Coroners Amendment Bill

It is with some disappointment that I see we have reached this stage of the debate with some of the more substantial parts not being able to be included at this point in the discussion because, in all of this, some of the amendments in the clauses that are left for debate are still contingent, of course, on the coroners’ reports carrying some weight. So if this bill in its entirety—whether it be the discussion that we have had about narrowing down what a coroner reports on, down to the different jurisdictions that some of the subparts set out, and deaths to be reported and post-mortems as they are set out in the final schedules—is set out so that we can have an efficiently run system where there is a clear jurisdiction for coroners, surely it all leads to nought if there is actually no requirement for us to do anything off the back of a coroner’s report. In all of this debate around the jurisdiction of coroners, the difference between whether or not they are resuming or adjourning an inquiry, and the role of pathologists versus coroners, surely all of that just becomes a debate of fancy if, at the end of the day, what a coroner produces as a report holds no weight—absolutely none.

So my frustration with us being at a point where we are debating consequential amendments, and some of them as they relate to the Burial and Cremation Act, Search and Surveillance Act, Visiting Forces Act—all of that, still, is a debate around the detail, when, actually, the coroners themselves are producing reports at great expense to the taxpayer that hold no weight. We had an opportunity here in this debate to give just a little bit more clout to those reports. We had the opportunity for those recommendations not to be enforced, not to be compulsory, but to at least trigger a response.

I would have thought that the families who are involved in these situations and who find themselves in a tragedy, be it via an aviation accident—and we had a lot of those people come before the select committee and talk about the deaths in the agricultural sector, in agricultural aviation, right through to the families who came and talked about the tragic deaths related to the hot air balloon accident north of Wellington. In all of those cases those families surely would want to see at least a requirement from those companies, Crown entities, and Crown organisations that are involved to at least look and respond to a coroner’s report.

So my argument, as we reach the conclusion of debating the consequential amendments—the schedule of this bill—is that, actually, it all becomes just trivia if we cannot at least conclude as a Parliament that what a coroner says matters; that what a coroner concludes is worth that investment from the taxpayer and is worth the submissions that those family members and organisations produce with the time that it takes. Because here we have debated at great length: “Oh, when shall we have an inquiry; when shall we have an inquest? We have got to save some time and some money.” Well, what are we saving time and money for? Apparently so people can do a full inquest when it is required, so that we can then ignore everything that they say.

The final response that I would like to make, then, in relation to all of those subsequent amendments and schedules is that the debate becomes pointless if we do not have some requirement on those affected organisations to at least respond. That is a point that I want to underline in this final, concluding debate in this House.

We bring in these amendment bills because there is something wrong, something missing, we have thought of something, or times haves changed from when the original legislation was put in place. This is an Act that Labour introduced 10 years ago, and times do change. But the test of a good bill, in my view, is whether it has improved the situation, does it make it better for New Zealanders, and does it do a favour to society? When I look at this, I do not think it would. So when we call this an amendment bill, it is actually a bill that is going backwards.

I firmly believe that the coroner has a very important role to play in our society. Coroners are independent—we know that; they are experts in their field. What this bill actually does is to narrow the scope of what they are allowed to do and the recommendations that they are allowed to bring in. So why would we bring in, or legislate for, recommendations that do not actually strengthen the role of a very important part of our society; which, in a way, almost weaken it, or—as Ms Ardern highlighted—actually take power away from an independent body? I do not think there is anything in this bill that has actually amended the legislation in a way that has added—well, there are parts that have—to the Coroners Act 2006, but it has actually taken away from the ability of coroners to act in a manner that, I think, society has come to expect from them.

We do know that coroners can be overloaded—there is no doubt about that—but now it is no longer mandatory for coroners to hold an inquest into deaths that occur in official custody. I would have thought that that is a vital part of the independence of our system. We have a professional body of men and women who have the abilities and the skills to undertake the sorts of inquests that I think New Zealanders have come to demand, and now, after 10 years, expect. This bill has not taken us forward; it has taken us backwards.

