Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2039] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I guess that speech just about sums up why we do not need to be listening to calls to pay lawyers more. If that was a speech delivered by a man who has practised law who has to read everything out word for word who has to pre-prepare and who is not able to come to this Chamber listen to a debate formulate his own views and articulate them clearly and succinctly without having to write one note down on a piece of paper then we are in dire straits out there in the legal fraternity for we do not have good quality lawyers. 
Mr Chairperson you may be noting that I am not speaking from notes. All I have in front of me is a blank page right now. Let us go one step further to take the next argument that has been touted by ex-lawyer after ex-lawyer no doubt to be followed by ex-lawyer after ex-lawyer. The one thing they want is— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is the member not supposed to address part of the legislation? We have heard nothing like that at this stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you. I am sure the member will come to that. He is just making a few comments. He is working his way into it. 
RON MARK 
: I am simply replying—and here again it reinforces the substandard we seem to have dropped to in the legal fraternity. If the man cannot understand the Standing Orders which give a speaker the right of reply to comments that have been made in the previous speech then he is a loser from day one and will continue to be until he reads the Standing Orders. 
The debate from the National Party team has been structured around fair compensation for lawyers who take up legal aid work. I repeat what I said in the report back: those members should help New Zealand First members make up their minds whether to listen to them. Those members from National should tell New Zealand First how much they want lawyers to be paid per hour per day per week and per year for doing legal work so that that can be factored into the Budget so that we can decide whether the amount can be afforded on a national scale and so that we can put a price tag firmly on what National is saying today. I do not mind people arguing for more money for lawyers. I could listen to that all day just as I will hear people arguing for more money for rehabilitation schemes. But pray tell me—how much more dost thou speak of? I cannot make a decision on a “gimme me more please” plea. 
I simply say to the former lawyers now acting as members of Parliament and particularly to the previous speaker Mr Bennett that they should come to the House prepared. They should act like good lawyers. They should represent their cases well and articulate them well. They should do so without writing notes and—please—without reading their notes to us. If Mr Bennett wants to do that he should table his speeches and spare us all the agony. We will read them in our own time. I ask those members who come here and support this bill to do so with good reasoned arguments and not to ask the House to give lawyers more money until they are prepared to say how much more they want so that we can be very clear about what they are asking for.