involved in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations on this bill, and we look forward to further discussion in the Committee.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I am pleased to take a call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I thank members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their work on consideration of the bill, and the way in which submissions were heard and submitters were engaged. It is certainly a bill that acts to work for the assistance of victims whose costs in relation to coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings are very real and very practical, and are not easily dealt with within the ambit of the legal services that are available today.

We heard from a large number of submitters. I think their anecdotes weighed heavily on the committee, as far as fairness goes. These people did not ask to be victims and did not ask to be drawn into the situation that they found themselves in. It is often the case that the people who are involved in these crimes as victims are overrepresented by demography, and by a lack of resources and an inability to meet the costs of attendance at tribunal hearings and coronial inquests. For instance, I bear in mind the situation that the mother of Michael Choy found herself in. Her son was murdered by six young teenagers, who were sentenced to various relatively short periods of imprisonment for their crime. But then they all became eligible for parole in the same year, for about 3 years. She felt a duty, in memory of her son, to attend each of those Parole Board hearings in order to represent the interests of other families of murder victims, and to do her duty as the mother of somebody who was murdered. The cost of having to attend those Parole Board hearings around the country was exhaustive—not only in financial terms, but also in terms of the emotional cost of having to go through the processes, find the energy to be able to make submissions, respond to things said by the other side and things said within the media, and also come under scrutiny during that process.

I was also reminded of some experiences that I was aware of through previous lives. For instance, I refer to the family whose young son was killed in a car accident. There was an allegation from the person whom the police believed was the driver that some of the cause of the accident fell on the family’s dead son. The family felt a need to be part of that process and to be represented. Of course any interested party is able to be involved in and represented at a coronial inquest, and is able to ask questions there. That is not something that people find it within themselves to do, bearing in mind the emotion of the circumstances and also the fact that a courtroom is a foreign environment for a lot of people who are dragged into these circumstances. This particular family engaged a solicitor in order to, firstly, receive the police file from the police in order to view the investigation of the sudden death in a motor accident, and then to represent the family over a 2-day hearing. The cost of the hearing was probably well below market rates, but was still very high for the family. The cost approached $2,000 for that one particular hearing.

There needs to be the ability for a society that has care and concern about victims to mitigate the costs, the financial costs at least, of appearing before coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings. Clause 5 removes the financial eligibility test for victims of crime where representation is needed at coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings. It has been a long time coming. I am pleased that there was very strong cross-party support for it. In fact, all the committee hearings were conducted with very good will. I am pleased that the outcome extends across as far as that.

Clause 6 provides that repayment conditions cannot be applied to those grants. However, such an application can still be declined if it does not meet the merits test. That means that sometimes when a situation blows up and people get hurt, not only the bystanders but also the players are dragged in. Members may wonder what the circumstances might be in order for the Legal Services Agency to decide that it will decline an application on a merits-based test. It may well be because of the actions of the victim, how that victim found himself or herself to be present at the scene, and how he or she came to be injured, hurt, or killed. For instance, it could well be that a criminal enterprise was going on at the time, and the person was party to that criminal enterprise. For whatever reason, things went wrong and people were hurt or killed. The Legal Services Agency can then, quite rightly, look at those circumstances as they are alleged to be, and decide whether it will decline or accept the claim in respect of attendance at either of those two tribunal hearings. I think the public quite easily can get their heads around those circumstances, and see that it will be valid on some occasions for the Legal Services Agency to decline an application for a fees waiver.

Clause 7 gives the Legal Services Agency discretion, on a case by case basis, to write off a debt owed to it by a victim of a crime. This also applies to other types of proceedings. Under current law, the Legal Services Agency must wait until the final cost of proceedings is known. The result is that there is a stressful period of uncertainty for victims. This occurs at a time, we should remember, when not long before a coronial inquest the family quite probably had to make funeral arrangements and deal with all the emotions and costs that are tied up with that. So there needs to be some certainty as to what the costs will be for the family in the future. They need to have some answers, so they can put it out of their heads for that particular period. I think this is a very compassionate clause.

Of course clause 7 also amends the Legal Services Act to allow the debt to be written off at any time. A decision maker within the Legal Services Agency can decide very early in the piece whether the costs will be written off, so the family can know from quite an early stage exactly where they are going.

The regulation power under the Act, provided in clause 8(1), is extended to allow the exemption of any specified class or classes of person or proceeding from financial eligibility criteria. Those matters will be decided in the public interest—whether it facilitates the access to justice and whether the exemption is just and equitable in the circumstances. It allows the Minister of Justice to have some flexibility to account for the large number of foreseen and unforeseen circumstances where this legislation may apply.

I am very pleased with the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and with the support across the House for the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I acknowledge the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, in this House again. He is an excellent chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, particularly relating to the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I think it is always a pleasure to stand in the House or sit on a select committee where all members support the legislation. Sadly, that does not happen all the time. For members on this side of the House, so much of the legislation we see before the House is absolutely unpalatable, and it is impossible for us to do anything in good faith but oppose it for the sake of the people of New Zealand. But, obviously, this bill is not one of those cases.

This bill is actually about compassion. As other speakers have acknowledged, it came about and was put on the Order Paper in very, very sad circumstances. I recall at the time that Annette King requested very urgently from the Secretary for Justice a report, which examined what changes were needed to ensure that victims were treated in a caring and compassionate way. That was, I think, a very succinct way of putting what we needed to see in legislation, to ensure that victims were not re-victimised by a process at a very stressful and distressing time of their lives.

