Parker David: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8351] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I would like to address two points. The first relates to coronial hearings. I think it is very wise that we extend the provision of legal aid in some situations to coronial hearings. As we saw in the case that led to this particular provision which was the murder of Karl Kuchenbecker by Graeme Burton the family of Karl Kuchenbecker desired to have representation at the coronial hearing. Of course they were up against the very well-funded actions of the State which was able to appear through the police and the Department of Corrections at that hearing with legal representation. 
It is not uncommon for coronial hearings to consider how the State has handled events and criticisms of the State can sometimes properly be made for its failure to comply with its own intended processes. The murder of Karl Kuchenbecker by Graeme Burton is one example of that. It became clear through that coronial hearing that mistakes had been made by the police and the Department of Corrections the effect of which was that Graeme Burton was still out on parole from earlier offences. He might not have been on parole—I might be wrong there; he might have been in breach of probation. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Both I think. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Both was it? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I think so. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was a breach of his parole conditions and a breach of his probation terms. As a consequence of the failures of arms of the State Graeme Burton was out in the community and in a position because he had his liberty to carry out the terrible crime that occurred when he killed Karl Kuchenbecker. 
It is very easy for us to think that in that situation the family of Karl Kuchenbecker could protect their interests. But in reality when one is up against the depth of the resources that the State has one needs to be able to be on an equal footing sometimes to protect the reputation of the loved one who has died and sometimes to point out and highlight the errors incurred by the State. It is very appropriate in my view that this legislation helps us to properly deal with the rare but terribly tragic situations where the State has made mistakes that have contributed to the death of an innocent person like Karl Kuchenbecker. That is not to say the State is ever primarily responsible for those events; actually the perpetrator of the crime is primarily responsible. I agree with this change. I have personal experience of some of the occasions when it is appropriate for this change to apply. I have no doubt that this is an appropriate amendment to help victims’ families in that regard. 
The second area that I also agree is appropriate but that worries me a bit more is the creation of a right to legal aid in respect of parole hearings. I agree that there are occasions when the victims of crime ought to be able to be legally represented at parole hearings. But I am also very conscious that in the last decade or two in New Zealand and indeed in many Western countries around the world we seem to have gone down the path of saying the answer to crime is to impose ever-longer custodial sentences. It is the path of saying we ought not to have parole and we ought not to trust the Parole Board to make wise decisions when trying to balance the various interests that are to be assessed when someone comes up for parole. 
At the heart of parole is the longstanding belief by New Zealand Governments whether of a National or Labour persuasion that it is better to have a parole-based criminal justice system where people can be released prior to the end of their sentence subject to conditions that make it less likely that they will reoffend once they are released on parole. The alternative is to have a system where there is no parole. The effect on overall sentences does not become much different in the end because the courts take into account the lack of parole when they set the sentence. An offender would get a shorter prison sentence if we did not have parole than he or she does when there is the possibility of parole. But the disadvantage of not having parole is that people can be released at the end of their sentence without conditions as they re-enter the community and that makes it more likely rather than less likely that they will reoffend after their penalty has been served. There is good scientifically verified evidence to that effect. 
Having said that I say no matter how long an offender has been in prison some people will never get over the upset that was caused by the terrible crime committed against them or a member of their family. It is perfectly understandable at a personal level that a victim of crime would feel that way but that is not to say the view of the victim should be the final determinant in respect of a Parole Board hearing. It worries me that we might be creating an expectation on the part of victims of crime who long after the criminal event still cannot leave it behind and cannot get over it. I am not intending to be critical of them; I understand the human dimension to this. But none the less there is another public interest that is at large which is not to waste money on unnecessarily long prison sentences and also to use the very proper mechanism of parole to ensure the proper reintegration of the criminal following sentence back into the community so as to minimise the risk of reoffending. I do not think that we should always cave in to the loudest cries of those who claim that it is always too soon to reintegrate an offender back into the community. 
So I would hope that through this debate and through the powers that the Minister of Justice has and the liaison he has with the Parole Board and with the legal aid authorities he will signal that these new powers to grant legal aid do not mean that legal aid should be granted for unlimited amounts or should necessarily be granted in all cases. There is now an eligibility to apply for legal aid but that does not mean to say it will on all occasions be granted. I think it is very appropriate that those discretions be maintained within the system; otherwise we will create an evermore litigious parole situation. The participants at the Parole Board already do a great service to New Zealand in very difficult circumstances and are easily criticised by those with 20/20 hindsight. The Parole Board has to carry out a very difficult task which could be made more difficult if we make the process overly litigious by always allowing the victims of crime to appear and restate their case time and time again. 
I think that is probably where I will end my contribution. But I would encourage the Minister when these new powers are conferred—and I am sure the Minister understands the subtleties here; I am not trying to be patronising—to use his wisdom to give those sorts of signals to both the legal aid authorities and the Parole Board so that we do not see the development of an overly litigious approach to parole.