Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, it gives me pleasure to speak. This is one of those bills that, when it is looked at in its entirety, it makes sense—that when a death occurs all cultural sensitivity be applied—but I think it’s very important that we understand just why this is not always such a straightforward process. Of course, the main role of the coroner when there is a death, and the main role of the involvement of the authorities—inevitably, the police—is to ensure, essentially, that there has been no foul play, to ensure that the coroner can be satisfied as to what the cause of death is. So, of course, if the death is in any way suspicious, then it is extremely important that all those facts be established, and, of course, what we don’t want to do—can’t afford to do—is lose any evidence if in fact the death is suspicious.

That is where the conflict often arises, because you have those representing authority—as I say, normally the police—in the event that there is not a certificate as to cause of death. I can say that every police officer who attends one of these deaths—the wonderful news that a doctor will issue a certificate as to cause, thus meaning that there is no longer a requirement for the involvement of police, other than for logistics until the funeral director takes over. But, in many cases, that’s not the case. The cause of death is unknown, and it behoves the police in particular to ensure, firstly, that death has occurred. It may seem rather obvious, in many cases, but it is still necessary to get a certificate as to the cause of death and then, of course, to start the procedure of a police 47, which, essentially, goes through the circumstances of a death to report back to the coroner so the coroner, with some confidence, can actually make a determination of what the cause of death actually was.

My own experience has been particularly where there’s been a death, where there’s a lot of emotion involved, family, particularly a lot of whānau, and, of course, the expectation and the inclination is to actually begin the process of grieving there and then. This is where, actually, we do get to the nub of this bill. I have to say, over my years as a police officer, we did get much better at this, in recognising the cultural dimension and the absolute necessity to take into account the cultural requirements, but, as I say, achieving that balance while at the same time ensuring that we can, with authority, know what actually caused that death.

I give the example—just some cases I was involved in myself—of having been called to a case where a naked body was found in a river in the Wairarapa. It looked extremely suspicious, looked like there could be no logical explanation for it, until we were able to recreate what had actually happened, which was that a gentleman and his two children were actually crossing a stream when they were hit by a flash flood, and the force of the flood was such that it actually removed their clothing. So it was only through good investigation in that case that we were actually able to establish that there were no suspicious circumstances from what, on the surface of it—in that case the family obviously were very keen to get quick access to the body, and it was quite a disturbing event having to keep them away until we established that.

So I won’t go further other than to ensure that people do understand that while cultural sensitivity is an absolute necessity, and as this bill says, the purpose of the bill is to strengthen the Act’s focus on cultural considerations, amending section 26 of the Act to provide an explicit requirement that coroners must consider tikanga Māori with the expectations of other cultures and their spiritual beliefs when determining who can view, touch, or remain with or near a body—balancing that with the need to ensure that the death and true cause of death can be established, unhindered and that vital evidence is not lost at the scene. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This legislation before us is another step in reforming the coronial system, and National supports this next iteration in making the coronial services to New Zealand more humane. The speaker who has just resumed his seat, Greg O’Connor, very ably pointed out the need for coroners to have good access to the circumstances surrounding a death so that they can determine the cause of death, but balance that with the increasing understanding that the families of the deceased also have needs that need to be met.

I’m very mindful of a piece of work that this Parliament dealt with—with your indulgence, Mr Assistant Speaker—maybe three or four years ago under the Coroners Amendment Bill. In the Justice Committee, which I chaired at the time, we heard submissions and a very powerful submission from the family of a young person who died in a ballooning tragedy in the Wairarapa, and about the anguish of that family who submitted to our committee. There will be members in the House who will recall the anguish of that family at knowing their very loved child was lying in the field, but with no access to that child. It prevented them from ever finding peace and closure, because once the body of that child was released to them, it was too late for them to physically say goodbye.

