Why Oppose the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill

This is not about “flexibility” — it’s about diluting a vital public interest fund. The bill changes the Special Fund’s purpose from purchasing direct community law services to also “funding, facilitating, and otherwise supporting” them — without defining those terms or protecting the money from diversion.

Here’s what the bill really does, why it’s dangerous, and how it opens the door to political misuse of funds intended for front-line legal help.

What This Bill Really Does

Expands ministerial discretion: The Secretary of Justice can spend funds “as they determine appropriate” with no objective criteria or independent oversight.
Broadens the scope away from direct services: Adds vague powers to “facilitate” or “support” legal services — potentially covering peripheral or indirect activities.
Removes the effective ring-fence: The Special Fund is no longer strictly tied to community law centres, opening the door for third-party projects and consultancies to claim funding.
Fails to define “community legal services”: Could be interpreted to include initiatives with little or no direct client representation.
Does not add transparency requirements: No new reporting, auditing, or public disclosure obligations to match the expanded spending powers.

Why This Threatens Access to Justice

Weakens guaranteed funding for those most in need: Community law centres may see their budgets cut as money is siphoned off to less urgent activities.
Increases risk of politicisation: Broad discretion allows funding to favour politically aligned groups or government priorities, rather than community needs.
Sets a precedent for further erosion: Once the purpose is broadened, future amendments could remove direct service funding entirely.
Ignores Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations: No safeguard against disproportionate impacts on Māori, who already face higher barriers to legal support.

The Bigger Pattern

This bill follows a familiar erosion pattern. First, broaden the legal definition of how funds can be used. Second, normalise spending on indirect or administrative projects. Third, justify further diversions when “direct” funding has already been reduced.

The Special Fund was created as a clear, direct pipeline from the legal profession to free legal help for the public. Diluting its purpose undermines that social contract and risks leaving vulnerable communities without access to justice.

If You Care About Justice Access

This bill is not about improving flexibility — it’s about removing protections on a fund that was never meant to be political. It does not strengthen legal services — it risks weakening them.

If you believe public interest funds should remain transparent, accountable, and tied to front-line outcomes…
If you believe those most in need should not have to compete with government projects for legal aid funding…
If you believe in honouring Te Tiriti commitments and protecting Māori-led service delivery…
Then now is the time to oppose this bill.

“Access to justice is not served by vague funding powers.” — Ukes Baha

🔙 Back to APIAPE Index