A guest post by a reader on Kiwiblog:
I regret to inform you that cultural reports are back, wearing a wig and a false mustache.
In March 2024, Parliament passed the Legal Services Amendment Bill, which abolished public legal aid funding for section 27 reports, also known as “cultural reports”. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith stated:
“This will put an end to what has become a cottage industry costing the taxpayers millions with no benefits to the real victims of crime… legal aid funding for section 27 reports has increased from approximately $40,000 in 2017, to more than $7 million in the last financial year. It’s also resulted in further discounts at sentencing, something the Government is widely concerned about.”
As a defence lawyer, I am very familiar with cultural reports and it would often be my duty to arrange such reports for my clients. Critics cited three main problems with cultural reports:
– Cultural reports were very lucrative, with most cultural report writers charging $3000 or more per report, despite often not having any formal qualifications. For a 1-2 hour interview followed by a couple of hours writing the report, a seasoned cultural report factory could generate nearly $1000 per hour. By contrast, a qualified lawyer preparing written submissions for sentencing would receive a fixed fee of $450-$600 + GST for most legal aid cases.
– Cultural reports were explicitly aimed at securing lower sentences, giving the more soft-hearted Judges an excuse to give enormous sentencing discounts and allow home detention for even very serious offending. Report writers would boast on their websites about the discounts their reports had achieved. For example, one cultural report writer displays a testimonial on her website:
– “Your cultural report was a revelation. The Crown wanted 8 years. He got 6.5 years [less all the discounts above]. In the end he got 2y7m and will be eligible for parole very soon. I can’t wait to send you the sentencing notes. He got a really big discount.“
– Cultural report writers would not verify the offender’s claims, meaning offenders could sometimes exaggerate their backstory to secure greater discounts at sentencing.
The rebrand
When the “cottage industry” was shut down in March 2024, many cultural report writers gathered up their riches, packed away their templates, and moved on to new careers. But some of the more enterprising cultural report writers decided not to give up in the face of mere legislation. A plan was born to rebrand cultural reports under a new name, to allow the gravy train to keep on rolling. Goodbye publicly-funded Cultural Reports, hello publicly-funded “Alcohol and Drug Reports”.
Alcohol and Drug Reports have been ordered occasionally for many years, often by the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC). Some defence lawyers would also request legal aid funding for such reports, even before the new law. But an OIA request has revealed that since legal aid funding for cultural reports was abolished in March 2024, annual legal aid funding for “alcohol and drug reports” has increased by 254%.
In the two years prior to the change in March 2024, $957,662 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
In slightly less than one year after the change, $1,623,766 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
The cultural report gold rush is over, and the “Alcohol and Drug Report” gold rush has begun.
The report writers
Could the 254% increase in the 11 months since the cultural report taps were turned off be a coincidence? Let’s look at who is providing the reports.
The OIA response from the Legal Services Commissioner did not provide the requested breakdown of which companies had been paid to prepare the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. This was because “the information does not exist, as the Ministry does not record this information.” This is concerning for three reasons:
– This information could easily be collated. When a lawyer submits a quote from a report writer to Legal Aid for approval, the report writer’s company name is listed on the quote. Later, once the report is prepared, the lawyer forwards the report writer’s invoice to Legal Aid, and then pays the report writer themselves.
– More than $1.6 million in public funding has been provided for these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” in less than a year, a sufficient sum to be worthy of some basic record-keeping.
– Legal aid lawyers are rightly subject to transparency for the public funding they receive. Every year there is a table published which shows how much each legal aid lawyer has been paid that year. This allows for public scrutiny of the big earners who are in some cases receiving over $1 million per year in legal aid alone. There was no such table published when the cultural report industry was generating $7 million per year, which would have allowed the public to see who was profiting from the reports, and would have also allowed Legal Aid Services to audit and scrutinise how much each cultural report writer was earning. With some proper record-keeping, Legal Aid might have concluded that $3000 or more per cultural report was excessive given the gargantuan profits that were being made by some of the more prolific cultural report writers. Now, funding for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” has exploded by 254% and Legal Aid has no idea who is profiting from this, because they don’t keep any records of it.
