Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The bill will amend the Coroners Act 2006 to increase the maximum number of coroners that can be appointed at any time from 20 fulltime-equivalent (FTE) coroners to 22 fulltime-equivalent coroners. This bill is being considered under urgency because Budget decisions to appoint four additional coroners on top of the current 18 cannot be fully implemented until the statutory cap in the Coroners Act has been amended. Appointment processes will commence as soon as possible after enactment. The new coroners will be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General. I consider urgency to be appropriate to the technical nature of this bill because its purpose is to give effect to Budget decisions. The usual parliamentary process would delay these appointments for several months. This would mean more waiting before we can start to alleviate workload pressures on our existing coroners. It would mean an increase in the times for coroner’s findings and the distress being experienced by grieving families and whānau.

The coronial system exists to help prevent deaths and promote justice by investigating the causes of sudden and unexplained deaths and making findings that help reduce the chances of further deaths occurring in similar circumstances. The coronial system is currently under considerable pressure. Since 2014, coroners have struggled to keep pace with the number of cases being accepted into the coronial jurisdiction. This has resulted in an increasing active caseload and an increase in the average time taken to conclude coronial inquiries. Key drivers for these increases include more deaths entering the coronial jurisdiction that turn out to be from natural causes and several periods in recent years when the coronial bench has not been operating at full capacity due to vacancies.

The current coronial system and its resourcing is not fully meeting the needs of bereaved families and the public. The increasing length of time they are waiting to receive a coroner’s findings is severely impacting the wellbeing of many bereaved families and whānau. These families and whānau are victims because they have been harmed by the unexpected, violent, or suspicious death of a loved one, and the coroner’s findings can help provide answers about their loved one’s death and bring closure during the grieving process.

This year’s Budget finding for coronial services, coupled with the increase to this coronial cap, will enable the appointment of four additional permanent coroners. These positions will be on top of the current 18 full-time permanent coroners, taking the total to 22 fulltime-equivalents, but there are also seven FTE relief coroners who are not counted with the cap. These additional coroners will enable faster resolution of coronial cases. Many more families and whānau will receive coroner’s findings sooner than would otherwise be possible.

The bill is needed to give effect to Budget decisions. It will contribute to reducing coronial wait times, thereby relieving a little of the distress felt by families and whānau, or ainga, who have lost their loved ones, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We support this bill, the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill—I’ll put everyone out of their misery. So we acknowledge that the Minister has brought to the House a bill that’s worthwhile in itself, and we do thank him for doing so. The context, however, in relation to the coroner’s court and the place that we find ourselves now, is instructive, and I do want to take a moment to set that out for the House and acknowledge that what is taking place now is far later than it should have been. We do also want some assurances from the Minister, and we’ll seek those in subsequent readings and the committee of the whole House stage, about the effect that this measure will have. I think it’s fair to acknowledge to the Minister not only in the bill itself increasing the cap from 20 to 22 of the number of coroners as the maximum fulltime-equivalents but also that there is funding in the Budget to make that so for the appointment of four additional coroners, seven coronial registrars, and four clinical advisers. These things are all positive, and so, as I say, the National Party will support the bill.

It’s fair to acknowledge, however, that with access to justice being so important, it’s really disappointing that huge problems exist in the system, with massive delays across the whole judicial branch, including courts—the coroner’s court particularly, as we’re discussing today—tribunals, and so forth. These are longstanding issues. They have existed across Governments of both stripes. They existed prior to COVID-19, and they exist now. The problems have been exacerbated by the Government’s response to COVID-19. To some extent, this is fair enough. To some extent, it is understandable that there have been delays.

