Coroners Bill

I move, That the Coroners Bill be now read a second time. The Coroners Bill reforms the coronial system to improve the quality, consistency, and timeliness of coroners’ investigations and decision making, and to take better account of the needs of families. The bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988. The Government introduced the Coroners Bill, firstly, to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system; secondly, to take better account of the diverse social, cultural, and spiritual needs of families; thirdly, to maintain the need to understand the causes and circumstances of death in a timely way; and, fourthly, to promote cooperation between coroners and other agencies also involved in the investigations of deaths.

I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its work on the bill. The committee dealt with some difficult issues, such as the retention of body parts and bodily samples, and the making public of the details of self-inflicted deaths. I want to highlight two areas in the bill that have received particular attention. The first is about the reporting of suicide deaths. The bill largely continues existing restrictions on the making public of details of deaths that appear to be suicide. Like the committee, the Government gave considerable thought to whether to continue the restrictions. Suicide affects all sectors of the community, regardless of age, economic status, or ethnicity. Youth suicide is clearly a tragic event and an area of legitimate concern for all New Zealanders. The most recent provisional suicide statistics published by the Ministry of Health reveal that, contrary to public perception, men between the ages of 25 and 44 years continue to have the highest age-specific suicide rate.

The reasons behind New Zealand’s suicide rates are complex. Possible explanations include the increasing rates of depression, alcohol and drug abuse, changes in the family structure, and the trends towards a more risk-taking society. What is clear is that suicide is a sensitive area for family members. Families struggling emotionally with a bereavement by suicide often feel stigmatised, shamed, and socially isolated by the death, as well. It is important that those families’ privacy be given due weight and consideration and not be trampled on by others seeking to sensationalise the tragedy for their own purposes.

Some people have suggested that removing the restrictions might improve public understanding of the issues and reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths. No evidence is offered for this, and it is contrary to overseas research. The Government supports the status quo until such time as health studies support a change. Studies show that the way the media report suicide can influence suicidal behaviour and increase the overall number of suicide deaths. The risk of imitative suicide means that we must take a more cautious approach.

The bill ensures that the coroner considers whether making details public is likely to have a detrimental effect on public safety. It also helps protect the privacy of deceased persons and their families. The bill is not about restricting freedom of the press. It does not prevent public discussion of the public health issue of suicide. It may restrict the publication of the particulars of a specific case, such as how the person died, but for good reasons: they are essentially private, family matters.

The second point I want to make is about the number of coroners. This bill is a major reform of the coronial system and is widely supported. Central to the new system will be a team of mostly full-time, legally qualified, and well-trained coroners, led by a chief coroner. Working full time means coroners can develop and maintain expertise much more easily than coroners who deal with only a few inquests each year. This means that coroners will not have to juggle coronial work with other work commitments, so cases are likely to be completed more quickly. It also means that coroners will be able to spend more time building relationships with communities and groups that have special cultural and spiritual requirements following a death.

Appointing full-time coroners means that fewer people will be required. At present there are about 60, mostly part-time, coroners, many of whom deal with a small number of cases each year. Although some coroners are nearing retirement, many current coroners could continue in office for years to come. Under the new Act, all existing positions will be disestablished. However, all legally qualified coroners will be able to apply for positions under the new Act. Some existing coroners may not wish to work full time, but may be happy to continue their involvement as relief coroners.

Suggestions were raised by National members of the committee that coroners rely on coronial work for income and they will be financially disadvantaged if they are not appointed under the new Act. Those members suggest that coroners should be paid compensation for the loss of office. The Government does not agree. Coroners are judicial officers with a limited and specialised jurisdiction. They are not judges of a superior court, and the bill does not undermine judicial independence in a manner that requires Parliament to compensate them for loss of office. Most coroners work part time, and, apart from two full-time coroners, coroners are paid fees set by regulation.

As an example, a coroner who receives a report of a death but decides not to hold an inquest is paid a fee of $80. A coroner who completes an inquest lasting less than 2 hours is paid $250. A coroner is paid at a rate of $100 per hour for an inquest lasting more than 2 hours. The fees I have listed account for most of a coroner’s role. Most coroners do not earn a significant income from coronial work, and those who do are well qualified to be considered for appointment under the new Act. The bill allows former coroners to continue in office to complete inquests and to deal with any deaths that have been reported to them. Coroners will be paid any fees due to them for the work they have done. The existing coronial system needs to be wound up so that we can put the new system in place. This bill will give us a much better coronial system.

I now want to mention briefly some of the valuable contributions the committee made towards improving the bill to be more responsive to families. The coronial process is distressing for people who have lost a close family member. We want to ensure that the coronial system responds to the needs of families, and also to ensure that the wider public can have confidence in an excellent coronial system. Some of the changes include: firstly, returning body parts and bodily samples to the family, only when specifically requested; secondly, ensuring coroners perform their duties without delay; thirdly, maintaining a register of coroners’ recommendations; and, fourthly, considering the location of family members, interested people, and witnesses when fixing the place for the inquest.