Just as that anguish was expressed to us and catered for in the Coroners Amendment Bill—probably in about 2015-16, maybe—so does this bill before us today acknowledge access and management of tūpāpaku and how very important that is in tikanga Māori, and I hope I do justice to this. But that was an aspect of the coronial amendment bill back several years ago that we were mindful of, and it’s so good to see it being singled out as an issue that is now going to be legislated for. I do hope that in the future, it brings peace and comfort to those families who are dealing with the very dreadful situation of having a coronial inquiry and a police involvement in a bereavement. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’ll rise and take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. I remember when this bill came through the New Zealand First caucus, and I want to acknowledge both the speakers before me, Jacqui Dean and Greg O’Connor, and the sensible and real contribution that we’re making here. This is a very serious issue. And I do think that my colleague Greg O’Connor outlined very carefully and very clearly why it is that coroners need to have our loved ones with them at some times, and why we can’t be with them, so that, if we need to make sure that justice can be served, we have all that is required to make sure that in those circumstances where—and Mr O’Connor outlined a situation where there was no foul play—there is foul play, the coroner has been given the opportunity, along with the police, to make sure that they have what they need to, at times, hold others to account.

But I do think that this is just a move forward. I remember the conversation inside my own caucus, because this has been particularly raised, I suppose, in a New Zealand context. Often we talk about whānau and we talk about tikanga Māori and so on and so forth, but in my own family—which is a combination of Māori and Pākehā in this country—we also bring our dead home. We don’t leave them alone. There is this very short period of time. They should never be on their own until the time when they are going to the final place of their resting.

So for myself, I guess, when I look at the words inside the legislation we’re looking at that says “and the expectations of other cultures”, I hope that, because of the colour of my skin, somebody doesn’t assume that I don’t have a culture also, and that it doesn’t also mean mine. I suppose, even if I was to go back six generations to my Irish and Scottish ancestors, they too had wakes—they too did not leave their dead alone. So I think this is just a move as a nation that we’re taking that we can do what we need to do with an enormous amount of respect for the loved ones of the individual with whom we must take some certain actions. Again, it is because there is the need for justice downstream more often than not, but we can do it with a kindness and with a realism that there are people that are grieving and that there is real loss, and do it by explaining what is the situation that is going through, and, at the earliest possible time, we will make sure that their loved ones will be reunited with them.

So, with that said, there is nothing more to say. I think that across the House we agree that this is a good thing that we are doing. It’s a moving-forward for our nation. I appreciate that the coroners have been doing this, really, without legislation in the majority of cases, and that this is just really formalising what we hope to see normalised across New Zealand going forward. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I think it is very important to start with the understanding that we should respect everyone’s culture. And if there are any challenges and there are any loopholes, they should be fixed as soon as possible.

This bill is an outcome from the 51st Parliament’s inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee, which recommended eight things to the Government, out of which, I think, six have been taken as part of this bill, and I hope that this will satisfy the cultural aspect where there was a lacking point. It makes sense to update the coroners legislation to improve cultural considerations. As has been mentioned by all the previous speakers today, it is very important. Even the police have got their role to play, but we should respect the cultural aspect of everybody in this country.

The Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill implements a recommendation from the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament to improve the cultural consideration in the coronial system. It results from the committee’s inquiry into whānau access to the management of tūpāpaku—the body of the dead person. The Māori Affairs Committee of the 52nd Parliament in its report issued on 10 October 2018 commends the work of the previous Māori Affairs Committee that led to this change in legislation. It recommends that the bill may be passed without amendment.

It is important that we take care of the issues which have been raised. As we know, 31,000 people die each year, most of which are the result of a natural cause. However, 20 percent of the deaths are referred to the coroner for investigation. Most of the issues discussed in the report regard the access to the management of tūpāpakus during and after this referral process.