But the Government’s response has lacked imagination. It’s lacked urgency—lower case “u”. Of course, now we find ourselves in urgency with an uppercase “U”, such that the Parliament is being asked now to approve with some haste the passage of a bill to increase the cap of coroners to match the fact that increased funding is being provided in the Budget. National’s supporting not only the bill itself but also the use of urgency for the reasons that the Minister has outlined. It does support measures that the Government is entitled to make in the Budget. So with the bill in itself being so straightforward, as a matter of, frankly, overdue good practice, of course we are prepared in good faith to consider that and, for the record, any further amendments that the Minister might bring forward to the operation of the coronial court, of course, in conjunction with the Chief Coroner.

So I do acknowledge that there are other players than the Government of the day in the sense of the executive Government. It’s appropriate for the executive and also Parliament to operate in a way that reflects comity between the branches. So I think it’s right that I acknowledge that constraint but also that opportunity. I would urge those who are involved in the operation of this particular court to work closely with the current Minister, and the offer is made too to work constructively with the Opposition. I was disappointed to be refused a full, unredacted copy of the recommendations paper that was made from the Chief Coroner to the Minister some time ago. I think it would be helpful in the spirit of bipartisan dedication to improvement of the access to justice in this country if all key players were enabled to participate in that and there were greater transparency in that space. So I do want to take that opportunity to put that on the record.

The Minister has rightly referred to distress being the result of emotional, financial, and social problems caused by delays in the coroner’s court. Many years’ worth of additional delays have accrued over the course of time—again, I acknowledge, across successive Governments, pre- and post - COVID-19 onset, and so forth. Related systems have been under severe strain—health systems, social assistance being required, and the legal profession itself. All are groaning under the weight of the shortfalls and the shortcomings of the coroner’s system, some improvement to which is going to be made today and going forward.

Although I do give the Minister fair notice that in the committee of the whole House stage, we will want to know more about the extent to which we can expect the delays to be reduced, the backlog cleared, and so on. If urgency is to be used, and we’ve said that it’s appropriate in this case, then the quid pro quo is that the Minister and the Government have done a serious and thorough job of understanding the implications of what they’re bringing forward to the House. So I do expect more rigour and more detail in the provision of that information simply than to say that more coroners will be appointed “as soon as possible”.

The issues in the coronial system are even more acute than in many of the other types of court that operate in this country. We talk generally about lack of access to justice. We talk about the stress and strain on individuals, but the lack of closure for families of those who have died suddenly and the mental health implications for that have been particularly acute. The lack of access to services that are unlocked when the official status is provided by a coroner’s determination is a very serious consideration as well—for example, victim support services requiring a finding of the coroner in relation to a particular accident or non-accidental sudden death as well.

We think of the disruption to the lives of those who are left behind, and we also bemoan the inability of a system to learn the lessons that are meant to be learnt by a coronial finding. Where those are delayed, we are denied the opportunity in the intervening months and even years to understand where systems failures may have led to an accident taking place, whether in an industrial setting or otherwise. So we hope that this is not the end of the Government’s intentions and actions in this space. But we do acknowledge that it is a step in the right direction.

By way of heads-up to the Minister and the team that he may have supporting him in the committee of the whole House stage, we will be wanting to know what the analysis has been about the effect that these extra coronial appointments will be. We want to know when the backlog can be expected to reduce accordingly, and we’d actually also like to challenge the Minister, just as we challenge ourselves, to understand how the system can work better, including why there is a cap on the number of appointments in the first place. I acknowledge that’s something that previous Governments of a National or National-led nature have also not addressed. There may be good reasons for it, of which I am unaware, but I do remember in a previous Budget—and I think it may have been last year, but I don’t swear that that’s the case—the urgency process being used to increase the maximum number of district court judges as well. I wonder if there’s appetite across the side of the House—and it might be that we don’t thrash this out today, and fair enough if more time and analysis is needed. But it might be that we decide collectively that actually it’s not particularly productive to have a cap in the number of judges so that we’re here following the Budget in a very truncated process, without opportunity for public input, merely to increase the number from 20 to 22 fulltime-equivalents—just 10 percent. I do wonder if there’s a danger that in a following occasion in this House, perhaps the next Budget, we’ll be here extending the number from 22, say, to 24.

