independent    adjudication    can    be    delivered    in    new    and    different    ways    without interference with fundamental integrity. Finally,  in  all  of  this  there  are  the  problems  associated  with  the  cost  of  going  to  law.   For  general  middle-class  New  Zealanders  the  legal  system  is  off-bounds.  I  know  the same  to  be  true  here  also.    Those  who  can  get  legal  aid  are  mostly  well  served  by dedicated  women  and  men.    But  the  Law  Commission  in  New  Zealand  for  example frequently found that people with their hands on the levers in the Court system would say that a case involving less than $50,000 is not worth litigating.  But, like the woman who challenged me over the $7000, what have we got wrong that an amount which is about double the annual income of the average New Zealander is too insignificant to be able to involve the third arm of government in providing resolution. Reducing costs for participants in the court system was probably the major issue for lay submitters to our review of courts, and the number of lay people who made submissions was unprecedented.  It was an issue we had to confront.  We concluded that costs can only  be  permanently  and  significantly r educed  by  an  ongoing  and  united  focus  by government,  the  judiciary  and  the  profession  on  the  kind  of  measures  I  have  already discussed - those that promote easily accessible and streamlined processes both in and out of court.    Well, what possibilities are available?  First and foremost I think that in all proceedings we need a change of culture so that the starting point is  - what is the optimum outcome for each client?  What is the way forward in respect of people who are going to have a future, and some times a relationship future, beyond the courthouse and its adjudication?