Coroners Bill

, on behalf of the Associate Minister for Courts: I move, That the Coroners Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Coroners Bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act of 1988. The bill will enhance public confidence in the coronial system by improving the quality of coroners’ investigations and decision making, and by taking better account of the diverse needs of families. Coroners inquire into certain deaths, in order to uphold human rights. Coroners establish, so far as is possible, the causes and circumstances of death in cases of sudden or explained deaths, and of death in other special circumstances, such as where a person was in the care of the State. Balancing the needs of families with the need to understand the causes and circumstances of deaths can be difficult.

Although the Act included provisions to address cultural sensitivities, those provisions have sometimes not had their intended effect. The Law Commission became aware of the concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Māori on its review of succession law, and decided to undertake a separate project on the Act. Its report on the Act was tabled in August 2000. Many submitters to the Law Commission said that despite the high ability and sensitivity of many people involved in the coronial process, the current system was haphazard, patchy, unsystematic, and inadequate. That was partly due to having more than 70 coroners with different levels of qualifications and experience, and no training programmes. Coroners mostly work part-time, often in isolation, and have limited administrative support. The Law Commission highlighted a perception that the coronial system did not take enough account of cultural beliefs and values, especially those of Māori. There were also reports of some coronial practices being insensitive to the needs of families.

A review of the Act, based on the Law Commission’s recommendations, contained a number of objectives. Those included enhancing public confidence in the integrity and independence of the system, taking better account of families’ diverse cultural and spiritual needs, maintaining the need to understand the causes and circumstances of deaths in an accurate and a timely way, and promoting cooperation between coroners and other authorities also involved in the investigation of deaths. This bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. The key elements of the bill are establishing the office of Chief Coroner, moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners, ensuring families are notified at significant steps of the coronial process, introducing a specific regime for the retention and release of body parts and bodily samples, and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. I will now talk about those elements in greater detail.

The appointment of a chief coroner was the key recommendation of the Law Commission, and it has been widely supported. The chief coroner will help to manage workloads, improve coordination within the coronial process, provide support to coroners, and undertake a wider liaison role. There will be fewer coroners in the new system, but they will be well trained and work closely together to deliver a consistent, high-quality standard of practice. At present, most coroners deal with only a small number of cases a year. Moving to a system of largely full-time positions will enable coroners to develop greater expertise, and will improve the timeliness of inquests and the release of coronial findings. Full-time coroners will also have more time to undertake public education and develop closer relationships with other investigating authorities.

The definition of “immediate family” has been broadened in order to better take into account the diverse family relationships in New Zealand. The coroner will be required to notify the family of significant matters in the coronial process, such as the post-mortem examination, the opening of an inquiry, and the date, time, and location of an inquest. A family will be able to appoint a representative to liaise with the coroner on its behalf. With the coroner’s authorisation, the family may be able to view, touch, or remain near the body, although the coroner may impose some conditions, such as requiring a police officer to be present. In certain cases the family will be able to object to a post-mortem, and may also be able to have a doctor, registered nurse, or funeral director present at the post-mortem.

The current Act is silent about the retention of body parts. Under this bill, a coroner can authorise the retention of any body part or tissue that a pathologist considers to be necessary for a post-mortem, but for no other purpose without the consent of the family. The coroner will be required to inform the family about the reasons for, and the duration of, the retention of body parts. Families will be able to specify how retained body parts are to be dealt with when they are no longer required.

The bill includes new evidence provisions around inquiries and inquests. Coroners will be able to require people to provide specified information, to assist their inquiry. If necessary, a District Court judge will be able to issue a warrant for the police to search for that information. That will ensure that people cannot obstruct coroners by withholding information. Family members will continue to be able to attend inquests, and to ask questions about a death and the events leading up to it. The provisions allowing a coroner to prohibit information from being made public in the interests of justice, decency, or public order have been extended to include personal privacy. The restrictions on the publication of self-inflicted deaths have been retained. However, coroners may allow particulars about a self-inflicted death to be made public where that is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.

The provisions I have outlined today will make a major improvement in the coronial system. I would like to pay tribute to the many coroners who have served our communities over the years. Coroners deal with many of the saddest and most difficult aspects of death. I am confident that coroners appointed under the new Act will continue to show the dedication of their predecessors, and that the new Act will enhance public confidence in the coronial system. I commend the bill to the House.

Maybe the Minister for Courts can advise, by way of interjection, which select committee he is referring the bill to.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: The Justice and Electoral Committee.

