Coroners Bill

As we come to the closing of the Committee stage of this debate, I think it is worthwhile noting two things. Firstly, I want to be utterly fair to the Minister Rick Barker, who has exercised a financial veto in respect of the Finlayson amendment, under Chapter 6 of the Standing Orders, and to give him an opportunity to recant if he wants to. He made it very clear. He said the effect of the Government’s position in respect of clause 3 of schedule 3 is that ex gratia - type payments were not ruled out. I think it is important to record that, because clause 3 states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner …”. The Minister made the point that there should be a focus on the word “entitlement”, but that the clause did not rule out the payment of compensation in appropriate cases. I put it that way to give him an opportunity to back off if he wants to.

The second issue I seek to identify is that, but for National, it is highly probable that this legislation would not have been advanced. Why do I say that? Because there has been absolutely no contribution, apart from the comments of the Minister, from Government members. I reflect on the fact that not so long ago the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee was Tim Barnett, rather than the present chairperson. He would have been in this Chamber making a contribution. I say that if it is fair enough that Martin Gallagher, the chairman of the Law and Order Committee, is here, then we should also have the opportunity to hear comments from the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Lynne Pillay. It is a shame we have not had a contribution from that member. If I speculate why that is, I think we all understand that it is simply because she is not up to the task.

The Coroners Bill is important legislation, and National has sought to emphasise that at every point. We really have only one position of violent disagreement with the Government, which is the issue of the tenure of coronial office and the appropriateness of compensation payments.

Probably the most controversial issue the select committee had to grapple with was suicide reporting. I simply say that New Zealand’s print media increasingly regard the issue of suicide as one of urgent public interest and a major public health problem. Media representatives have said, when talking about the benefits of publicity, that blaming the messenger for causing or worsening the problem, whose basic causes must be sought elsewhere, fails to recognise the important and cleansing nature of the blaze of publicity being focused on the darker side of New Zealand life.

The select committee grappled with this issue. The relevant clause is clause 61. Clause 61 remains in place, with discretions vested in the coroner to do what he or she thinks is right. I express the hope, against the background of the urgings from the Commonwealth Press Union and the New Zealand Press Council that it is time the issue was seriously considered, that if there is to be greater publicity, there should be some guidelines offered on this very tricky issue of suicide reporting.

I offer further comment on the issue and say, first of all, that suicide should be reported when such reports are in the public interest. Media professionals have an obligation to avoid the distribution of material that is likely to incite or encourage self-harm or suicidal behaviour. I also say that media professionals are under a clear obligation to exercise care not to trivialise, romanticise, or glorify suicide, particularly in media that target young people or that are likely to be available to them.

I want to pick up on a couple of comments made by the previous speaker, Richard Worth, who is normally a very thorough and accurate person. It is an extremely rare case that one can pick up Dr Worth for being wrong on a point of substance. It is very rare. He is a very learned colleague, he debates constructively and favourably in the House, and his being wrong is an unusual situation. But we heard an example of it tonight when he made an observation that the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee had not participated in this debate. He said that she had not.

I suggest the member checks the Hansard record, because I recall sitting in this very chair and listening to Lynne Pillay making a contribution earlier on in the Committee stage. I can only assume Dr Worth was asleep or in deep conversation with a colleague, and failed to admit it, or was somewhere else; I am not sure. But I want to say that he was very unfair to Lynne Pillay. I do not want to be ungenerous to Dr Worth; I think he could have been mistaken. It is unusual for him to make a mistake like that.

The second point I want to come back to is that I was challenged earlier about the fees for coroners. I want National Party members to get hold of the bench and brace themselves for this. This is what the Government has done, after 9 long years of neglect by National of coronial fees, when it did nothing for coroners. The previous fee for deciding, after receiving a report of a death, not to make further inquiries was $40; the new fee is $80. For completing an inquest lasting less than 2 hours, the previous fee was $250; the new fee is $400. Those are substantial increases.

The other point that should be made to Dr Worth is that we do not have an employee-employer relationship with coroners. That is the first point that needs to be made. It is a very clear point. When he looks to consider these positions in terms of normal industrial law, he has the wrong basis for doing so. But I also say to Dr Worth that when one reads the legislation one sees that schedule 3 is very clear.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Clause 3.

Clause 3. I made it very clear to him.

The other point I want to make briefly before concluding is in response to Anne Tolley’s comments about the East Coast and other places. The whole principle of change for this bill is to ensure we have, as a previous National Party speaker said, national standards that apply across the country. We want the highest level of professionalism possible in coronial services. I have seen quite considerable variation across the country, and I think everybody in New Zealand should be entitled to the finest coronial services possible. That is the purpose of this legislation. When the transition is going through, members can be assured that we will be very mindful of those particular issues in terms of the location of coroners. I have every confidence the chief coroner will ensure that we have excellent coronial services throughout New Zealand.

I am also equally sure that when we look back on this legislation in 10 or 20 years’ time, people will say it is good legislation. I have no doubt about that. It will move coronial services forward, and all the issues that were raised by Dr Worth about coronial databases and accurate information will be there, as well. I think Parliament has done itself proud with this legislation, and I thank everybody who has participated in the debate.

There were two issues at stake tonight, and the Minister was the only person from Labour who responded to them, which is proof, if proof be needed, that the gene pool in Labour has seriously deteriorated. This would never have happened under Geoffrey Palmer. Instead we have a Minister of Justice who grew organic vegetables, and, on the basis of his answers to questions today, some would say he has become one. We have an Attorney-General who is a history teacher. The Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, is a trade unionist, and the Associate Minister is a clerk.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is clearly inappropriate for the Minister of Justice to stand in the middle of the Chamber and converse with members during Mr Finlayson’s speech.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Of course, it would be a matter of decorum. I would not want to offend the dignity of the Chamber. I happened to be conversing with a member when Mr Finlayson got up and attempted humour, but I do apologise for any offence.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.