When considering whether to conduct a post-mortem, the coroner must have regard to the criteria set out in section 32. This includes whether the cultural beliefs require the tūpāpaku to be made available as soon as possible after the death, or where post-mortems are considered offensive. As the Hon Tracey Martin mentioned, culturally there are requirements sometimes where the deceased person is to be brought back to the family so that the body can be with their loved ones and they can take care of the body. So I think it is important that we should take care of the cultural aspect, and this bill does the same, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and, especially on behalf of the Green Party, to celebrate the work that’s been done by our previous co-leader, Metiria Turei, who advocated for the inquiry of the Māori Affairs Committee that eventually led to this bill and was carried forward, again, as she sat on the Māori Affairs Committee this term—Marama Davidson, as well. I congratulate the Minister the Hon Andrew Little for carrying forward some of the recommendations of that inquiry, which included a review of the coronial services and practices, as well as police and the justice system, to include not only tikanga Māori but, of course, in this bill, as we’ve seen reflected, also the cultural practices of all cultures.

As we know, sudden death—the kind of death that leads to an inquiry by the coroner—can be the most traumatic loss to family and whānau. At that moment, to be denied the appropriate cultural processes and grieving can not only be traumatic but make a situation that’s probably the worst that that family is going to face far more traumatic, unnecessarily traumatic. Not only that, we see this bill as being part of our nation’s way of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding constitutional document, which I think we’ve all come to a point of acknowledging can’t kind of just be settled but has to be honoured in a way that’s ongoing, which includes our inclusion of tikanga Māori in all policy areas in an ongoing way. So it’s important to advocate for those practices to be not only acknowledged but actively included and to form the basis of law and policy, especially in this really important area.

We know that the recommendations of the inquiry went beyond this, and so I hope that this standardised way of incorporating tikanga will go beyond this and will be incorporated in other areas of our justice system, in particular where there’s been a death like this—a sudden death. But for today, we do celebrate that the work of that inquiry not only has come to fruition but also now forms the basis of this law that will actually standardise coroners’ practices, that have included tikanga in the past but will ensure that they will do so, will ensure that family members can stay with the remains of their loved ones, can mourn and can conduct other types of bereavement practices as we move towards being a nation that not only honours the Treaty of Waitangi but is actively a multicultural society. So I do commend the bill to the House.

Tōku mihi e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[My greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, all around this House, greetings to you all.]

I’m privileged to stand to speak in the second reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill, because as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, it was our committee that created the impetus for this bill through its 2016 report Inquiry into whānau access to and management of tūpāpaku, which was instigated by the honourable Metiria Turei. But also I’d like to acknowledge former MPs of that committee who are not here today, and particularly tonight: Pita Paraone and also Marama Fox, who were part of that.

This bill implements the recommendations from the report that actually require legislative change. There is nothing more tapu—as you know, e Te Mana Whakawā—in Te Ao Māori than the tūpāpaku and the associated tangi. The customs and practices that many Māori engage with concerning our deceased are very ancient. The process of death and the associated practices are time-honoured and integral in the expression of our Māori culture.

The process of tangi begins at the moment of death. For those whānau fortunate enough to be present at the time of their loved one’s death, the process of mourning starts. That process, of course, begins with the act of tangi: the wailing, the maringi, ōna roimata, me ngā hupe, [the flowing, its tears, and the mucus] the touching of the body—all of this constitutes an integral part of our process of grieving the loss of a loved one. For many Māori, we have a custom of not leaving the side of our loved one until the tūpāpaku has been buried. That is why we sleep next to our deceased loved one, and that is why we never leave the tūpāpaku, or the body, unattended. Even in the act of transporting and dressing the tūpāpaku by the undertaker, we still have whānau that will actually be present or will actually do the dressing of our tūpāpaku. Indeed, in my iwi, the dressing and the preparation of tūpāpaku has always been undertaken by our wāhine. That is also why we are reluctant to let our loved one be passed across to a coroner where we can no longer be present alongside our loved one.

Yet there must be processes for the coroner to do their mahi through the Coroners Act 2006, which regulates the coronial system in New Zealand. For example, an unexpected death that could reveal a hereditary heart defect a whānau was not aware of can mean a life for a whānau of the deceased, a sudden death that can be attributed to a communicable disease can mean safety for a community, and the discovery of a homicide can mean justice for a society. All of these constitute a valid reason for the coroner to be able to do their mahi, but there must be a balancing act, and this is what we’re attempting to achieve with this bill.