Being the first Opposition speaker on this bill—my colleague Mrs Collins will be talking about a number of more technical matters associated with it—I want to draw to the House’s attention a matter associated with coronial services in New Zealand, and that is the critical shortage of forensic pathologists. There is a critical shortage of pathologists who undertake forensic pathology work and who deal with coronial work nationwide.

The Ministry of Justice has consulted widely on establishing a forensic pathology group in New Zealand, but nothing has happened from the Government. Earlier this year it was reported that a Budget initiative was being worked on, but the Budget this year was absolutely silent on any issue dealing with forensic pathology services.

Forensic pathologists are the people who conduct the quite in-depth autopsies that, for example, have been popularised by American television programmes, which predominantly are on TV3. The problem we are currently seeing in the system is a significant shortage of forensic pathologists in the country. There are retention and recruitment problems, remuneration problems, and an inability to attract overseas pathologists. Earlier this year there was no permanent forensic pathology coverage south of Auckland, and today only five, six, or seven forensic pathologists are available for the whole country. Currently, the coroner-directed pathology services in New Zealand are organised by the Ministry of Justice. It is vital that this Government moves to restore the capacity for forensic pathology in New Zealand. We need certainty in those services, to ensure that we have a competent criminal justice system and coronial service system in New Zealand. Unfortunately, I am sure there are no financial benefits in any move, but it is something that needs to be done.

I understand that the Government has been warned that public confidence in coronial services in New Zealand is at risk because of the shortage of forensic pathologists. Would the Minister like to confirm that? The Minister will not say anything, but I am 100 percent certain that the Government has been warned that public confidence in our coronial services is at risk because of the shortage of forensic pathologists.

I will look at some of those risks. The public must be confident that suspicious deaths and homicides can be adequately investigated by skilled staff. The police need to know, and coronial investigations may be severely compromised by the significant delays from not having enough forensic pathologists. There is a serious risk that the Government may have to contract in overseas pathologists, at tremendous cost, because of the shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand.

I do not think there is any doubt that New Zealand needs a coordinated and structured system, with good recruitment, retention, training, and quality standards, for forensic pathologists. Such a move would certainly assist the New Zealand Police to deal with those matters. So I say to the Government that passing the Coroners Bill is fine, but one of the fundamental jobs of coroners is to determine the nature of death, and to do that they need top-quality forensic pathologists. So it is urgent, in my view, that police and coronial investigations are supported by upgraded forensic pathology services in New Zealand.

When I first raised this matter in February this year, the Government dismissed my concerns on the basis that it was preparing a Budget bid. A Budget proposal reportedly had been put to the Government that would ensure there would be enough people and resources to keep it that way. Well, I have looked through the Budget documents and there was not one vote of additional money to address what has been described as a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand. At that time, a forensic pathologist in New Zealand said that the service was short of staff, the overall funding was deficient, and there was no allocation to train people properly. He said that until we know for sure that money is granted in the Budget, there is not much point in claiming things are fixed.

So the National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Coroners Bill. My colleague Mrs Collins, the National Party’s effective health spokesperson, will be spending some time looking at some of the more complex detail associated with this bill, and at the impact that some of the issues requiring cultural awareness may have on coroner services in New Zealand. But in this lead speech we want to highlight to the Government that there is no point in reforming coroner services alone when there is a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand.

We understand that the Government has been warned there are significant risks associated with this lack of capacity. Those risks are around public confidence that unexplained deaths and homicides can be appropriately investigated, and the police and coroners having a timely response in their investigations. There is also the risk of the cost of bringing in expensive overseas forensic pathologists to deal with deaths in New Zealand. This is a time when a Government that says there is not enough money for tax relief to reward hard-working New Zealanders should realise that there must be enough money to provide competent forensic pathology services in New Zealand.

I would like a Minister to take the next call on behalf of the Government to advise the House whether the Government has been warned of the critical shortage of forensic pathologists, and whether a Budget bid was put to the Government by the Ministry of Justice. We know that the bid must have been declined, because there was no mention of it in the Budget documents. We ask what is going to be done about that.

We know that the latest skills shortage list put out by the Immigration Service makes it clear that pathologists are on the list. The list came out on 13 December, and we are still trying to get some confirmation of further details on the numbers. However, it is clear that the Government’s skills shortage list, which came out on 13 December—very recently—is an admission that there is a shortage of pathologists. Frankly, I do not think the Government putting pathologists on a list of occupations that will be given priority in terms of immigration will fix the problem, which it was alerted to earlier this year. We know that a Budget bid was being prepared, but there is no mention of it in the official documents—

💬 Hon Annette King: This is tedious repetition.

