Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2232] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall take a quick call on the title. At the end of the day New Zealand First will not be supporting any changes to the title. We do not see a need for that but I would like to put on the record a couple of things. During the debate on the bill a lot of comments have focused on the Government’s inability to provide a mechanism whereby legal aid services can be reviewed and what some people would term more appropriate levels of remuneration paid to lawyers who undertake legal aid work. 
That is interesting. Since we last debated the issue I have received some information in the mail and when I ponder those facts I find it strange that the National Party team of lawyers talks about the poor remuneration levels and lack of incentives for lawyers who engage in legal aid work these days. I point out that legal aid rates were increased by the New Zealand First - National coalition Government and by its Treasurer the Rt Hon Winston Peters in 1998. But in 1999 after National had tipped the coalition Government upside down fired Winston Peters and seized control with Tau Henare Tuku Morgan Jack Elder and Peter McCardle—the member Mr Bennett should listen to this—National lowered the legal aid rates. Why did not one honourable distinguished National Party spokesperson tell us that fact? We could have put on the record of the House the fact that National overturned New Zealand First’s initiative to raise the level of legal aid in 1999 but instead lowered it and did so at the same time that it cut the pension. Do members remember that? 
So it is kind of mean-spirited of those members to come into the Chamber and campaign about the inadequacies of a bill when their own party of people like Maurice Williamson Bill English and others all of whom sit here today cut the levels. Now they have the audacity to sit here and criticise the Labour Government. 
I go one step further and confirm what honourable members have been saying about the concern of a number of lawyers in the legal fraternity that it does not pay them to do legal aid work. In these days of MMP where we try to discuss things cross-party and make sensible balanced policies maybe the previous speaker Mr Hone Harawira hit on a point. If the legal fraternity has such high ideals perhaps we should assign people in the first second or maybe the fifth year of their practice to work on legal aid cases. Maybe it could be proposed that people who come out of university with massive debt might like to—after they have gained a few years’ experience and become somewhat competent—volunteer their time in the area of legal aid. I am waiting for the people who have argued the most for increasing the pay to put forward suggestions such as those. 
The National Party is quite right to express those concerns and New Zealand First acknowledges that. We acknowledge that we must ensure that justice is delivered to everyone across the board regardless of their socio-economic background and their access to good competent legal representation. The National Party is right to raise the issue and I think we all acknowledge that we must consciously move towards addressing it. We must ensure that those who most need legal aid support like people who are accused of doing something they did not do—indeed MPs get hundreds of those letters across their desk in their time here—are able to get that legal representation. But let us also remember that New Zealand First did do something positive and raised the level of legal aid payment but National in 1999—not Labour not New Zealand First not ACT not the Alliance not the Greens not the Maori Party not United Future—cut the level of legal aid payment. That should encourage some honourable members to stand up fess up own the problem and accept where the problem lies. It does not lie on this side of the Chamber.