The role of the coroner is to investigate sudden or unexplained deaths and to make recommendations that can help reduce the chance of further deaths in similar circumstances. The core purposes of the Coroners Act 2006 are to help prevent deaths and to promote justice. To achieve these purposes, the Act states that it “recognises … the cultural and spiritual needs of [a whānau] and of others” close to the deceased person. While the Coroners Act 2006 responds fairly well—as we noted in our Māori Affairs Committee report of 2016, it actually does address in some ways the cultural needs of whānau during the coronial processes—the report from the Māori Affairs Committee identified that there was an opportunity to improve the coronial system so that it can better meet the needs of our culturally diverse society. I say that because it’s not just Māori that we were looking at when we were doing this particular inquiry; we actually tried to hear the submissions of as many ethnicities here that we have in New Zealand.

So, in doing that, that is why this bill has been brought to this House—to actually address tikaka Māori but also other ethnicities and other cultures. The Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill will ensure that all cultural beliefs, including tikaka Māori, will be recognised and supported within our New Zealand coronial services. In most cases, this already happens, and it is included in the guidance procedures for coroners. However, it is not a legislative requirement, and that was made plain in our inquiry, as well.

This bill will ensure that the cultural beliefs are explicitly taken into account as a matter of course. The bill amends section 26 of the Coroners Act to explicitly require the coroner to consider tikaka Māori and the expectations of other cultures when determining who can view, touch, or remain near the tūpāpaku. It is important to note that this bill does not seek to change the current practice of coroners. What this bill does is to ensure this practice of taking cultural considerations into account is more visible and tangible for those who are dealing with the loss of a loved one.

I am pleased that this bill is widely supported across the House, and I hope that it can swiftly pass through the remaining stages to become law. I have no hesitation to commend this bill to the House.

Āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou ki te hunga mate, ki te hunga mate ki a rātou. Āpiti hono tātai hono, tātou ki te hunga ora, ki te hunga ora ki a tātou, e mihi atu ki a tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[Let the connections be made, the deceased remain with the deceased. Let the connections be made, the living remain with the living, greetings to us all.]

Thank you.

This is a split call—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In this House and in many other forums, we don’t talk about death very often, and it’s because we find it a difficult and often uncomfortable topic. Perhaps we should, in fact, do so more often than we do, because it is one of the universal human experiences.

In the case of this bill, we are dealing with the matter of death in circumstances which are often particularly troubling and difficult for whānau and loved ones of the deceased because they are cases in which, for some reason, there has been a referral to the coroner, and, by definition, that creates a sense of separation. By definition, that means that there may have been something in the course of that person’s death which was beyond the normal. So can I say on that note that the way in which this bill has come together and the House has conducted itself is, I think, very pleasing, because it has taken this issue very seriously and with an appropriate degree of sensitivity.

Can I acknowledge in that vein the people whose work has got us to this point. I understand that this issue was originally brought to the House’s attention by former member Metiria Turei, the co-leader of the Greens. I acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee across both parliaments in progressing the matter, and, of course, those people who gave submissions on the bill. I read through those and they are very intelligent, sensitive, and, I’m sure, helpful to the work of the select committee.

The main comment I want to make is that I think that this bill in its construction is a very elegant bill in the way that it deals with this issue, and I say that for two reasons. The first is the actual mechanism that the bill uses. We simply pick up the existing Coroners Act 2006 and use the existing provisions within section 25, which do allow the coroner to allow a person to remain with a body, and then we simply insert into the Act, in the next section, matters which the coroner must consider. It is worth just touching on those—these being “the ethnic origins, social attitudes or customs, or spiritual beliefs of the person who is, or of a person who is suspected to be, the dead person, or of an immediate family member of that person, that customarily require viewing, touching, or remaining with or near the body”.