So all these questions I look forward to prosecuting in the committee of the whole House stage, but for now I leave my comments at that. Again, just to emphasise: a good step in the right direction, albeit disappointing to have taken so long, and we hope that this will not be the end of the Government’s efforts in this regard.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s great to see that Budget 2022 delivers a package of investment to improve the coronial system and reduce delays, particularly for those families who are grieving. The operating funding of $28.5 million over four years and $1.6 million of capital funding aims to ensure that families and whānau receive coroner’s findings sooner than they have been, and also to reduce the coronial caseload.

It’s really heartening to hear that, as a Budget piece of legislation, the Opposition are voting in favour of this—it’s good to see that indeed. This is a good bill. We know for a fact that the coronial process, by its very nature, can take time. It is designed to find out the facts about a particular death, provide resolution for families, and also to produce findings that may help potentially prevent future deaths and to learn from what has happened in the past.

The additional coroners provided through the Budget, and enabled through this bill, will support the coronial cases to be considered far more quickly. These additional coroners will enable faster resolution of coronial cases—that way, giving families relief and a sense of closure as well.

This is a bill that, I think, will be welcomed by many New Zealanders. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the enthusiasm of my worthy colleague from the ACT Party Nicole McKee, and I’m sure she will get her chance before too long. I do want to acknowledge the Minister Aupito William Sio—the Minister in charge of this bill, the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill. And National, of course, is supporting this legislation.

We do want to see progress made on what is a significant blight, I think, in the justice area where New Zealanders have been kept for far too long to get the results out of the coronial system when their loved one has died. The process is far too slow—the system has been too slow for a long time but has got substantially worse over the last few years, and even worse again over COVID. So we support both the investment in the Budget and, secondly, this legislation to lift the cap on the number of coroners.

Obviously, we don’t particularly like urgent legislation such as this and we would have preferred they could have done it in a normal pattern, but given the relatively straightforward nature of the issue, that’s something we can support. What we worry about, of course, is not so much—this Government has demonstrated its ability to announce stuff and spend stuff. What’s not quite so clear is the ability to have the actual improvement in delivery of time frames within this part of what the Government does, and so we’d be very keen to see some very clear plans about how this will actually improve things on the ground.

The other point we’d make, of course, is there are much wider issues around access to justice in the court system, which I would hope the Minister has been very focused on over the last little while. So we’ve seen the time taken between cases being taken in the criminal courts and also the civil courts hugely extended over the last four years since this Government has been in place. It’s a longstanding problem, but it’s been getting worse; likewise, in areas like the Employment Relations Authority—huge delays.

In all these areas, people’s lives have been put on hold for far too long. When we look at the justice sector in the broadest sense, the issues that confront you are, first, the rise in violent crime; second, the rise in gangs and youth crime being out of control, or of great concern. But the second broader issue is this whole issue of how can we get the court system working much more efficiently and effectively so that New Zealanders can get access to justice, but also access to speedy justice so that they can get on with their lives after a criminal case, both in terms of victims and their perpetrators. But also in the civil court, so people can get on with their business lives as well. So I just encourage the Government to show equal enthusiasm in that space as well. Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that makes a very small legislative change, but it will have a big practical effect for many New Zealanders. I think a lot of people assume that the coroners don’t get referred many cases, but in fact they have a very broad mandate. What we know is that about 3,500 cases are referred to the coroner every year. What we also know is that we’ve seen an increase in the time taken to process those cases, and we know that despite extra part-time coroners being appointed in 2019, those longer processing times continue to occur. Those of us who sit on the Justice Committee know that in particular because we heard from a petitioner about this very issue. Corinda Taylor submitted to us on this particular issue, so it is wonderful to see that this is being addressed with urgency today, that allows these changes to be made in sync with the Budget commitments. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of ACT for the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill in this, the first reading. I do acknowledge the Minister, and the fact that we actually have something in place at the moment, or now, to be able to get through some of the backlog in the Coroners Court. The intent, of course, is to lift the cap from 20 to 22 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs), and I do note in the disclosure statement that there’s no inquiries, no reviews, no evaluations, no reports, but there was, actually, a briefing from the Chief Coroner. And as my colleague across the House has already mentioned, the copies that have been received are redacted.