I am confident that this bill will enhance public confidence in the coronial system; improve the quality, consistency, and timeliness of coronial decision-making; and take better account of the cultural and spiritual needs of families. I commend the bill to the House.

With my colleagues Chris Finlayson and Nicky Wagner, I indicate that National supports the second reading of this bill, but the bill is not without controversy. I hope that the aspirations the previous speaker expressed in respect of this legislation in the form that it has been modified by the Justice and Electoral Committee will truly come to pass.

A coroner is either an officer of a special court—a medical officer—or an officer of law responsible for investigating deaths, particularly those happening under unusual circumstances. Many jurisdictions have the office of coroner or its equivalent; “medical examiner” is a frequent alternative title in the United States, as those who watch programmes such as CSI will know.

It is in the general interests of the community that any sudden, unnatural, or unexplained death should be investigated. To reflect this, the role of coroner has adapted over almost eight centuries since the office was formally established in 1194. The role has changed, of course, from being a form of medieval tax-gatherer to being an independent judicial officer charged with the investigation of sudden, violent, or unnatural death. The duties of the early coroners were varied, and they included the investigation of almost any aspect of medieval life that had the potential benefit of revenue for the Crown. So suicides, about which the previous speaker made mention, were investigated on the grounds that the goods and chattels of those found guilty of the crime of self-murder, as it was called—or, in the old Latin, felo de se—would then be forfeited to the Crown, as were wrecks of the sea or fires, and any discovery of buried treasure in the community. Dealing with treasure trove remains one of the coroner’s duties in the United Kingdom today.

Sudden death in the community has been considered important since the early days of the office, and it was also investigated by coroners, although for reasons far different from those of today, as I have indicated. The coronial system continued to adapt over the centuries, but in the 19th century major changes relating to the investigation of deaths in the community occurred. In 1836 the first births and deaths registration Act was passed. That legislation was prompted by public concern and panic caused by inaccurate, parochial recording of the actual numbers of deaths arising from epidemics such as cholera.

There was also a growing concern that given the easy and uncontrolled access to the numerous poisons, and the inadequate medical investigations into the actual cause of death, many homicides were going undetected. By then, of course, the fiscal responsibility of the coroners had diminished. The Coroners Act of 1887 made significant changes that repealed much of the earlier legislation, and the focus changed so that coroners were more concerned with determining the circumstances and the actual medical causes of sudden, violent, and unnatural deaths.

I would also like to say something about the events that led to this legislation. The current legislation is contained in the Coroners Act 1988. It is right to say that public dissatisfaction about the relationship between coroners and grieving families, and the need for better recognition of cultural and spiritual values in the coronial process, was a major impetus in the reforms proposed by the Law Commission. The issues raised by the Law Commission, unsurprisingly, occur in a range of cultures and religions. Those of us from Auckland who are members of Parliament would be very much aware of that issue. There is, of course, an inherent tension between, on the one hand, the family’s right to mourn and bury its deceased, and, on the other hand, the State’s obligation to ascertain the cause of death.

Conducting an internal post-mortem examination disturbs families and may well conflict with their cultural or religious practices. However, the reality is that the cause of death can often not be established without conducting a post-mortem examination. What we see in this bill—and, I think, successfully—is the striking of an appropriate balance between the cultural and spiritual needs of families, and the public good associated with understanding the causes and circumstances of death in an accurate and timely way.

I do not plan to traverse the detail of the bill and its significant highlights. Other speakers who follow me will talk to some of the issues that give us pause to reflect, such as the question of the reporting of suicides, the need for those who are appointed coroners to be professional, and, of course, the changes that have been made to the bill’s provisions relating to the taking and retention of bodily samples.

But I would like to deal with one issue that was rather brushed aside by the Minister—unfortunately, brushed aside, I would say. The issue that concerns National members relates to clause 132 and schedule 3. Two clauses in schedule 3 are relevant. Clause 2 of schedule 3 provides that on the old legislation expiring, “every former coroner vacates office”. So the existing coroners who have given good and faithful service to the people of New Zealand are to be removed from those positions. It is as harsh as that. Worse still, clause 3 of that schedule states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office”.

The previous speaker said that coroners are judicial officers. There might be an argument in that regard, and he was most unwise, in my view, to make that admission, because it is important to record that under the existing Coroners Act, coroners are appointed by the Governor-General by warrant. They have tenure. They have an ability to continue until reaching the age of 68. That was certainly the position until it was later modified to give them further tenure until the age of 72. Until 2004, when a change was made to the legislation, coroners had some very specific judicial rights and responsibilities. They had the powers, privileges, authorities, and immunities of a District Court Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

So the Minister would say—and I am happy to agree with him, on this particular point—that coroners were judicial officers and that they continued as judicial officers. We all know, as a matter of elementary law, that judges and judicial officers cannot simply be dumped from office. There are very clear provisions dealing with that issue in the Constitution Act. More significantly, and reflecting the protection given to judicial officers, coroners can be removed from office only for “inability or misbehaviour”. There is no suggestion in what the Minister has said that those coroners who have given good service are in some way unable or misbehaving. Instead, the Government, in clear breach of constitutional convention, is riding roughshod over coroners’ rights by denying them the tenure that the statute has given them.