So without any OIA data, how do we know who is providing the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”? It’s a matter of a simple Google search.
Formerly prolific cultural report writing companies are currently advertising themselves as available to write “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. Please note that in the absence of data from Legal Aid Services, I cannot confirm how much these companies received for “cultural reports” prior to the new law, and for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” under the new law. However, Google confirms that cultural report companies are currently advertising “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. For example:
– “Independent Research Solutions Limited”, of which the sociologist Jarrod Gilbert is the sole director and shareholder.
– “H2R Research and Consulting Limited”, of which the patched Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam is a 50% shareholder and director.
Legal Aid Services do not have any specific policies in place to insist on the report writer having any particular qualifications. For example, the “Alcohol and Drug Report” writers are not required to be a registered member of DAPAANZ – the Drug and Alcohol Practitioners’ Association Aotearoa New Zealand. Nor are they required to be registered counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists or doctors. Thousands of dollars are being paid out per report to people who are not accountable to any professional standards board.
Meet the new reports, same as the old reports
It is also clear from a quick search of legal databases that “Alcohol and Drug Reports” are often just cultural reports in drag. For example, in The King v Wharekura [2025] NZHC 751, a decision dated 1 April 2025, the Judge stated:
I have the benefit of two reports that were prepared for your sentencing: a pre-sentence report, prepared by Corrections; and an alcohol and drug report, prepared by four report writers…
The pre-sentence report [prepared by a probation officer from the Department of Corrections] assesses you as being at a high risk of further violent offending… the writer does observe that, despite assertions that you wish to use your time in prison to better yourself, you have accumulated 11 misconducts in prison for tattooing, seven for possession of homebrew, two for possession of non-prescribed medication, one for fighting, offensive behaviour toward staff, and possession of razor blades and cannabis oil…
I turn now to the alcohol and drug report. That report provides that it includes a component under s 27 of the Sentencing Act. Under that provision, the Court can hear from people on (amongst other things) a person’s background and on the way in which it may have related to the commission of an offence.
I observe at the outset that the report writers are not trained in medicine or psychology and that their findings are based on self-reporting from you. But the information is helpful and the report writers have relevant qualifications, one of them having a speciality in addiction which enables a useful perspective.
You are of Waikato-Tainui – a proud and just people, who suffered immeasurable loss when the Crown invaded and then confiscated Waikato-Tainui’s tribal lands and taonga. The widespread loss, suffering and deprivation has lasted for generations. It weighs heavily.
The above case highlights the difference between a pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections and a legal aid-funded “Alcohol and Drug Report”. The first aims to provide a neutral report regarding the background of the offender, the reasons for the offending, and the prospects of rehabilitation. These reports are by no means perfect but generally aim for a neutral perspective. “Cultural reports”, or their rebooted franchise of “Alcohol and Drug Reports”, aim to minimise the sentence, and just like section 27 “cultural reports”, will canvass alcohol and drug use as well as cultural and family background. Despite the new moniker of “Alcohol and Drug Report”, much of the focus remains on cultural factors which have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol.
The website of Harry Tam’s “H2R Research and Consulting Limited” openly admits this:
“With the recent defunding of s27 reports, our AoD reports also include insights into clients’ personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural backgrounds in their drug and alcohol assessments.”
Where these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” commissioned under legal aid, this is at best a calculated evasion of the new section 99(4)(ca) of the Legal Services Act 2011, which states:
“The Commissioner must decline… any claim to the extent to which it is for a disbursement incurred in relation to a report or statement (whether oral or written) of a person called by an offender under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002;”
Conclusion
Cultural reports are symptomatic of deep-rooted issues in our justice system – issues which are too extensive to cover in this post. It should come as no surprise that when the Government has attempted to weed out one of these issues, the weed has stubbornly regrown. It is now up to the Government to once again weed out the problem, this time hopefully by root and stem.