So there’s quite a wide ambit there that the coroner can apply. The bill isn’t overbearing in respect of telling the coroner what they have to do and putting burdensome processes in the way of the coroner. It simply affirms that there is that requirement to take those considerations on board. As we’ve heard from the previous speaker, Nuk Korako, and others, that is the practice, but it is appropriate that that is reflected in the legislation, and it will no doubt give families and loved ones a degree of comfort.

Building off that, the bill is elegant because what it takes is an existing public policy process which is done in quite an official and bureaucratic way and makes sure that that is responsive to cultural and spiritual concerns, and that’s not necessarily always easy to do in the way that we create laws. So, again, I say that I think the crafting of this bill is quite elegant in the way that it brings those two world views together.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the work of our coroners, who do an outstanding job, it is generally acknowledged, and all of the people who are involved with these processes. This bill will be of comfort to families and New Zealanders, and it will assist in the important work of our coroners. I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I call Chris Penk—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I appreciate the comments made by other colleagues on both sides of the House in support of this bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the House and, again, others, I am pleased to be able to support the intent of this bill. I think the member Michael Wood’s comments about the way in which it’s been put together are well made, and I would endorse those.

I too would like to thank those who are involved in these sensitive matters on the ground, so to speak: coroners and police officers alike, who inevitably deal with difficult situations by the inevitable nature of the matters being considered by this bill. So it’s appropriate to give them the tools that they need to be able to handle these situations in an appropriate manner. I think it is appropriate that the criterion of cultural considerations is one that the coroner is required to consider, but it doesn’t say in the bill that that is necessarily a determinative matter in any individual case.

Other aspects of the bill may be worth touching on briefly, but I will be brief because other colleagues have said, I think, probably just about all that needs to be said. I was taken with the comments of Tracey Martin, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, and Nuk Korako, among others, about the fact that it is a scenario that can apply across different ethnicities, races, cultures, and so forth, and religious beliefs—sometimes aligned to those—as well as, of course, tangata whenua, from whom the impetus came to make this, in the form of Metiria Turei and her fellow members of that 51st Parliament’s Māori Affairs Committee. So I commend her, those members, and, indeed, the present committee for their actions.

I think the only thing that I find objectionable in the bill is the split infinitive in the second word of the general policy statement requiring the coroner “to also consider cultural considerations”, but I think that would make me a “grammatical Grinch” if I were to, sort of, highlight that and emphasise that any more than I already have.

So, moving on, I simply join others in commending this bill to the House and say that I think it’s a very worthwhile piece of legislation and look forward to it passing in due course.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m pleased to stand in support of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Persons) Amendment Bill. Can I first start by acknowledging the hard work of the coroner’s office at a sometimes very sad time for many whānau. Having said that, my experience as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti has often been on the other side of constituents. There is a sense of unfairness when constituents are dealing with the coroner’s office, simply because it requires them to be disengaged from their loved ones, and this bill is attempting to address that in the introduction of tikanga Māori.

For those members, tikanga: two words there, tika and nga—tika meaning correct, things that are right and positive; and nga, the plural, meaning always correct and positive. So I view that this introduction of tikanga Māori in this particular bill conjures up the principles of fairness, of inclusiveness, and of making sure it’s relevant, and therefore it’s appropriate that we are having this introduced into this bill, for the very reason that for many of our people, or the people I represent, their experience with the coroner’s office, like I said, has always been a challenging one. It’s challenging in the sense that often there’s no word of when they’re going to get their loved ones back. Like I said, so often the body is taken away. I’ve had examples where coroner’s offices have been closed over the long weekend, so I’m often getting called to see how we can intervene. When there is an autopsy, there is tikanga around the removal of body parts and how that is actually returned to the whānau. So this bill goes some way in addressing those really critical issues for the people that I represent, and therefore I think it’s great that the Minister has brought the bill to the House. I too want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committees of the 51st and the 52nd Parliaments for bringing it to this House. I want to acknowledge the Minister’s acceptance of most of the recommendations from the Māori Affairs Committee.