The Ministry of Justice—wrongly, National would say—has taken the view that cancelling coroners’ warrants by statute is not unconstitutional. But even if that view is correct, real care needs to be taken to respect the constitutional provisions that have for their purpose the protection of the separation of powers doctrine. When I say that, I am talking about the fact that there are three elements in a democracy constituting that power structure—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. What is happening here is that Parliament is being asked to break down the ramparts in respect of the judicial function. That is wholly wrong. I conclude by saying that we do not doubt that a number of coroners would have made commitments on the basis of their security of tenure. That is now to be threatened by this bill.

It is with great pleasure that I commend the Coroners Bill to the House. The Coroners Bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988. In doing so, it enhances public confidence in the coronial system by improving the quality of coroners’ investigations and decision making, thus taking better account of the diverse needs of families. The Law Commission became aware of concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Māori for its review of succession law, and it wrote a separate report on the Act that was tabled in August 2000.

The bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. The key elements of the bill include establishing the office of the coroner—a chief coroner—moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time, legally qualified coroners; ensuring families are notified, and kept notified at significant steps, of the coronial process; introducing a regime for retention and release of body parts and bodily samples; and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes.

I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, who, I think, generally put politics aside and worked to give careful consideration to this bill, which was well-deserved. In saying that, I just have to make a little comment on the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, who has become the advocate for the workers in this case. This is quite ironic when he belongs to a party that advocates sacking at will in the first 3 months of employment and slashing workers’ rights and entitlements. I also thank the staff and advisers on the select committee, who worked so diligently to ensure that all the points made by submitters were addressed and carefully considered. I thank the submitters who submitted to the committee, often in very painful circumstances. I want to say in the House how important this contribution was in the consideration of this bill.

I thank the coroners who presented to the committee and also the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices of the Peace Associations. In doing that, I give recognition to the service of coroners under the current system and also the JPs who have made a major contribution as relief coroners over many years. This bill in no way denigrates their contribution but recognises that a professional coronial system with a team of full-time coroners will build on the current system and provide resources and support for those who work in the system in any way, and also for those who use the coronial system—including families and the public—who are often going through a period of intense grief. I am really proud to stand and commend this bill to the House.

Like the member for Waitakere, I too am pleased that this bill has now come back to the House for its second reading debate. As the report states, it was referred to the previous Justice and Electoral Committee on 14 December 2004. It comes back about 18 months later—an elephantine gestation period of the sort that bedevils so much legislation in this House. There must be ways in which, on non - party political but important matters of principle, this kind of legislation can get through the House rather quicker than this bill has.

I begin by congratulating the member for Waitakere on the way she chaired some very sensitive hearings. As she said, we had a number of submitters before us, and there were some very difficult issues that needed to be grappled with. I think the committee worked very well indeed.

It is an important debate and it raises some very important questions, some of which have been touched on by the Minister and some by my friend Dr Worth. As Dr Worth said, the office of coroner is an ancient one in the State; it goes back to medieval times. As he also said, the coronial court is a court of record, which is very important. He touched on the reasons for that in his speech, and I will say something about it myself.

The Coroners Act 1988 was well overdue for reform. As the member for Waitakere said, the regime that operated under that Act has now been replaced by a regime of full-time coroners and gone are the days where, for example, justices of the peace would act as acting coroners. I join with the member for Waitakere in acknowledging the huge contribution to the process of justice by justices of the peace over the years. I know of one justice of the peace in Wellington—a good friend of mine—who was required to be an acting coroner, normally at the most inconvenient times. With no pay whatsoever, she was always available when the police contacted her about untimely deaths, and she did an excellent job. The service by Mrs Bernadine Pool of Wellington as an acting coroner has been reflected across the country by the service of numerous justices of the peace.

The Minister outlined key changes introduced in this bill. I really want to touch on three. The first concerns the need for expeditious hearings. I am pleased that the committee saw fit to include what appears in the bill as clause 4A, which is a statement of principle, but it also emphasises to coroners the need for them to conduct their functions, powers, and duties without delay. The committee received a number of submissions that addressed the length of time it sometimes takes to deal with coronial hearings and, as we heard from the people making submissions to the committee, that can place huge stress on the families of deceased people. It is in the interests of justice, of finality, and of the families of the deceased that a coronial inquiry be conducted as quickly as possible. As the clause notes—and I will say a bit more about it in the Committee stage of the debate—the primary consideration must, of course, be that of justice. Coroners obviously cannot be permitted to cut corners in order to reach a quick result, and it must also be practicable to conduct an inquiry without undue delay.