It may be repetition to the Minister with the bouffant hairdo, but it is important the Government knows that this is an important issue.

This Minister of Health, who is happy to have women with breast cancer go to Australia for treatment because she cannot get the money, has a big problem. This woman Minister of Health is prepared to let women languish on cancer treatment waiting lists, then send them to Australia for treatment. What sort of caring woman Minister of Health is she? I wonder whether that is the reason she will not be the Minister of Health on Monday. The Government, which is dominated by women, is prepared to let other women languish on breast cancer treatment waiting lists—

💬 Hon Annette King: You wouldn’t know what you are talking about.

I tell the Minister to come and talk to the people in my electorate who were forced to go to Australia, forced to seek private treatment, because the Government would not address the issue.

I am alerting this Minister of Health—just for another 3 days—that there is a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in this country. She knows about it, and she should do something about it.

I ask both members involved to look at Speaker’s ruling 49/6.

A lot of bills have been dealt with under this urgency motion and, in the main, the debate has been polite and constructive, so I apologise for the contribution that has just come from Tony Ryall of the National Party. This is an important bill. It is about a very sensitive matter. It is about something that most of us do not like to consider, which is the death of family and loved ones.

My mother passed away just last month and, because her general practitioner was not in town, other services had to be involved at the time of her passing. The officers with whom I was required to communicate following my mother’s sudden passing were nothing but professional, kind, courteous, and considerate. Coroners play a huge role in assisting family members at a time that is most difficult for them.

This bill includes a provision for establishing the office of Chief Coroner. We will also move to having a smaller number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners, and special steps will be taken to ensure that families are notified of the significant stages that occur during the coronial process.

One of the other provisions will be that full-time coroners will have more time to undertake public education. I know, from attending various courses in my own area long before I came into Parliament, that coroners involve themselves in talking to groups involved in the community about their role, and about how they might best assist families and other people in the community at a difficult time such as the death of a family member.

This bill has been long awaited and I am confident it will go a long way to enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. I look forward to it passing through the select committee and being reported back to the House as it is a means of assisting the coronial officers themselves and the community at large.

The Labour member who spoke before me had no answer to the matters raised by the Hon Tony Ryall. The Labour Government has totally ignored the need for forensic pathologists in New Zealand. It has done absolutely nothing about it, despite protestations earlier this year, and it is very clear that it is embarrassed about the whole situation; hence the member’s failure to mention it even once in her response. The Minister of Health—for the time being—was prepared to interject furiously on Tony Ryall, but she was not prepared to take a call and give us an explanation for this deficiency that is so pertinent to coroners.

💬 Hon Annette King: It’s the Minister of Justice.

I would have thought that coroners and forensic pathologists—while they might be forensic, they are also pathologists—had something to do with the cutting up of people, which might involve a health aspect, as well. As far as these interjections are concerned, I say they are wonderful, but I hope the Minister will take a call at some stage rather than just interject in the debate on a bill that in a small way is yet another example of social engineering by the Labour Government.

As I read the explanatory note and worked my way through the bill, I was interested to see that once again there was a reference to the family. I decided to have a look at how the family was defined this time. The reference, of course, under clause 7 is to the “immediate family”, which is defined: “(a) means members of the dead person’s family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group, who—(i) were in a close relationship with the person; or (ii) had, in accordance with customs or traditions of the community of which the person was part, responsibility for, or an interest in, the person’s welfare and best interests;”—that is pretty wide—“and (b) to avoid doubt,”—which is clumsy drafting—“includes a person whose relationship to the dead person was, or was through, that of spouse or de facto partner (whether the partner and dead person were of the same sex or different sexes), child or step-child, brother or step-brother, sister or step-sister, parent or step-parent or guardian, or grandparent”.

The Labour Government cannot help but bring in the same-sex situation once again in legislation. Here we are on what is allegedly the last day of this Parliament—I am told there is a rumour going around that we might be back here next Tuesday, perhaps because of a failure on someone’s part to support urgency—Tuesday, 14 December in parliamentary time, pushing through yet another aspect of social engineering by this minority Labour Government.

What is so important about this legislation? Well, for example, when we look at clause 31, “Right in some cases to object to post-mortem”, we see that subclause (1) relates to a post-mortem on a body that a coroner proposes to direct. We can ask who can object to the post-mortem. Subclause (2) is a terribly wide subclause. It states: “Every member of the immediate family”—and I have just read out the definition of “immediate family”—“of the person who is, or of a person who is suspected to be, the dead person concerned has, in the situation specified in subsection (3), a right to object to the post-mortem.” What a wide-ranging group of people we have there. Even someone who might have had a short-term relationship with the deceased person will have the right to object to the post-mortem. In subclause (3)—

💬 Judith Collins: It could be the person who murdered them.