My closing point, really, is his response to the Minister of Justice working on the code of best practice and, obviously, involving the Chief Coroner—I would just offer that Māori are involved in the design of those best practices—and also the further work around communicating from the first respondents, involving, again, the Ministry of Justice and police. Are we going to ensure a standard approach across this particular bill, that Māori are also part and parcel of the code of best practice as well as the way we communicate with whānau?

It is a clause that’s applicable to all cultures. That’s why I’m really supportive of that. It’s timely that we are introducing tikanga Māori concepts into our legislation. This is one of, hopefully, more to come. I commend this bill and look forward to its third and final reading. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, sir. I too stand tonight in support of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill, and it seems to me like a spooky coincidence that we are discussing this on the day before Halloween.

In New Zealand, we have about 31,000 deaths a year, and so this bill is appropriate to about 7,750 of those deaths that are referred to the coroner. The result of the inquiry during the 51st Government by the Māori Affairs Committee into this issue resulted in several recommendations coming out of that committee. Of those recommendations, most have been accepted or acknowledged by the Government. One was rejected, and, actually, when I did read it, I felt that it was probably out of scope—that was the co-sleeping arrangements and the decision-making around whether police prosecute or not.

But, really, the crux of this bill is the recommendation around section 26 of the Coroners Act 2006. It simply takes the discretion out of the coroner’s ability around the tikanga Māori and makes it a requirement. That’s a very simple adjustment that this bill makes. I have very little more to say on it. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee under the 51st Parliament for initiating the inquiry which has led us to this legislative amendment which we are speaking to this evening.

I do want to acknowledge Tutehounuku Korako, the chair of that committee, and all the members that took part in that inquiry, which was instigated at the suggestion of Metiria Turei. There was one other member, I believe, of that committee, who’s no longer in this House—the Hon Chester Borrows—who made a valuable input into that inquiry with his vast experience as a police officer. I know that he took great interest and contributed greatly to the inquiry.

I think this bill is a very good example of how effective committees can be in initiating inquiries and in looking for recommendations—whether it might be Government practices or whether legislative change might be required. While it’s noted that practically all but one of the recommendations of that committee were accepted by the Government, only one did require legislative amendment, and I’m pleased that we are implementing that change through this bill.

The amendment that we’re making to section 26, set out in clause 4, as has been canvassed quite comprehensively, is to ensure that when exercising discretion, the coroner—whether a family member or someone close to the deceased is able to have access to be with the body. Section 26 now makes it explicit, so it’s providing an express provision within that section of the matters which the coroner must take into account. So I commend the work of this Parliament in ensuring that that recommendation, which came through the parliamentary inquiry, was accepted by the Government and has now been implemented into the legislation through this bill. Now, even though there has been a practice note, which the Chief Coroner did issue, which, effectively, said that that is the practice, nevertheless we are going a step further as a Parliament to ensure that that duty is expressly followed by the coroner by putting it in section 26, subsection—I’ve lost the number there, but it’s in section 26, which we are amending here this evening.

So this is a very good example of an effective inquiry process and a very positive outcome to come from the inquiry. I commend all of those that have been involved. As the current chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, there wasn’t really much for us to do. There were only a few—eight—submissions that we received. A lot of the submissions that we received were outside the scope of the actual bill in question. Nevertheless, they were very helpful and practical suggestions of matters which I believe the coroner’s office are taking into account, in terms of the practical considerations. But in terms of the bill at hand, I do support the work that’s been done.

I just want to read it one more time—because I think one particular aspect I do support is the use of the example that we have put in the subsection. So, reading new section 26(2)(ea), inserted by clause 4, the end of it says, “(for example, the customary requirement that immediate family members be able to view, touch, or remain with or near the body according to tikanga Māori)”. That’s just one example that we’re using, but of course the wording of the actual paragraph in itself is very broad to take into account all cultures, ethnic origins, social attitudes or customs, and spiritual beliefs of the person or persons. So it is very broad. It’s intended to be broad to cover all of the many cultures that are impacted by death. But we’ve very elegantly put a very helpful example in there by using tikanga Māori. So with that, I commend the work by all involved, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.