The second issue that the Minister touched on, which is a very important issue, concerns clauses 61 to 63 and the restrictions on the making public of details of self-inflicted deaths. The committee’s report states that we found this a difficult task. We debated it at length. We were very lucky to receive some excellent submissions. I have to say to the House that this issue has troubled me greatly over the past few weeks; indeed, it is the most difficult issue that I have had to deal with in the short time I have been in Parliament. I think it is in the interests of New Zealand that there be a proper debate in the House on this issue, both in the course of this reading and in the Committee stage of the bill, because—as is obvious—suicide, and particularly youth suicide, is a major health issue.

Clause 61 substantially re-enacts what was in the 1988 Act. It is very broad indeed and it applies even before the matter comes before the coroner. I refer members to subclause (1). In the case of a suspected suicide, the media may not state—even in a news item—how the person died unless they have the authority of a coroner, and I really do grapple with the issue of whether it is in the public interest that we have such a protective provision.

On the one hand, we had very powerful submissions from, for example, the New Zealand Press Council, and I will quote what it said because it is very important. The council was concerned with the issue of freedom of expression and said that issue was at the very heart of its submissions: “The Council is strongly of the view that the present statutory provisions inhibiting publication of information and discussion of self-inflicted deaths with no proposed change in the bill are against the public interest. Whatever the reasons in the past for the restriction, they have now been overtaken by the wish of the public to be informed and to discuss the major health issue of suicide, particularly for the young.” The submission was prepared by the Press Council under the chairmanship of Sir John Jeffries, for whom I have enormous respect, and it was presented by Justice Paterson, for whom I also have great respect.

The key issue is that the print media recognises suicide as a grave social issue. The Press Council described it as one of urgent public interest, but it had to confront what it called the “impenetrable thicket” of the current Coroners Act restrictions. The council acknowledged that editors need to continue the utmost responsibility to readers while exercising freedom of the press. It stated that reports of suicide should be tempered by awareness of the language used and by the way articles are used and treated, and, where possible, reports should be accompanied by information about where help is to be found. The council stated that the best way of dealing with this is to reinforce self-regulation in the press rather than to rely on restrictive statutory prohibitions. In concluding its submission, the council stated that the press has a crucial role to play in any public debate about suicide, and its causes and effects. It subscribes to the philosophy of the Canadian Suicide Information and Education Collection centre, which is that suicide affects us all and that we should talk about it.

The contrary argument is comprehensively covered in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report, and I will not repeat it here. As I have said, I and, I believe, other members of the committee found this a very difficult issue. I acknowledge the importance of freedom of the press and the force of what the committee said in its report. Indeed, since the bill came back to the House I have been making inquiries of people who have had a suicide in their family. One particularly sad case involved friends of mine whose son committed suicide. The mother told me she favours liberalisation of reporting. She thinks that the issue does need to be addressed by the public of New Zealand. So I hope that over the next few weeks as we look at this bill, we will debate it in a manner that befits the hugely important topic we are dealing with.

Finally, Dr Worth has already covered the issue of transitional arrangements, so I will be brief. I have a problem, as other National members do, about the transitional arrangements. The Minister said that most coroners are not really full-time coroners. The reality is that many coroners in this country who are lawyers have given up their practices to concentrate on coronial work. I refer, for example, to Garry Evans, a noted defamation and workers’ compensation lawyer in Wellington for many years in the firm of O’Regan Arndt Peters and Evans. I know for a fact that although he is not a full-time coroner, in effect his old practice has gone because he has needed to concentrate on coronial work.

We in the National Party are concerned about those people if these transitional arrangements apply, because they would cease to operate as coroners and would be cut loose. I would have thought that, after years of doing coronial work, they would not get back into full-time practice easily. So the constitutionality is something we will discuss during the Committee stage. I know the Government obtained an opinion from Crown Law. The coroners, in fact, obtained an opinion from the former Deputy Solicitor-General Mary Scholtens QC, and I happen to prefer her opinion because I think it is correct.

Those are the three issues I wish to address in the second reading debate, but particularly I wish to focus on the issue of suicide. I have had grave difficulty grappling with the policy issues involved there. From my point of view, it is a very finely balanced debate. So I will spend some more time thinking about it before the Committee stage, and I hope that other members will as well.

I, like previous speakers, rise to support the Coroners Bill, although I do so on behalf of the Green Party. We support the bill because it is a good piece of legislation. When the bill was introduced into the House, I spoke in the first reading debate about the many positive aspects of it. The process of the bill going through the Justice and Electoral Committee, where all the political parties worked in a very cooperative and constructive manner, has strengthened the bill and made it better. It is a good example of how this House can, at times, grapple with important issues. It is not the hottest topic on the political agenda but it is extremely important to those who are affected, because these issues are enormously sensitive. So the bill is a very good example of how members of this House can work together on these important issues.