It could be the person who killed them; that is right. The person who murdered the deceased could have the right to object to the post-mortem. What sort of legislation is this?

Subclause (3) states: “The situation referred to in subsection (2) is that the coroner is, after having made all reasonable investigations, satisfied that,”—and various provisions are set out, including, of course, the provision that the coroner must comply with “New Zealand’s international legal obligations”.

So many United Nations conventions today are so airy-fairy that I pity the coroner trying to work his way through some international conventions. I can imagine that some of the many immigrants coming to New Zealand today, who may have certain requirements as to the way in which deceased people should be taken care of, etc., will raise a United Nations international convention that applies to some other, unusual part of the world, and the coroner will have to give recognition to that, necessarily, rather than to all the laws of New Zealand.

There could be the situation of a mum and dad whose son or daughter has died—a son or daughter who had left home shortly beforehand and who was living in a relationship which was a same-sex relationship—and we have the same-sex partner saying: “I’ve got rights to object to a post-mortem.” What are mum and dad going to say about that situation? Their dearly beloved child has died, and no matter how old the person is, he or she is still a child as far as parents are concerned; he or she is still 6 years old and just going off to school, which is something one always remembers. But in this situation there is some same-sex partner who can object to those parents having a post-mortem in what might be very unusual circumstances. That is what we get from this Labour Party.

That is what we also get from the United Future party, which obviously supports this bill. But it is not surprising that the United Future party supports something like this. I was listening to Gordon Copeland earlier this morning speaking on a tax bill, and he referred to what is going to be in the report of the Social Services Committee on the Charities Bill. That report has not been tabled in the House as yet, but Gordon Copeland was speaking on it earlier this morning. What is more, he has even issued a press statement on it. Murray Smith can smile but that report had not been tabled in the House as at 10.40 a.m., yet we have Gordon Copeland speaking on it and issuing press statements on it, and all that United Future member can do is smile. Gordon Copeland issued a press statement at 10.13 a.m. on something that has not been reported to the House.

Well, that is the United Future party. That is its standard on this particular legislation, which includes same-sex relationships, and it has issued a statement that is politically dishonest, at least, in commenting on a select committee report before it has even been tabled in the House. Needless to say, that matter will be considered elsewhere, as far as I am concerned.

What we should be doing, for example, is taking a closer look at things like the report the Business Roundtable released today on having more regard for family life—not the sort of thing that is in the bill. In the report, Patricia Morgan concludes that “using all of the standard indicators, the family is now in a worse state in New Zealand than almost anywhere else.” The report states that her book “reports a large body of research that finds that the traditional family—the married couple and their dependent children living together in their own home—is generally best for children, parents and society.” We would have thought that the Government might have learnt a lesson from what happened last week and before but, no, that type of situation still continues.

Here we are on Tuesday, 14 December, but some people might think it was Friday. We should have discussed this legislation last week. Instead, we are being forced to go through urgency on a bill that should be discussed at a better time when people normally expect Parliament to be on the air and when it is available to be visited as part of a trip to Wellington. But we are discussing this bill today, on a Friday, and we are delaying other bills. I am pleased to see that the Gambling Amendment Bill is up for discussion next. That bill could have been discussed last week rather than this week, but of course the Labour Government wanted to ram all these first readings through now rather than doing them at a more leisurely pace last week.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, but the public of New Zealand can be sure that we will be doing our very best to make sure that the murderer of a person has no right to object to a post-mortem that is a vital matter of evidence in a court case. That is something we would have expected a Minister to take into account when preparing such a bill, but obviously the Labour Government has no regard for law and order matters. New Zealand First will be making sure that these types of things are taken care of in the select committee. We support the bill going to the select committee, and we will be looking closely at it there.

I have had a quick look at the Coroners Bill and at the amendments it proposes to make in terms of how coroners operate today. The National Party is supporting the bill going to the select committee, but with some concerns. Some of these concerns have been noted by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall, particularly in relation to the fact that no matter what we do about coroners and their work, if we do not have enough pathologists a lot of what the coroners do is somewhat after the event or somewhat pie in the sky. We need the pathologists to give us the evidence that the coroners need.

One of my concerns is the move towards having just a few full-time coroners. One of the things I particularly like about the current system is that so many coroners work independently as lawyers, often in general practice, where a great deal of common sense is required.

💬 Stephen Franks: Independent.

