Legal aid changes will deny access to poor people - Goff

Print

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 6:09a.m.

Phil Goff (NZPA)

Phil Goff (NZPA)

Radical changes to the legal aid system announced by the Government will deny low income people access to lawyers, the Labour Party says.

Justice Minister Simon Power unveiled the changes yesterday, saying he was tackling a $402 million cost blowout.

The changes include introducing a $100 user fee, tightening eligibility criteria and having the State-owned Public Defence Service (PDS) take up 50 percent of criminal cases.

Legal aid for less serious criminal cases will be restricted to single people earning below $22,000 a year and people with children earning below $50,934 a year.

Legislation will be introduced to Parliament by mid-year and the first stage of the plan is designed to cut legal aid spending by $138m over four years.

Labour leader Phil Goff said almost every low income person would be excluded from legal aid.

"You've got to constrain costs but you can't do that by preventing access to justice to low income people," he said.

"It means a single person has to earn $100 less than the minimum wage."

The party's justice spokesman, Charles Chauvel, said the changes would lead to a lack of quality legal defence options for people facing charges.

"No one is arguing that legal aid doesn't need reforming, it does," he said.

"But the reform must entail a balanced provision of services. Simon Power has destroyed that with his announcement."

The Criminal Bar Association said it was appalled.

"Legal aid is a loan, not a grant," it said.

"If a client is required to repay a loan it is only fair that they should be able to choose their lawyer.

"A National government is nationalising a profession."

Law Society president Jonathan Temm said the Government would hire inexperienced lawyers for the PDS.

"We don't believe the forecasted savings are certain, and we don't actually accept that the forecasted costs which drive these changes are certain either," he said.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

17 Apr 2011 10:23p.m.

Nicholas wrote:

Legal aid is one of the cornerstones of a fair, just society. Removal of it establishes a justice that systematically jails the poor and effectively immunises the wealthy. A lack of fairness tips the balance in favour of white collar crime. The result is higher taxes and less freedom. Is this not a form of fascism?

16 Apr 2011 03:31a.m.

Nikki wrote:

I have just received a letter denying me legal aide because they have considered my finances (the benefit which doesn't even cover the cost of my weekly bills), the fact that I have had legal aid before (I am on a suspended sentence which I will now NEED representation for), and that the maximum penalty is less than 6mths imprisonment. WTF...?

I'm on a suspended sentence, something my 'legal aid' lawyer got me due to the fact that the NZ GOVT decided to no longer fund my medication. Within a week of being on the generic I went completely mad demanding to be 'sectioned' with mental health. Alas though, I went the wrong way about it but sometimes you tend not to think straight when suffering serious side effects.

I put a formal complaint in about my probation officer and now I am in court for a fabricated 'breaching of my conditions'. One duty solicitor told me I have no case to answer, the next time I appeared a different duty solicitor told me I do have a case to answer. I have been to the law centre who also do not know whether or not I have a case to answer as the 'rules' of probation services are not black and white (typical of govt depts in NZ). Even if I change my plea now to 'guilty', I'm in the shit because I have wasted the courts time (apparently judges tend to look down on that... yippee).

So I have a hearing next month and I am not entitled to any legal representation. With my suspended sentence added, the maximum penalty IS more than 6mths imprisonment. Why, even if I could get legal aide, can I not have my original lawyer who has all the medical reports, backings etc from the original case. Another lawyer would cost more as they will be running back to the original for my files, history etc. Perhaps he could also find out if I do or do not have a case to answer cause no-one else seems to know.

I wonder if I will be entitled to legal aide to sue the Govt for my new criminal record. Afterall, had they not stopped funding my meds I would not be in this predicament.

Thanks Key... keep kicking the low income while they are down. Mind you, at least I will eat red meat in prison cause I don't remember the last time I could afford to buy it. I guess it will be good to see how the other side lives - 60k+ to house a prisoner per annum vs my 16k on the benefit. Almost sounds appealing to go there now I think about it.

Any takers on someone renting my place and feeding my dog for me please on a short term basis?

15 Apr 2011 08:53a.m.

Elle wrote:

Am I correct in assuming that legal aid is funded by the taxpayer? And therefore, the more you earn, the more you pay? But the more you earn, the less access you have to the services you're paying for... How long before we are told that access to the public health system will also be means tested? Even those 'rich people' earning more than $22000 per year can't afford triple bypasses, hip replacements or private lawyers...

14 Apr 2011 11:29p.m.

matt wrote:

Everyone has a right to legal representation, including the poor who often get shafted...what is this if your rich you get justice what a joke, and that comment if you dont get introuble you wont need it is just plain old ignorance, a car crash, somebody rips you off, you get assaulted etc where there are no witnesses..you get harassed because of social racial stereotypes from the police falsely accused of course you need legal aid, as for the tax payer pays crap lets see the comparisons with other spending, slowly but surely the government are stripping away our social services....

14 Apr 2011 12:46p.m.

Chris wrote:

To those who say if you don't break the law, you won't need legal aid, get real. Take a look at the North and South issue with the cover title "But I'm Innocent", and see the conservative estimates for the number of wrongful convictions in NZ. It is scary, and those were honest people caught up in circumstances that left them hung out to dry. Plus, as others have said, the need for a lawyer is not limited to those accused of murder and rape, it is a basic right to justice all NZ'ers should have access to. I would not qualify now, nor would I ever have for legal aid, but this is one thing I am happy to pay out of my taxes for those who cannot afford it, everyone has the right to legal representation to a standard high enough to provide rightful justice.

14 Apr 2011 11:29a.m.

Sam wrote:

U may Have Notice that the Costs have Blown out under Key in the first place "OMG"

14 Apr 2011 10:57a.m.

alan wrote:

Iam hoping like hell that one day Phil Goff will see that the taxpayer cannot keep paying for everything.The legal aid bill, the physio ripoff that quadrupled under labour, the lack of protection from dodgy finance companies, growing numbers on the benefit, working for families where people earning $80,000.00 a year get a benefit and paying teenagers to have babies are just a few of the things that MUST change if this country is going to get ahead. I guess it must be difficult for Phil to understand because he has always had a job paid for by the taxpayer.

14 Apr 2011 10:43a.m.

Lana wrote:

Uuuh… Dave… lawyers aren't just needed for when YOU do something wrong, you do realise that right? Often times people are exploited or abused in the work place for instance, unfairly "made redundant" (seems to be the new way to fire people these days is to just slowly push them out) etc.

14 Apr 2011 10:41a.m.

madness wrote:

Of course Labour will change it back. I think they will change alot of the silly things our current govt are doing. Labour and NZ First would make a great partnership I think. National rush all these bills etc through to suit themselves. They are looking for money from all angles and unfortunately John Key lied about not taking it off the little people in the country. A shame he didn't consider that the little people are the ones who keep the economy ticking along and sadly alot of them voted him in. I think he has cooked his goose and a three year term is all he is having. I so agree with what you said Dave. Don't break the law and you won't need a lawyer, pretty simple for most of us.................................

14 Apr 2011 10:26a.m.

Chargone wrote:

NZFirst and the Pirate Party are probably the least broken ones available to vote for at this point, with the latter focusing specifically on abuses of the system (copyright, urgency, etc) and the former having the best other combination of reputation and policies that are not founded in either blind and ineffective ideology or personal pocketlineing. not that i'm ever going to put a lot of trust in anyone who's served more than a single term in parliament unless they manage to pull of awesome and avoid doing Anything suspect.