There have been numerous criticisms of coroners in the past. Some coroners have worked extremely well, and some, I think it is fair to say, have been lacking. We heard some of those issues raised at the select committee, and members will have heard about them out among the public, as well. During the select committee hearings I became more convinced that the bill was important, was needed, and was an effective way to address a number of those problems. In particular, establishing coroners as a professional body whose members are primarily full-time, and that has a proper structure and oversight, means that many of the problems that have been identified in the past can be tidied up. There is some possibility of making a formal complaint and addressing problems that exist.

One of things the bill does is start to rectify some of the power imbalance that has existed in the past. Clause 30, “Criteria for decision whether to direct post-mortem”, is important stuff. For the family of a deceased person, the idea that their loved one will go through a post-mortem is quite a traumatic prospect. So there have to be very clear guidelines around the basis of the decision as to whether a post-mortem will happen. It is good to see those things laid out like that in the bill, as well as there being the right to object to a post-mortem.

I regret that one of the issues I would have liked to see addressed at the select committee was not picked up, and that was in relation to who may attend the post-mortem. Clause 36(1)(d) talks about, among a number of other people, “a doctor, nurse, or funeral director attending as the representative of the family of the person …”. Although it is good to have that provision there, one of my concerns is that it does not necessarily pick up all the people who may have a good reason to attend the post-mortem. In particular, I think about people who may represent the family, and are not a registered doctor, a nurse, or a funeral director, but who are versed in issues around dead bodies. I understand that in Māori culture there are people whose specialist knowledge is in dealing with the deceased. I know that is true in other cultures as well, and I would have liked to see the select committee recognise that through some explicit mention in the bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but those people are still covered in paragraph (h): “any other person, if authorised …”. So although there is no specific mention of those people, there is still some provision for that to occur.

A couple of issues in the recommendations of the committee are particularly worth highlighting. One of them is around the issue of body parts and bodily samples. Committee members heard from people who talked about the very real sensitivities around bodily samples, as opposed to body parts. We all understand what body parts will be. Bodily samples are minute samples. Often a thin sliver of tissue is taken for some kind of analysis, and it may be held for some time. The committee heard that, sometimes, returning those very small samples—less than matchbox size—to families some time after they have buried their family member can be enormously distressful and can be a real issue for people.

There may be quite important public health reasons for retaining some of those samples for further analysis. Of course, in those kinds of circumstances the family must always retain the right to have that sample returned, but it seemed to the committee that there was value in making a distinction between body parts and bodily samples. Body parts will always be returned to the family unless the coroner directs that they should be retained for a very specific purpose, and very clear parameters as to what that purpose can be are set out in the bill. Bodily samples are somewhat different because of the reasons I have mentioned. The family can always request that they be returned, but we thought it was useful to make a distinction between how those were treated in the legislation, and that has been done in clause 43.

The issue of the reporting of self-inflicted deaths has been mentioned at some length by Mr Finlayson. It was something that exercised the minds of committee members to some degree and for some time. It is a sensitive issue, and we heard fairly strong submissions from media representatives in particular about the public interest in the reporting of suicide. I think there is a good case to be made in that we have an extremely high suicide rate in this country, and I think there is good argument to say we need a more informed and deeper public debate around those issues. The committee took that issue very seriously, but we had to balance it against other considerations. In particular, there are the sensitivities of families who are already going through a highly traumatic time. The details of the self-inflicted death of a family member being splashed in the media in some way is something that none of us would want to see done gratuitously.

Another issue, of course, is the risk of increasing suicide. Although a bit of work still needs to be done on some of the evidence, the select committee was presented with reasonably strong evidence that the reporting of suicides can in some circumstances increase the incidence of suicide. It can lead to copycat methodology, which does not necessarily increase the number of suicides but may increase the number of a certain type of suicide. There is some evidence that the net amount of suicide can also be affected by media reporting. Nobody would want that to be a consequence of a decision made by the House. The select committee considered those matters very carefully.

When one works through the issues one sees that the bill strikes a reasonable balance. Only very restricted reporting is allowed before an inquiry has been completed, and the bill provides that once the coroner has found a death to be self-inflicted, no person may, without the coroner’s authority, make public the particulars of the death, other than the person’s name, address, and occupation, and the fact that the death has been found to be self-inflicted. That is highly restrictive, but the coroner may give authority for publication of other details. The only ground on which the coroner may do so is that the making public of particulars of that kind would be unlikely to be detrimental to public safety. That is quite a good provision, because if there is evidence that certain kinds of information are not likely to be harmful to the public good, then the coroner can authorise the publication of that information. Because of the way the provision is worded, the coroner can also take into account family sensitivity. That is important. The information can be published but only if it is not likely to be detrimental.

