Formal Opposition to
Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill
(Government Bill 160–1, Paul Goldsmith)
From: Ukes Baha | 12 August 2025
Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill
Summary of Position
I oppose the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill in its current form.
The Special Fund was established to direct interest from lawyers’ and conveyancers’ trust accounts into front-line community law centre services, ensuring free legal help for those unable to afford it. This bill broadens the purpose from purchasing services to also “funding, facilitating, and otherwise supporting” them — without clear definitions or safeguards. This creates risk of diversion to indirect or politically favoured projects, diluting the fund’s purpose and weakening its accountability.
1. Dilution of Purpose — From Direct Services to Vague “Support”
Reference: Section 94(1) replacement.
Problem:
- “Facilitate” and “support” are undefined, allowing activities far removed from direct legal service delivery.
- Weakens the guaranteed link between fund revenue and free legal help for the public.
- Funds could be diverted to peripheral initiatives while core legal services remain under-resourced.
2. Expanded Secretary Discretion Without Oversight
Reference: “As they determine appropriate” wording in new s.94(1).
Problem:
- Removes objective statutory criteria, enabling subjective and potentially political allocation of funds.
- No requirement to publicly justify funding decisions.
- No independent review or appeals process if funding priorities shift away from community needs.
3. Loophole for Fund Diversion
Problem:
- Current law effectively ring-fences funds for community law centres; this change opens the door for third parties to access funds under the broad “support” category.
- Politically connected or larger organisations could absorb a disproportionate share, leaving community law centres short.
4. No Clear Definition of “Community Legal Services”
Problem:
- Without definition, the term could include initiatives with minimal or no direct client work.
- May be stretched to generic “justice sector” programmes that don’t deliver actual legal advice or representation.
5. No Additional Transparency or Reporting Requirements
Problem:
- Expands spending powers without introducing matching public reporting or independent audits.
- The public and legal profession will have less certainty about how the Special Fund is used.
6. Precedent for Erosion of Public Interest Funds
Problem:
- Broadening the scope sets a precedent for further changes that could remove community legal services from the fund’s remit entirely.
- Undermines the original social contract between the public, the profession, and the government.
7. No Te Tiriti o Waitangi Safeguards
Problem:
- No acknowledgement of Te Tiriti obligations despite Māori facing disproportionate barriers to justice.
- No requirement to consider equity impacts or prioritise Māori-led legal service delivery.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The bill risks turning the Special Fund from a direct legal aid lifeline into a loosely governed pool for undefined “support” activities. Without definitions, funding priorities, and oversight, the amendment enables fund diversion and politicisation — at the expense of vulnerable communities who depend on community law centres.
I recommend the Committee:
- Retain the current statutory link to purchasing services from community law centres.
- If expanded, narrowly define “facilitate” and “support” as activities directly tied to service delivery.
- Ring-fence at least 80% of the Special Fund for front-line client services.
- Introduce independent oversight, public reporting, and clear allocation criteria.
- Embed Te Tiriti obligations and prioritise Māori-led service delivery.
Access to justice is not served by vague funding powers.
Public interest funds must remain transparent, accountable, and tied to direct service outcomes for those most in need.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com