As a defence lawyer, I am very familiar with cultural reports and it would often be my duty to arrange such reports for my clients. Critics cited three main problems with cultural reports:
– Cultural reports were very lucrative, with most cultural report writers charging $3000 or more per report, despite often not having any formal qualifications. For a 1-2 hour interview followed by a couple of hours writing the report, a seasoned cultural report factory could generate nearly $1000 per hour. By contrast, a qualified lawyer preparing written submissions for sentencing would receive a fixed fee of $450-$600 + GST for most legal aid cases.
– Cultural reports were explicitly aimed at securing lower sentences, giving the more soft-hearted Judges an excuse to give enormous sentencing discounts and allow home detention for even very serious offending. Report writers would boast on their websites about the discounts their reports had achieved. For example, one cultural report writer displays a testimonial on her website:
– “Your cultural report was a revelation. The Crown wanted 8 years. He got 6.5 years [less all the discounts above]. In the end he got 2y7m and will be eligible for parole very soon. I can’t wait to send you the sentencing notes. He got a really big discount.“
– Cultural report writers would not verify the offender’s claims, meaning offenders could sometimes exaggerate their backstory to secure greater discounts at sentencing.
The rebrand
When the “cottage industry” was shut down in March 2024, many cultural report writers gathered up their riches, packed away their templates, and moved on to new careers. But some of the more enterprising cultural report writers decided not to give up in the face of mere legislation. A plan was born to rebrand cultural reports under a new name, to allow the gravy train to keep on rolling. Goodbye publicly-funded Cultural Reports, hello publicly-funded “Alcohol and Drug Reports”.
Alcohol and Drug Reports have been ordered occasionally for many years, often by the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC). Some defence lawyers would also request legal aid funding for such reports, even before the new law. But an OIA request has revealed that since legal aid funding for cultural reports was abolished in March 2024, annual legal aid funding for “alcohol and drug reports” has increased by 254%.
In the two years prior to the change in March 2024, $957,662 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
In slightly less than one year after the change, $1,623,766 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
The cultural report gold rush is over, and the “Alcohol and Drug Report” gold rush has begun.
The report writers
Could the 254% increase in the 11 months since the cultural report taps were turned off be a coincidence? Let’s look at who is providing the reports.
The OIA response from the Legal Services Commissioner did not provide the requested breakdown of which companies had been paid to prepare the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. This was because “the information does not exist, as the Ministry does not record this information.” This is concerning for three reasons:
– This information could easily be collated. When a lawyer submits a quote from a report writer to Legal Aid for approval, the report writer’s company name is listed on the quote. Later, once the report is prepared, the lawyer forwards the report writer’s invoice to Legal Aid, and then pays the report writer themselves.
– More than $1.6 million in public funding has been provided for these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” in less than a year, a sufficient sum to be worthy of some basic record-keeping.
– Legal aid lawyers are rightly subject to transparency for the public funding they receive. Every year there is a table published which shows how much each legal aid lawyer has been paid that year. This allows for public scrutiny of the big earners who are in some cases receiving over $1 million per year in legal aid alone. There was no such table published when the cultural report industry was generating $7 million per year, which would have allowed the public to see who was profiting from the reports, and would have also allowed Legal Aid Services to audit and scrutinise how much each cultural report writer was earning. With some proper record-keeping, Legal Aid might have concluded that $3000 or more per cultural report was excessive given the gargantuan profits that were being made by some of the more prolific cultural report writers. Now, funding for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” has exploded by 254% and Legal Aid has no idea who is profiting from this, because they don’t keep any records of it.
So without any OIA data, how do we know who is providing the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”? It’s a matter of a simple Google search.
Formerly prolific cultural report writing companies are currently advertising themselves as available to write “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. Please note that in the absence of data from Legal Aid Services, I cannot confirm how much these companies received for “cultural reports” prior to the new law, and for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” under the new law. However, Google confirms that cultural report companies are currently advertising “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. For example:
– “Independent Research Solutions Limited”, of which the sociologist Jarrod Gilbert is the sole director and shareholder.
– “H2R Research and Consulting Limited”, of which the patched Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam is a 50% shareholder and director.