And in order for all of us to be able to assist our communities, it would be really great if we could understand the full issues so that we can support whomever is in Government to make sure that we have communities who can move past their grief and move on. So it is under urgency that it’s being held now, but the urgency has actually been going on for quite a number of years. And when we have a cap at 20, we want to lift it to 22, and we only have 18 coroners, then we need to do more, in our humble opinion. The seven coronial registrars and the four clinical advisors is a great result, because by lifting the cap and getting more coroners, they are going to need more support. So I appreciate that the Government has looked to that as well.

But the reality is that we are expected to have a blowout in coronial cases—an expected 400 extra cases over the next three years. We have these delays, but by increasing to 22, we’re barely keeping our heads above the water, especially as the population continues to increase. ACT says the Government needs to do more. We need to fix this issue so that we can support families in their time of grief. And while this is under urgency, it almost feels like a bit of tokenism, especially when we know there are so many more needed. So the cap being set at 20 was set at a time when our population was 4.2 million, and now that our populations is sitting at 5.1 million, that would actually equate to 24.4 FTEs being required just to keep up with the population. And this bill is increasing our cap to 22.

I have tabled an amendment in the House, where we would like to increase the cap to 30. We believe that this will allow the clearance of the backlog that is in place at the moment. It will help to give families closure, and it will mean that the Minister will not have to come back at Budget time 2023 to put through another urgent request. We’re hoping, come that time, the Government is actually giving more money to be able to progress the coronial matters that we’re hearing. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the bill.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Just opening my contribution to this bill, this evening, I just wanted to confirm that the Greens will, of course, be supporting the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill, as it appears that we have unanimity across the House. It’s exciting. We don’t often get that. This is, as others have articulated, a really important piece of legislation that goes some way towards addressing what has been actually, for a number of whānau, years’ worth of backlog in processing these coronial inquiries.

Here I want to acknowledge, as my colleague from the Labour Party did, Corinda Taylor, but also the life matters trust, who in 2019 tabled a petition which I was alongside to accept, which then went on to the Justice Committee. And I’d note, unfortunately, we still actually don’t have a report back from the Justice Committee on it. The petition requests therein spoke to not only the issues here with the amount of coroners that are available to process these cases but to the far broader issue. Their petition request, I think, is important to put on record in justice to the ask that they made of this Parliament about the justice system and about the coronial system, particularly for those families that are bereaved by suicide.

Their petition request was that the House of Representatives urge the Ministry of Justice to appoint more coroners, introduce free legal representation for all suicide-bereaved families and whānau, provide funding to suicide-bereaved families and whānau for specialist legal representation and expert witnesses equivalent to that of any State bodies, public authorities, and corporate bodies represented, and notes that 3,834 people have signed an online petition in support of this request. So I want to acknowledge that work is done by the community, particularly given that they were coming to that mahi from a place of grief and from a place of experiencing a system that was failing them.

That said, what this bill does, while increasing the cap and also matched, as other colleagues have contributed, with a Budget commitment, is it lifts the cap from 20 to 22 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs), but it does not require that any given Government of the day is required to meet that as a minimum. I think that that is a really important consideration that all of us should have. Unfortunately, it is not something, I think, that would be accepted were it to be tabled as an amendment in later stages of this debate today, because of the potential financial implications. But, none the less, just in conferring with my colleague in the ACT Party Nicole McKee, and then conferring quite quickly with my Green Party colleagues, we will be supporting that amendment to the maximum number of coroners to 30 FTEs in line with the increase of our population. I also want to join in acknowledging the fact that this is not only an increase in the FTE for coroners but also for those who work in the coronial and justice support and administrative staff, which is, of course, incredibly important for continuing to progress this work.