The committee, having grappled with the issue at some length—and I share many of Mr Finlayson’s concerns around it—stuck with the bill pretty much as it was drafted. That is not a bad place to end up. When we think of the issue of text bullying, we see an excellent example of the leeway the media already have to report the issue of suicide. The media played a very responsible role and engaged in that debate in an informative and responsible manner, within the confines of the current legislation. That indicated to the committee that even under current restrictions there is some leeway to have that public debate, and that has to be the purpose of allowing media reporting. It seemed that maybe the kinds of changes the media were asking for were not necessarily vital in order to allow that public debate to take place.

New Zealand First will be supporting the progress of the bill through the House. I have to say that one of the reasons why legislation takes so long to be passed is that people spend so much time talking about things they have already agreed to, so I will not repeat the mistake by dragging this speech out any longer than I have to, but simply indicate—

💬 Bob Clarkson: You weren’t there.

No, that is right. Dail Jones was on the Justice and Electoral Committee previously, and after its winding up and the report back to the House there was a new committee. I was not on that committee, and anyone who can read knows that.

I simply say that the speeches given thus far have pretty much canvassed the entire issue, and it is good to know there are people with a degree of expertise in the matter who are able to speak in the House in respect of coroners and the legislation.

I say to the honourable Chris Finlayson that if the gentleman he knows is as confident, capable, and dedicated to the work as he suggested in his speech to the House, we would assume from our seats that he would be a likely contender to be appointed as a full-time coroner. So where is the problem? Indeed, where, then, does there lie a need for compensation? If such a gentleman were to be confirmed as a full-time employee, why would he need compensation?

💬 Christopher Finlayson: What if he’s not?

Well, there are plenty of casual workers out there who get no compensation whatsoever, and we are still waiting to see someone in the House pick up on the plight of the casual worker, who may get only 20 hours this week, 39.5 hours next week, and no hours the week after. I do not see a lot of heartbreak in the Labour Party camp about such an issue, and I do not expect to see it on the National side, because it is not an issue that it would—

💬 Bob Clarkson: Come on!

“Come on!” says Mr Clarkson, the member for Tauranga for one term. Is he telling me that no friends of his employ casual workers in their businesses, and that he does not know of workers who might get 5 hours one week and 20 hours the next week, and not be able to get a mortgage because they have no surety of income? In fact, these professionals who take on part-time work as coroners are in a far better position to protect themselves and their future than a casual cleaner who comes in to clean Mr Clarkson’s office at 2 o’clock in the morning, while Mr Clarkson is safely tucked up in bed snoring his head off, one would think.

When the bill came to Parliament, New Zealand First expressed some concerns about it, particularly the lack of uniformity amongst coroners, the varying experience levels, and the lack of leadership. The bill seems to take care of those issues. There is formalised training and ongoing employment on a full-time basis, which we supported. We also supported the concept that legislation should take into account spiritual and cultural beliefs, be they Māori, Indian, or whatever. Surely we are in an age where those issues should be taken into account. Clearly, the committee has done that work, and it is reflected in the legislation, and we applaud that.

Some of the opposing views were that 54 mostly part-time coroners in New Zealand would have to step down without compensation, and that was something we noted when the bill was first introduced—and I think Dail Jones spoke on that matter. There are concerns about how the changes will affect small communities in rural areas, with longer travelling distances to coroner hearings. I have not heard that mentioned here, but obviously the committee dealt with those issues.

We also raised our concern about the clause dealing with immediate family and how widely that was defined. We note in the report back that the definition has been expanded further to include civil union partners. I guess one of the concerns we had when it comes to clause 31 is the right of some family members to object to the post-mortem of a deceased person. We expressed a concern that in a case where a close family member who fitted within this very loose, broad description of a family member was in actual fact a suspect in the death of the deceased person, through that clause that person would have an ability to prevent a post-mortem taking place. We signalled that that was an area of concern.

I guess our final area of concern, which has already been discussed by a number of members in their speeches, is the issue of making public details of self-inflicted deaths. We in New Zealand First do not believe that such a move would have been wise, and it is good to see that no such changes were made.

My final comment relates to body parts and bodily samples. Again, it is good to see that finally we have in place clearly defined protocols, procedures, and rights and obligations, because it was the lack of such that led to Green Lane Hospital’s discovery of babies’ body parts. Being the father of a child who died in a cot death, I can tell members that the decision-making process is actually taken right out of parents’ hands. We saw our own wee baby girl taken away, and we knew there was going to be a post-mortem. That was a very difficult thing to come to terms with, as grieving parents. To subsequently find out that there was now doubt as to whether we had received our daughter back completely intact was, let me assure members, an exceedingly distressing moment in our lives. Although we found that Tracey had not been in any way affected like that, our hearts went out to the thousands of parents who received the worst possible news—that they had received their infant baby’s body back minus pieces, without any knowledge whatsoever that that had been the case.