Legal Aid Services do not have any specific policies in place to insist on the report writer having any particular qualifications. For example, the “Alcohol and Drug Report” writers are not required to be a registered member of DAPAANZ – the Drug and Alcohol Practitioners’ Association Aotearoa New Zealand. Nor are they required to be registered counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists or doctors. Thousands of dollars are being paid out per report to people who are not accountable to any professional standards board.
Meet the new reports, same as the old reports
It is also clear from a quick search of legal databases that “Alcohol and Drug Reports” are often just cultural reports in drag. For example, in The King v Wharekura [2025] NZHC 751, a decision dated 1 April 2025, the Judge stated:
I have the benefit of two reports that were prepared for your sentencing: a pre-sentence report, prepared by Corrections; and an alcohol and drug report, prepared by four report writers…
The pre-sentence report [prepared by a probation officer from the Department of Corrections] assesses you as being at a high risk of further violent offending… the writer does observe that, despite assertions that you wish to use your time in prison to better yourself, you have accumulated 11 misconducts in prison for tattooing, seven for possession of homebrew, two for possession of non-prescribed medication, one for fighting, offensive behaviour toward staff, and possession of razor blades and cannabis oil…
I turn now to the alcohol and drug report. That report provides that it includes a component under s 27 of the Sentencing Act. Under that provision, the Court can hear from people on (amongst other things) a person’s background and on the way in which it may have related to the commission of an offence.
I observe at the outset that the report writers are not trained in medicine or psychology and that their findings are based on self-reporting from you. But the information is helpful and the report writers have relevant qualifications, one of them having a speciality in addiction which enables a useful perspective.
You are of Waikato-Tainui – a proud and just people, who suffered immeasurable loss when the Crown invaded and then confiscated Waikato-Tainui’s tribal lands and taonga. The widespread loss, suffering and deprivation has lasted for generations. It weighs heavily.
The above case highlights the difference between a pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections and a legal aid-funded “Alcohol and Drug Report”. The first aims to provide a neutral report regarding the background of the offender, the reasons for the offending, and the prospects of rehabilitation. These reports are by no means perfect but generally aim for a neutral perspective. “Cultural reports”, or their rebooted franchise of “Alcohol and Drug Reports”, aim to minimise the sentence, and just like section 27 “cultural reports”, will canvass alcohol and drug use as well as cultural and family background. Despite the new moniker of “Alcohol and Drug Report”, much of the focus remains on cultural factors which have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol.
The website of Harry Tam’s “H2R Research and Consulting Limited” openly admits this:
“With the recent defunding of s27 reports, our AoD reports also include insights into clients’ personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural backgrounds in their drug and alcohol assessments.”
Where these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” commissioned under legal aid, this is at best a calculated evasion of the new section 99(4)(ca) of the Legal Services Act 2011, which states:
“The Commissioner must decline… any claim to the extent to which it is for a disbursement incurred in relation to a report or statement (whether oral or written) of a person called by an offender under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002;”
Conclusion
Cultural reports are symptomatic of deep-rooted issues in our justice system – issues which are too extensive to cover in this post. It should come as no surprise that when the Government has attempted to weed out one of these issues, the weed has stubbornly regrown. It is now up to the Government to once again weed out the problem, this time hopefully by root and stem.
5 comments:
I'm so delighted to see that Harry Scam is still able to eke out a living from the public purse.
I understand that Elon Musk is now available to work on such nonsense - what a transparent crock.
Where are the sensible legal or Judicial people who can stop this ?
Let us look a wee bit closer to home on this, Elon Musk is probably busy. Minister Goldsmith carries the responsibility for this fairly and squarely within his bailiwick. Since said Minister moves with the pace and gait of a snail on anything remotely related to Maori grifting , unless it is a claim when he moves with the speed of light! Once again, we have a government dedicated to growth while the sink for our hard earned tax dollars remains unplugged. Yes Minister, please get off your arse and put the damned plug in, pronto!
And people wonder why our Justice System is a crock. Will it ever improve
As a law abider (non maori) I did not know about all these reports. Seems that instead of commenting in BV i coud have devoted my time raking in the money. And sadly I do not drink enough to be able to fantasise imaginitively in that field.
Post a Comment