We do not want coroners who have always been hugely independent, as Mr Franks has just noted, and outside of the establishment, to become part of yet another branch of the public service, with possibly the same sorts of constraints that some judges and tribunal members now find themselves working under. We do not want coroners losing their feeling of independence and their ability to say what they need to have happen so that they can come to the right decisions. I do have some concerns about that. It is certainly an issue the National Party members of the select committee will be taking up.

In addition, I note with some concern the wider definition of “immediate family” and family generally. Like Mr Jones, I have some concern about this particular provision. When I had a quick look through the bill, its background, and the Bills Digest, I noted that there seems to be a huge amount of political correctness coming into the coroners’ court. It is a concern when we in New Zealand are so desperate in our need to be multicultural that we actually forget that we have a culture ourselves—it is called the New Zealand culture—and that some of the reasons some other cultures had for various burial practices have actually passed. We no longer live in an age without refrigeration. We no longer live in an age when people cannot be embalmed. We do not have the sorts of constraints that many other cultures had when they set up their burial practices.

It seems to me that we should not, in our rush to embrace all cultures, forget the fact that the coroners’ court is there for a reason. It is primarily there to find the cause of death when the reason is not particularly obvious, or when a death is sudden and unexpected. So in relation to people who murder other people—and Mr Jones took up this point—the last thing that we want is a system that is so PC, where we bend so far over backwards to take into account every person who might ever be interested in someone’s death, that a murderer is able to prevent a post-mortem. That is a really big concern that we have. One of the reasons for that concern is that most people who are murdered are murdered by the person they were living with or someone they once lived with. Strangers very seldom go around murdering others. So I think we need to be very careful about that. I am sure it is something the select committee will look at and get further advice on.

💬 Stephen Franks: Come and help us.

Mr Franks wants me back on the Justice and Electoral Committee, but I am passionate about health, unlike the Minister, who is leaving the health portfolio on Monday.

Burial practices and deaths are something that particularly concern people. There is one thing that is certain—more certain than the fact that this Government will never come up with a decent tax policy—and that is that we will all die one day. I always come to this House thinking that every day is a wonderful day because it is a day I am not dead and it is a day I will be able to stand up for the ordinary, common-sense people of New Zealand. I certainly would not want to give anyone on the other side of the House any pleasure by dying early! Death is not a laughing matter, but we do tend to have a bit of humour about it because we all know that it will come to us.

It is important when we have unexplained deaths that we have a coronial system that takes into account people’s sensitivities but does not, and must not, bend over backwards so far that the truth is lost. I am not sure where the call for this bill has come from. But I see in the bill’s explanatory note that Māori had some concerns about coronial practices. The explanatory note states: “… while undertaking consultation with Māori for its review of succession law, the Law Commission became aware of concerns about coroners.” I am not quite aware of why we need a whole new bill and why any genuine concerns cannot be dealt with, without impinging on the coroners’ role, by way of practice notes or those sorts of matters. By putting through a bill like this we are having this whole area looked at again. In particular I am concerned about the cost of it, given that we do not have enough pathologists—so the whole thing could be a bit of a moot point.

We do not seem to be doing anything about getting more pathologists, and I am concerned that by making a coroner’s position a full-time job, we will lose the top people we currently have in the role. It will not be a hugely career-enhancing role, I would have thought, to become a full-time coroner. It might be something that some Labour MP who has been tossed out of Parliament and who once had a practising certificate would want to be. But the reality is that I do not think it will be a career-enhancing role. There will not be many people coming out of law school in their 20s saying “What I really want to be in life is a coroner”. Even someone who is successful in practice probably will not want to move into that particular role in their 30s or 40s. At the moment, the current system allows people who are very experienced, very good, and into common-sense solutions to be able to take on that role.

I am also concerned that it will be anticipated that the coroners will now operate in the smaller centres, as well. One of the reasons I am concerned about that is not that I do not want smaller centres to have the benefit of coroners, but that I know that one of the problems judges have at the moment is the way they are traipsing around the country trying to fulfil their particular roles in relation to all the different districts. The High Court judges have the same issue. Of course, one of the problems with trying to get good people into those jobs is that many people who have families and commitments in their own homes do not want to be traipsing around the country for weeks on end for these sorts of hearings. It is certainly one of the issues that coroners, or those who wish to become coroners, will take into account when they decide whether to take up positions.

So I have some concerns about the bill, and the National Party has some concerns, and we will be looking at those and teasing them out during the select committee process. Hopefully, we will be satisfied after some changes have been made.

Debate interrupted.