It is pleasing to know that in this day and age in Parliament we have people who sit on select committees and work across party lines, and who do the work to ensure that the protocols, rights, responsibilities, and obligations are clearly defined in respect of such matters, as they have been in this bill. I commend the committee for its work.

New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill and looks forward to further debate during the Committee stage around some of the issues that were raised by Mr Finlayson in respect of compensation.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā tātou te Whare. Last Sunday marked 6 years since the tragic, unnecessary, and preventable death of Steven Wallace. He was shot and killed by a police officer at Waitara on 30 April 2000. It also marked the point 1 year ago when Chief High Court Judge, Justice Anthony Randerson, ruled to the effect that coroner Gordon Mātenga could restart the much delayed inquest into Steven’s death. This inquest was originally scheduled to start on 21 May 2001. I can imagine the trauma for that family having to wait for so long and not being able to put their son to rest properly because bureaucracy kept him entwined in this world.

With that background in mind, therefore, the Māori Party was poised to see how this new Coroners Bill would advance Māori interests for the benefit of the nation. The aim of the bill, to reform the coronial system to improve its effectiveness and to ensure that the system responds better to the needs of bereaved families, including their cultural and spiritual needs, is somewhere along the track. In some ways we were a bit disappointed that the law commissioners who presented a discussion paper recommending a whole heap of things that would address the inadequacies of the current system were not, I believe, given the consideration that they should have been.

We are still concerned about some things, such as the reduction in the number of coroners to 20, which means it is highly likely that those positions will be regionalised. At a time of death families are often very traumatised, and one has a coroner only if one is in a traumatic situation. So to have to have a coroner whom the family may not know, who lives in another town—and therefore the family will not have the opportunity to have somebody who is advocating for them who is able to ring the coroner as someone whom they know—will, I think, create some difficulties for people who are in that situation.

We hope that when these people are appointed, our people will be able to have some input into the appointment of these coroners. We have only two Māori coroners at present. We believe that if Māori are not going to play a part as coroners, then it is very important that these coroners have cultural competency. We know, from our experience where I come from, how much power the police have in advising coroners to carry out post-mortems or to do whatever is required. We have had some very tragic situations. I listened to Ron, and I mihi to him for the loss of his daughter.

We had a niece from our marae who lost her child to cot death, but the police decided that she must have shaken her baby. I had to go to the hospital to support her while the police were interrogating her as she held her baby in her arms. They took her child and said that it had to have a forensic pathologist’s report. Without the family knowing, the baby’s eyes were removed and flown to Auckland. We as a whānau had to wait for those eyes to be returned to Wanganui to be put back with the child so we could carry on with the tangihanga, and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the child had been shaken at all. That is what I mean when I say the police have a huge amount of power, and we have seen it on more than one occasion at home.

We as a party have talked about tikanga Māori being incorporated into the whole proceedings, and I know there has been a lot of talk about people being present at post-mortems. Of course, there has been an agreement that only certain people will be admitted. I think that is an issue for the whānau. Although I agree that the circumstances and what happens during post-mortem can be very, very distressing, I still believe that families should have the right to determine who represents them during the post-mortem process. We know how important it is to our families when somebody dies. It does not matter what the circumstances are; but in our culture it is most important that the tūpāpaku is not left alone. The way in which the process has worked to date, where families have not been able to access their loved ones to be able to carry out karakia and to do all those things that are really important, creates trauma for families.

We are saying that with this legislation we hope we will see a huge change in the attitudes not only of coroners but also of police. We also hope that this legislation will be sent to every police station throughout the country so that the police can make sure these issues are addressed—and addressed in a culturally appropriate way. I think Ron is right. It does not matter what the culture is; these issues impact on all cultures. We all have different values, and we have different ways of expressing our culture. Those should be taken into consideration.

Last week I had a very sad young woman come to my office to tell me that she had lost a daughter more than a year ago and that before Christmas, almost a year later, the body parts that had been taken at the time of her daughter’s death were returned to her and her family. It was quite devastating for the family, because they did not know what to do with them. They were traumatised further by that experience. I think it is really important that coroners do notify whānau if a post-mortem is required and if the removal of body parts is required. Whānau should be informed of absolutely everything during that procedure. If we want people to cooperate, and if we want them to believe that all these things are being done in their best interests, then I would expect that they be fully informed. Also, they need to know that if they want to they can challenge the right to a post-mortem in the High Court. They need a good lawyer and they need to know what their rights are in a situation like that.

We look forward to seeing this bill come to fruition. We also look forward to seeing who the coroners will be, and we expect that Māori people particularly will be able to have a say on who the coroner in their region will be. Nā reira, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

I want to take just a brief call in support of this bill. I will begin by drawing on the very graphic examples that the member who preceded me has just presented to the House, as compelling evidence of why change is necessary. I think it is worth recalling for the House, at the risk of sounding like an aged veteran, that this current Act was passed in 1988, around the time that we were first coming to grips with the so-called “unfortunate experiment” in Auckland, that the items Mr Mark referred to about the routine storing of babies’ parts at Green Lane Hospital were not public knowledge, that there was a climate that really did not see the cultural issues that have been identified in this debate as being all that significant, and that the air of mystery that surrounded the process was still one that said that this was best left to doctors and coroners, and people who know about those things, and that families ought to be left out in the cold.