The Greens support this legislation. It’s been a long time coming. It’s unfortunate, again, that what we’re still talking about is a maximum and not a minimum. I want to acknowledge Corinda Taylor and the life matters trust, whose petition was tabled back in 2019. For those families and whānau who are still caught up in that system, this cannot come soon enough. And therefore, I think that it is due that this bill is afforded urgency.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. As a member of the Justice Committee dealing with the petition of Corinda Taylor, I’m pleased to be able to support the first reading of the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill.

It will be a bill that will bring relief to whānau already sorely burdened by the grief of a loss of a loved one and who have been further burdened by the longstanding delays in the coronial process. The Government has listened, and this year’s Budget will enable the appointment of four additional permanent coroners, taking the total from the current 18 to 22, alongside our seven full-time relief coroners.

It’s a hugely important appropriation for this court; but, to realise it, the first step is to amend the Coroners Act 2006 to raise the cap on further coroner appointments to 22. As a purely technical amendment, it’s appropriate for urgency, but most of all, urgency is appropriate so we can bring the Budget decisions to fruition and reduce the waiting times and the distress to grieving families and whānau as quickly as we possibly can. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a privilege to take a call on this bill, which the National Party is supporting, the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill. However, the most important message that I can impress with the Minister is that justice delayed is justice denied. I remember being in the House, speaking to the bill. It was back in May 2019, when Minister Little announced the appointment of eight relief coroners. That was in May 2019. And here we are in May 2022.

It’s been interesting listening to the debate—with it noted under the Coroners Act that there is a maximum capacity for 20 full-time coroners to be appointed, yet there are only 17 to 18 who have been acting full time in the capacity—knowing the pressures not just on the coroner’s court; not just on the coroners but, most importantly, on the grieving family members, on the whānau.

I also speak from having been a lawyer, many years ago, for a grieving mother who was a party at the inquest of a deceased baby. The burden of the grief of losing a child was immense, but what added to that was the delay, at that time, in getting the matter heard before the court.

So I heed the submissions debate from my colleague Mr Penk, just in terms of the calibration of this, whether it should just be capped from 20 to 22—bearing in mind the pressures and the demands that are already on the coronial court. So I’ve made reference that, back in 2019, eight relief coroners part-time had been appointed. I did a little bit of research and was looking at some media commentary. That media commentary was dated August and September 2021, where the number of unresolved coroner’s inquiries are expected to blow out—and that was at that time back in 2021. So it’s worsened over that time to now. They’re expected to blow out by 400 in the next three years, despite the appointment of the eight new part-time coroners. So the burden and the pressure that’s on the court is going to require innovation in addition to appointment of more coroners to the court.

So the average time to close a coronial case increased 42 percent between 2018 and 2021, from 321 days to 455 days. Now, cases needing an inquiry—so I talked about a coronial case where that’s an initial investigation, evidence is accumulated for a judge to be able to determine and make findings of fact as to the cause of death. Taking it further to an inquest is the actual hearing of evidence before a court where the parties themselves present their position to the court. So cases needing an inquiry take an average of 877 days, and those going to an inquest—which is the hearing that I was talking about—take 1,451 days; four years.

So the point that I make, and impress upon the Minister, is: justice delayed is justice denied. Is the increase, by a further two full-time to the maximum cap of 20, really going to address the pressure and the burden that’s on the court, on the coroners, but on the families most importantly? So that’s my point at the moment. It’s wonderful that this is now being rushed through Parliament under urgency. But I implore of the Government: this is a matter that should’ve been brought to the House soon after 2019, knowing the evidence of the numbers and the pressures that are there, to deal with matters in a more expedient, appropriate manner. The National Party commends this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading