Neil Sands
Officials are looking for ways to make engaging with the justice system easier and cheaper as they consider a long-awaited review into a legal aid system straining under the pressure of soaring costs and increasingly complex caseloads.
The Ministry of Justice established the Accessible and Affordable Justice Programme in response to the Triennial Review of Legal Aid, which was announced in February last year but has not yet been publicly released.
While its conclusions are not yet known, they are unlikely to be positive, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith admitting when he commissioned the review that the legal aid system is “no longer fit for purpose”.
The Law Association of New Zealand’s submission to the review raised concerns that low pay and excessive bureaucracy were driving lawyers out of the system, leaving vulnerable clients without representation.
The NZ Law Society expressed similar disquiet, warning of “mayhem” in the courts if legal aid funding cuts led to a significant increase in self-represented litigants.
Andrew Kibblewhite
The Ministry of Justice has attempted to front-foot the issue by setting up the new programme, which was revealed by Justice Secretary Andrew Kibblewhite in the wake of last week’s
Budget, which cut net legal aid funding by almost $5 million.
“In response to the 2025 Triennial Legal Aid Review, the ministry has established the Accessible and Affordable Justice Programme to work with the profession, justice sector agencies and the judiciary to address the drivers of the significant cost increases in recent years and consider changes to legal aid settings,” he said.
Budget papers said payments for legal aid services, the Justice Ministry’s largest external expense, had blown out “due to growth in case volumes, increasing case complexity, and higher average case costs”.
‘Cornerstone of justice’
A discussion paper released last year canvassed several options for reining in legal aid costs, including bulk-contracting cases to law firms, involving more junior lawyers, reducing the need for specialist reports, and simplified structures for fees and administration.
These options may be included in the review’s recommendations, but the ministry’s director for accessible and affordable justice, Gerard Abel, indicated the new programme will also look for solutions in the broader courts system, not just legal aid.
“The programme will consider changes to address the drivers of the significant cost increases in recent years and to legal aid settings,” he said.
“Legal aid is a cornerstone of the justice system, but it is under significant strain. The cost of the scheme is outstripping inflation, having risen from $192 million to $304m in the last five years and is projected to increase further.
“However, many of the drivers of these cost increases sit outside the scheme itself including higher volumes of information and evidence, and rising rates of jury trial elections.”
The ministry declined to provide more details of the programme’s policy rationale and how it will be run, but Abel said “further announcements are expected in the coming weeks”.
“The Ministry of Justice will soon engage with the legal profession, the judiciary, and other justice sector agencies on the Accessible and Affordable Justice Programme,” he said.
While the cost of legal aid has soared, there is widespread acknowledgement that it is a vital means of ensuring that people are not denied access to justice based on their financial means.
A cost-benefit analysis from Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by NZLS and released last year, found that every $1 spent on legal aid in New Zealand generated $2.06 in economic returns for the community.
In addition to helping individuals navigate the justice system, it pointed to wider societal benefits. These include reduced burdens on the health- and social-service sectors through improved domestic violence and family violence outcomes, reduction in future crime, and improved trust in the justice system.
One of the easiest things to save this country tens of millions of dollars is to abolish the payment of disbursements in family court litigation. If there is a dispute in most cases the ‘result’ does not matter. So spending money on ‘experts’ achieves nothing.