That was only 18 years ago, and things have moved a huge way in that time. Technology has changed. DNA sampling, which then was just a concept people mused about, is now a reality. So many horrific “unfortunate experiments” have been revealed, that there is a new mood in the community for a far greater assertion of the rights of the family and those close to the deceased person, in terms of the way in which that person is treated through post-mortems and other such examinations. So it is timely that this bill picks up contemporary trends, and legislates in a way that recognises the concerns that are being expressed. I suspect that if one looked at the record from 18 years ago, when this measure was last debated, one would not see too much concern expressed about how long the process took. The view then would have been as long as we got a decision at some point. That is a measure of how much things have moved in the meantime.

I think that this bill is a positive step forward. I take the comment made earlier by a previous speaker about the elephantine progress of legislation. This Act may well be one that is kept under far more constant review than once every couple of decades, because I think that social attitudes, technology, and other things will change very rapidly.

The second comment I want to make relates to the reporting of self-inflicted death or suicide. I am one who traditionally has held the view that the greater the degree of openness in these matters, the better. Over the years I have worked with a number of suicide prevention groups and other groups, and I have to say that my view has changed somewhat. I think that there is a very real danger—and a lot of the evidence would support this—of creating a situation where the worthy presentation of information about the risks in the situations people get up to actually creates a copycat syndrome. I think we have to be very, very careful about that. I respect immensely the legal mind and intellectual capacity of Sir John Jeffries, and I would be very heavily guided, in the normal course of events, by submissions that he might make. I believe that the submissions he prepared on behalf of the Press Council were well intentioned and noble, and that a man of his integrity would ensure that if the provision were liberalised, the law would be applied in that way.

But I do not have the same confidence with regard to the news media as a whole. I become somewhat anxious when the leading charge for change in this area, in the interests of making the public better informed and more aware, comes from our New Zealand news media. Because my view of them, frankly, in these matters is that the lurid and the sensational win out over the public interest every time. For that reason I think that the position recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I agree it is a close-run thing, is actually the correct one until we do not have a situation where the New Zealand media will treat getting the last sensational detail as a competitive advantage. I do not think, in the interests of our young people in particular, that we can afford to make the reporting of these circumstances more open than it is at the moment.

Finally, I want to make a comment about both Mr Mark’s speech and Ms Turia’s speech. Although I have experienced death at close hand, I have not had the experience of post-mortems. But I have talked to a number of people who clearly have been through that trauma. I think that anything that can be done, firstly, to give the family in those situations more information about what is going on and why; secondly, to assure them of dignity, courtesy, and respect in a process that is timely and considered; and thirdly, to be able to give some confidence that the system is actually undertaking these examinations for a purpose, not just because that is what it always does, has to be an advantage.

I believe that the coronial system has served New Zealand well to date. I take my hat off to people such as the Wellington Coroner who I think has been an outstanding coroner, and I sincerely hope we do not lose his services as a result of this new legislation. But I think that this bill, on the whole, is a step forward, and it deserves to be passed into law at the earliest opportunity.

I rise to take a very quick call on this bill. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee has done a wonderful job and got the bill back in a very balanced format. I used to work in a hospital in liaison with coroners, undertakers, and funeral directors on a daily basis, and I drafted a member’s bill when I first came into Government in 2000. I would like to thank our Ministers of this Government who picked that up and turned it into a Government bill, following on from the Law Commission report.

This is a wonderful bill. It is needed. It is desperately needed by coroners around the country. They have been asking for support for the role of the office of the coroner, and also for cultural supporters to walk beside them. Coroners in the past were not appointed but were asked to consider undertaking the role. My husband, who was asked by Tūariki Delamere, said: “Thank you, but no thank you.”, even when he knew that Māori people really needed Māori coroners. But at that time one used the resources of one’s own office entirely. One had no resources that went with the role of the coroner and no support whatsoever in terms of a network of coronial support.

In this bill there is a chief coroner and cultural advisers to the office of the coroner, and I think that that is the support coroners have been screaming out for, as well as for well-resourced positions. This position does have financial implications and I am really thrilled that the Government has picked that point up. Around the country coroners have been waiting for this bill. At every coroner’s conference they have been asking the Minister when this bill would come in.

I look forward to the next stage of this bill. One other issue that I think is very important is the reporting of the findings of death—not just suicide, but the findings of death—and linking that in to death review teams around the country. By looking at coroners’ findings on those deaths we will certainly start to have an impact on suicide and unintended death in this country, and that will help many people.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.