As of 1 July—which is only 2 weeks away—this is going to come into play, and I think that New Zealand is going to be the worse off for it, to be honest. There is not too much more I can say with regard to this, except to sum up what the other speakers have concluded: the fact that this should actually be non-contentious legislation. The role of the coroners in society should be something that all parties in this House agree upon in a bipartisan way, because it is such an important part of our system. The fact that we do not agree on it—that there are divisions across the House in something that should not be contentious—shows a flaw in this piece of legislation, I think.

I think what should have happened with this is it should have stayed with the Justice and Electoral Committee until it could actually gain consensus, or it should have been withdrawn and gone back to a process that allowed consensus to be developed. When we start undermining pillars of our community like the coroner, or undermining the powers of the coroner, then you have got to ask where it stops. I just think that the independence of someone like the coroner is important, because what they have done in the past—and this amendment bill strips away a lot of it—is to provide recommendations in a way that others cannot. What they have also done, I believe, is to add a level of legitimacy to a process that has often needed that in place.

As we know, they cover all manner of issues and deaths, and all manner of incidents; it is really a one-stop shop, I suppose. We cannot have the police do this—we cannot have the police investigating deaths in custody. We know that we can have inquiries of different natures, but I just think that it was a very good backstop. It was a very important part of society, and the checks and balances in place allowed things to function in a way that New Zealanders had come to expect. This is a pretty poor substitute for that. I have taken Jacinda Ardern’s lead on this; she has done a very good job in presenting the case. Unfortunately, we are not going to win in this, and I just do not think it is a great result. I suspect we are going to see this legislation back in the House in 2018, with the powers of the coroner returned to how they were before this bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I arise to make a brief contribution on this particular part. As my colleague Mr Nash—

💬 Stuart Nash: Learned.

—my learned colleague; I apologise—takes the lead from Jacinda Ardern, our other learned colleague, I like to take my lead from the Hon Phil Goff, who has seen much legislation pass through this House and would have been here when the bill was introduced. He also, I thought, gave a very good speech on his amendment, one that acknowledged the families, and the tragedy that sadly met Mr Tamatea and the others in military action, serving our country. He was approached by the people. So when I consider this particular bill, I think about the people in cases like this. I think about whether this particular amended bill will meet the needs of the people.

We heard harrowing submissions from the people around some of the processes that have taken place in the past, and it seems that far too often we are in the House here debating bills that really only tinker around the edges. They do not actually get stuck in and make some meaningful changes. Although it might propose some good things, we would like to see more good things in this particular bill. That is what we wanted to see. I believe that the amendments that were, sadly, voted down in this Committee would have really given this bill some teeth. I will say this: we had come very, very close. Jacinda Ardern, in leading the Labour Party on this issue, came very, very close to supporting this bill. Sadly, once again the Government has given us a Coke Zero or a Diet Coke when what we are actually looking for is the full-bodied Coke—something that will actually give the coroner’s office the power to do what the public expects it to do.

Coroners do a great job, and I want to thank them in this contribution, but I will say this—I will say this: the hard work that they do is not being recognised by this bill. It really is not. They have produced great bodies of work in the past. This side of the House, in particular, has taken health and safety in the workplace very seriously. In my contribution earlier on this bill I talked about the tragic and sad and horrible record of the forestry industry. We on this side of the Chamber would have liked to see the recommendations from the coroner actually carry some weight, so that people across Aotearoa New Zealand would see that we are empowering the coroner to make sure that these kinds of tragedies are not revisited.

This is an instance where, once again, we are tinkering around the edges, exemplified by the number of amendments put up by our side of the Chamber, by the Labour Party, that I thought would have actually really given this particular amendment bill some punch. In closing, the Coroners Amendment Bill perhaps should have been the “Coroners Tinker Around the Edges, Not Quite Hit the Mark Bill”.

💬 Stuart Nash: The “Disempowerment Bill”.

The “Disempowerment Bill”. I agree with the comments made by my colleague here, Mr Nash, that there is a good chance we are going to be back here some time in the future. I have had a discussion with a current serving coroner who expressed to me his dismay that the bill did not quite get across the line. For those who are actually dealing with the people, those who are doing the work, it does not give them the capacity to make sure that the office stands with a solid reputation moving into the future. Thank you.