Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2126] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Interesting. It is an interesting notion that this Committee should consider paying lawyers— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You would know that points of order should be put tersely. They do not start with “interesting” pause “interesting”. It is for the member if he has a point of order to raise the point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Mark has the call. 
RON MARK 
: Even more interesting is that that is the quality of legal representation the National Party is defending—a man who is so out in fairyland that he does not even know where the debate is and cannot tell that the member on his feet is not raising a point of order but has actually been awarded the call and that man stands up and dares to ask the nation to pay him $400 an hour to do legal aid work. At least that was the figure put up by his colleague Chester Borrows. That man wants to be paid more for legal aid services for the quality of his representation and he cannot even keep track of where the heck the debate is in the Committee. What sort of a legal representative would he be for the fine men and women of the Road Knights gang when they seek representation for their criminal activities? 
The claims that David Bennett has just made in this Chamber border on contempt and defamation and contain so much in the way of inaccuracies that I am sure of one thing: New Zealand First will go through his words in  
Hansard 
 with a fine-tooth comb and I have no doubt that if he dares to say those things outside this Chamber he will be seeking legal aid to defend himself against defamation. But of course that is the whole trick. What he would do is defend himself and hopefully get paid more than just his MP’s salary in which he has just had a massive increase—because not being satisfied with that huge leap in his income he now stands in this House and bays for more money for his professional services. We have seen an example of those services tonight and they can only be described in the most charitable terms as somewhat lacking. I have sat in the House and listened to the debate go far off the mark— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It took Ron Mark about a minute tonight to utter more than the word “interesting” which is quite unusual for someone of his oratory ability. That just shows that he was stunned. So comments like he is making now are inconsistent with the approach he is taking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: Again I ask: how deep does one have to dig the hole to prove to the nation on air how lacking one is in skills and ability to articulate one’s case and to justify what one seeks? If anything convinces me that there is a need to look at this issue a little more closely—and I do note that this bill extends the amount of legal aid or the opportunity for legal aid—it is that we are talking about 1.2 million people being eligible for legal aid. That is an increase of about 450000 or 500000 people. If we now add on top of the current legal aid bill the cost brought about by another 400000 people being eligible for legal aid and if we then compound on top of that the increases in fees that the honourable Chester Borrows is suggesting—$400 an hour—I come back to the same question. What cost this policy and how can one afford such a huge increase in the budget whilst one is at the same time espousing the need for tax breaks? 
Why should we expect the average New Zealander—the hard-working businessman or woman—who is out there grafting to pay these fees for the Road Knights the Epitaph Riders the Mongrel Mob or the Hells Angels who have been plaguing the streets of Wanganui and every other city peddling their evil through methamphetamine? Now learned scholars and competent lawyers such as the honourable Mr Finlayson here would probably have a good argument. It would be based on equality of justice for all no matter how big a scumbag that person is. Those arguments I can listen to. But the plain baying for money with incoherent arguments that simply do not actually flatter the person who makes the argument bear no weight for New Zealand First. I would much rather hear from National: how much money and over what period. Then we could get to the chase.