This bill, as other speakers have said, ensures that when victims of crime attend a Parole Board hearing or a coronial inquest, they are not subject to financial eligibility testing. It also enables the Legal Services Agency to write off legal aid debt at any time during the proceedings, rather than at the end of the proceedings. That goes a long way towards taking off a lot of that pressure. Obviously, at difficult times through proceedings, for victims to have to have the added burden of financial anxiety and stress is not conducive to their good health, and it certainly gives them no support. It creates a lot more stress in their lives. There is also a new regulatory power to enable the Governor-General to exempt particular classes of people from financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions.

The first reading of the bill was on 1 July, and I think that the process in the select committee was very efficient. I acknowledge in this House the support that we had, as we always do. We have fantastic support on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge the people who came forward and gave submissions in support of this bill. For those people who had had very painful experiences, this situation—I think we could call it an unintended consequence—needed to be rectified. They, along with us, were very pleased to see that happen. In terms of applications for legal aid for parole hearings, the stress on victims of crime is something that no one should diminish or underestimate. It is an incredibly stressful time for people.

I will also take this opportunity to talk a little about some of the other changes that have delivered improvements for victims. They happened under the Labour Government and, happily, they are still in place. The Sentencing Act 2002 is in place. I know that the Sentencing Council has gone, and I know that I would be doing Paul Quinn an absolute disservice if I did not mention that. The Sentencing Council would have delivered consistency in sentencing and would have been of great benefit to victims. The Sentencing Act, which introduced the presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently, delivered a lot for victims.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 ensured that victims of inmates were awarded compensation and that victims could claim against that compensation. The Evidence Act has provided for the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims by making provision for them to give evidence in alternative ways, such as from behind a screen or via a pre-recorded video. There is also the Victims Charter, which was introduced by Labour in its last year in Government. All of those things have gone a considerable way towards supporting victims, and I think this bill will be another part of that support.

It would be remiss of me not to talk about something that does not support victims, and that is the proposed changes to accident compensation legislation. I take this opportunity to urge the Government to reconsider the guidelines that it is planning to impose on victims of sexual assault. It is never too late for the Government to admit that it got it wrong, and I believe that that would be of tremendous benefit to victims in this country. We are effectively saying to this Government: “Good work on supporting Labour’s bill, on this one. Please reconsider and support victims in this country in terms of those abhorrent guidelines that you are trying to impose.”

Without further ado, I say again that Labour fully supports this bill, which is understandable because Labour introduced it. We are very, very pleased that this bill has the full support of the House. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Like other speakers, it gives me pleasure to rise and support the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I start by joining my colleagues on both sides of the House in thanking the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Chester Borrows, who has been singled out regularly during the week because a number of bills that very hard-working committee has considered have passed through the House this week. I think about six bills have passed this week under this very rigorous and hard-working Government, which is ensuring its legislative programme is achieved on time and on spec. This bill is another that has come out of the very hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee. We should also pay tribute to the staff of the select committee, who have given great service to the MPs who have been sitting in deliberations. I think it is timely that we recognise their contribution to the work of the select committee.

I will also deal with a couple of issues. I will put the bill in perspective and remind members that the bill aims to do two or three things. Firstly, it aims to remove eligibility testing requirements for legal aid for victims who are to attend coronial inquests or Parole Board hearings, or for the making of victims’ claims. Secondly, the bill aims to grant the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waiver its right to recover legal aid debts where individual circumstances mean enforcement would cause serious hardship or would be uneconomic, or it would just be equitable not to enforce the debt. Thirdly, the bill aims to create the power to make regulations to exempt specific classes of people or proceedings from eligibility restrictions or repayment obligations.

I will reflect for a moment on that final purpose. Lianne Dalziel, in her contribution to this debate, made reference to the fact that she would be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper because she wanted the entitlements that arise out of this bill to cover additional situations. Put simply, this particular purpose will enable us to clip on—if I can use that phrase—additional activities to this bill, should a circumstance eventuate that was not envisaged at this second reading. Should something new come along, under this purpose of the bill the Government will be able to add that new circumstance by regulation in order to contribute to meeting the costs.

I do not intend to go through the bill clause by clause. I will instead turn to examples of the services that might be clipped on going forward. We received six submissions in total and all of them, as would be expected, supported the bill. Suggestions were made during the course of submissions of areas that might be considered under this bill. They were things like providing support to victims of crime so that they are able to have representation during the criminal justice process. Another example of contribution to costs was through the restorative justice process, particularly during the sentencing period. A third area was giving assistance for private prosecutions. Those were examples of areas that submitters felt might also be covered with the additional support that was envisaged under this bill for the specific areas that have been nominated.

That takes me to the fact that this Government has made commitments across a number of areas in terms of support for victims of crime. Although we have not covered some of the suggestions that I have just canvassed, which were made by submitters, we have made other contributions towards meeting the costs of victims of crime. One of those bills, the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, was passed last night. It will be enacted on its Royal assent, which I think is in 20 days. I ask Grant whether that is right; it is. That bill was just another example. This Government is putting in place a series of building blocks that will assist victims of crime. We do not claim that we can, in one fell swoop, meet all the demands and all the requirements out there, because that could be very onerous on the State. We are trying to put in place some support, because this is a very difficult time for victims of crime. The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill was passed yesterday evening, and I am pleased to note for the record that, in a rare show of unanimity, the whole House supported the bill through its third reading. I think in this area the whole House speaks as one in terms of providing support services to victims of crime.

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this very worthwhile bill, and I look forward to sharing with the House the specific aspects of the clauses as we go through the Committee stage so that everyone gets a full working knowledge of the bill’s intent. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.