Parker David: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2390] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill and to endorse the comments of earlier speakers. I do not think there is much disagreement as to the fundamental principles of this bill. This bill was developed in principle by the previous Labour-led Government it was supported by virtually every party in this House and I thank the National Government for advancing the legislation at this stage. 
I will mention just a couple of things. I too agree that particularly in respect of coronial hearings it is important that legal aid be available. I think that most members of Parliament and indeed many members of the population can see that this is just. 
I know this from my own experience. My brother-in-law was killed in a car accident. His wife—my sister—was left with two young children. The suggestion had been made before the coronial hearing that the accident was the fault of my deceased brother-in-law. That issue caused upset to his family including my sister. In order to have justice done to them they felt the need to attend the coronial hearing and put the record straight. It was only through their attendance at the coronial hearing that they were able to show that the driver of the truck in the accident had cannabis residue which had not been properly tested for by the police or the hospital authorities following the accident. That evidence left the suspicion that the accident was in fact caused by the truck driver rather than by my brother-in-law. 
That evidence would not have been able to be exposed were it not for my sister’s ability to access legal services at the coronial hearing. It so happened that because my sister is not a destitute person and because she had the advantage of my being associated with a legal firm she was able to have reasonable legal fees that were probably lower than market rates and she was able to afford to pay those. In her circumstances she was able to avail herself of legal representation and to put the record straight. But there are many people in New Zealand who cannot and that is why legal aid is necessary. 
 Indeed as in the situation of my sister even though she could afford legal representation it is quite often true—as Simon Bridges pointed out—that the fault of the State in some of these instances should be highlighted. It is proper that the State enables the victims of crime or their close family members in cases where someone has died as a consequence of crime to have access to legal representation in order for the actions of the State to be questioned. The proper questions need to be asked as to whether something should have happened differently and in order for injustices to be avoided. 
I will also say something in relation to parole hearings. We need to be a bit careful in this House that we do not create an expectation that a victim of crime can always and forever repeatedly—and at the cost of the Crown even if unreasonably—oppose parole. I am not suggesting that this bill allows that expectation but I think it is an important issue. We ought not fall into the trap of accepting the proposition that people ought never get parole that they can never be rehabilitated and that it is the right of the victim to determine that outcome. 
I do not say the bill does that and I acknowledge that victims of crime have a relevant role in parole. I am not saying they do not have a relevant role in parole but I think we need to take care that we do not create an expectation that the victim of a crime determines the outcome of the parole decision because of the terribly sad injustice that has been suffered by the victim. I am not denying that injustice; neither am I denying the effect crime has on a victim’s family. But the decision as to whether and when parole is appropriate ought not to be left only to the victim. Some victims would make a wise decision and might make the same decision as a parole hearing but some victims would not. Some victims and families of victims will never be able to accept that parole is appropriate. 
David Garrett 
: When do you think William Bell should be released? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not know when William Bell should be released. I do not deny the relevance of the victims’ viewpoint in parole hearings but I do not think that just because a victim says someone should not get parole that should be the end of the matter. 
Fiscal costs to the Crown are relevant. It costs a lot of money to keep people in prison. David Garrett will be able to correct me if I am wrong but I think the current figure is about $60000 per annum per person in prison. Obviously people do not want to incur that cost unnecessarily because if $60000 was being spent on measures to prevent crime or to prevent the criminal from committing another crime then that would be a better use of money than keeping someone in jail inappropriately. In addition to that there would be injustice for the person who was kept for too long a period in prison when he or she ought not to be there. 
David Garrett 
: What’s too long for Mr Bell? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well again I tell Mr Garrett who takes the view that the victim should effectively have the say on parole that we have judges in our justice system to make those difficult decisions. We have parole hearings in which those difficult decisions have to be made balancing all the interests. One of the interests we balance is the opinion of the victim but it is not the only interest. 
I do not want this Parliament in this debate to let that issue go unreferenced because I certainly do not think that we on this side of the House see this legislation as going to that extent. We believe that there is a role for parole. Although the victims’ statements are relevant they are not determinative of the outcome of the parole hearing and we must trust due process taking into account relevant factors to make the best overall decisions. 
Finally in respect of parole we know that without parole most people in prison eventually get out with less control placed on their post-release conduct than occurs under parole conditions. Parole is used around the world as a way to reduce recidivism because the control that can be exercised through parole conditions means that fewer people reoffend than if they were left in prison until the end of their sentence and were then released without control. 
The other point I agree on is that it is becoming increasingly necessary to have representation at coronial hearings because of the increasing sophistication of the way in which we live the way in which we can bring evidence to bear to ascertain the cause of death and the prevalence of the way in which we see agencies of the State. Again I am not criticising the agencies of the State for defending their position in respect of events but if we take the case of Karl Kuchenberger— 
David Garrett 
: Get his name right. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I say sorry to Mr Garrett. I apologise for that mispronunciation and I apologise to the family. If we take the case of Karl Kuchenbecker we can argue that it is correct to say that there were some very bad failures by organs of the State. Those organs of the State may have been less than quick to fess up to their mistakes in a way that would have been unfair to the deceased and to the family of the deceased. It is absolutely appropriate in that situation that the actions of the State are properly questioned by those people who are affected with legal representation that enables them to participate in the process meaningfully through their legal counsel when without legal representation their interests would be prejudiced. That is what this bill achieves. It achieves fairness for people in that situation and also fairness for the victims of crime.