Bennett David: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Bennett David: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2125] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This bill extends the criteria for people who can apply for legal aid but at the same time it does not adequately provide for an enhanced funding regime for legal practitioners. That is the problem National has seen in this bill because there is a crisis for legal aid practitioners. They are suffering from having low payment rates and high administration costs. The implication of this lower standard and lower level of representation falls on our most vulnerable people. 
New Zealand First has argued two things. First that National should specify the amount. That is simply not good law. The law needs to be flexible to recognise changes in the future. The answer is that we review the process and the legislation should contain a process. Secondly New Zealand First members say that National is trying to feather the nests of rich lawyers. That argument fails on two counts. First wealthy lawyers will not even do this work because legal aid returns are insufficient. Second historic cases set a precedent. 
The biggest historical case involved a member of this House and he is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. One of the greatest legal expenses ever paid by this Government to an individual was to the leader of New Zealand First. That is true. It was also for the benefit of Mr Mark and his party; they are still here in the Chamber because of the money the Government paid for legal services. Do members know what it was called? It was called the wine-box inquiry. Members remember the wine-box inquiry—it was money paid to New Zealand First to keep its members in this Chamber. The  
Press 
 in 1999 stated that $1.45 million was paid and $1.44 million of that was paid in legal fees to Mr Mark’s leader. Mr Peters was reported as saying it was a good investment. 
 I find it extremely rich and unconscionable for members of New Zealand First to deride National’s arguments. National has stood and argued for the interests of justice and that there needs to be a funded legal aid system. It is really rich and unconscionable for the likes of Mr Mark to argue against the availability of competitive legal services when his very position in Parliament is based on having Government funding for New Zealand First legal fees. It is rich and unconscionable for Mr Mark to argue against ordinary New Zealanders getting the level of representation that he enjoyed to keep him in this Parliament. It is rich and unconscionable for Mr Mark to make disparaging comments about National’s intentions when he himself was the beneficiary of Government money that keeps him in the Chamber. At the time of the wine-box inquiry Mr Mark and other members of New Zealand First were willing to put out their hands and take the best legal advice available. They were afraid to fight a case under-resourced; they wanted everything they could get. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Order! The member needs to come back to the bill. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: OK. Under section 92 we are arguing that there is not the level of representation because legal aid is not being funded. Why then is it good enough for New Zealand First members but not for ordinary New Zealanders to have an adequate level of representation? That is the key. Why is it good enough for them but not for ordinary New Zealanders who could be going to jail to get that adequate level of representation? That shows the double standard of that party—a party that takes with one hand and is not willing to give to the ordinary people. Those are the people that we are here to represent. We should be delivering for them not just keeping people in Parliament through legal costs.