Coroners Bill

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me go back and summarise what the National Party in Opposition did when we were previously in Committee on this bill. We were very concerned about Parts 3 and 4, and, for the benefit of the previous member for Whanganui, Ms Pettis, I say we had two questions, and two questions alone, that we wanted to engage the Government in debate on, because they were very important.

The first of those questions was not necessarily one where we were opposed to what was happening. It concerned suicide and the media—a hugely important issue. If the member for Wigram would get off the phone and listen, then perhaps he might learn something, because the issue is an extremely important one. National warily supported the existing provisions set out in the bill.

The second question we were concerned about related to clause 3 in schedule 3. We said that it raised a major constitutional question. Clause 2 of schedule 3 proposes: “On repeal of the former Act, every former coroner vacates office under that Act as a coroner or deputy coroner.” Clause 3 of the schedule, however, provides: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner under clause 2.” In the course of a number of speeches by some of my parliamentary colleagues, we referred to the opinion of former Deputy Solicitor-General, Mary Scholtens QC, who provided advice to the Coroners Council that was tabled at the Justice and Electoral Committee. We referred to the Law Commission’s very recent report on access to court records, which addressed the fundamental question of judicial independence as an underpinning of parliamentary democracy, or democracy in New Zealand. I undertook a very detailed analysis of the 1988 Act and the Coroners Bill, to illustrate the judicial nature of coronial office and how it is quite wrong to declare the office of coroner vacant without any form of compensation.

There were two issues only; all we wanted to do was to focus on two key issues. I regret to say that the only people who spoke in this debate were National members—other than the Minister, who, in fairness, engaged in the debate on these issues, and the members for Hamilton West and Otaki, who moved closure motions. Otherwise, we had silence from the other members on the Labour benches. They made no contribution whatsoever. Neither did the member for Wigram, who was so sanctimonious on this issue earlier this afternoon. These issues are very important. It behoves Parliament to do its job and look very closely at the issues of suicide and the media and of constitutionality.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

Undoubtedly, the title “Coroners Bill” would seem to be quite appropriate. Unfortunately, however, due to the intervention of this Labour Government—which was so ably described by Chris Finlayson—in failing to debate the odious clause 3 of schedule 3, which states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner under clause 2.”, the title perhaps should appropriately be named the “Labour Government Dumping on Long-serving Coroners Bill”, or maybe the “Labour Government (Let us Overturn Constitutional Convention) Bill”.

I was not on the select committee but I have listened to a few of the debates, and one of the things that has struck me is that there has been consistent acknowledgment from both sides of the House as to the hard work and commitment of many long-serving coroners throughout New Zealand. On the one hand, we have heard of people like the full-time Auckland coroners, such as Dr Murray Jamieson and Sarn Herdson, who have provided quite an exemplary service—so exemplary in fact that I understand they are called every morning at a quarter to 7, on 365 days a year, and go on until 11 pm. In fact, further to that, the office starts work at 5.30 am, with the police compiling their reports and getting them ready to report to the coroners. During their tenure, which has been about 4 years—since 2001—the number of coronial files opened and post mortems carried out in Auckland has fallen by 30 percent, while the Auckland population has risen steadily.

But, on the other hand, we have heard from my colleague Anne Tolley, the excellent member for East Coast, about the sterling work carried out by Hughie Hughes JP, who was neither a doctor nor a lawyer. I must say, just by way of acknowledging Dr Jamieson again, that he is both a lawyer and a doctor, and carries out a very, very competent process.

KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this

In speaking to this bill it is interesting to refer to some criticisms of the United Kingdom coronial system, because some of those criticisms are certainly relevant in New Zealand. The criticisms include the fact that families frequently are overlooked during the inquest process, there is nowhere for them to turn when they think something is going wrong, and there is no complaints system. The system is fragmented and there is no national leadership. The system is not accountable. The standards are not uniformly good, and they rest too much on the personal qualities and abilities of individuals. For most coroners, their coronial work is not even their principal occupation. Most coroners have to learn on the job, as they handle the most technically complex and personally difficult cases with no training.

That is the case in the United Kingdom, and, to a certain extent, that is also what happens in New Zealand. The coronial system must serve the public interest and the bereaved families’ concerns, and justice must be served with sensitivity, transparency, accountability, and all due speed. It is certainly hoped, by now having a dedicated and professional body of coroners, that grieving families’ need for sensitivity, and the emotional needs of bereaved people, will be met by this bill and by the overhaul of our coronial system.

Having said that, this bill is far from perfect. Some of its deficiencies, and National’s concerns, have been considered in the Committee stage—without, I might add, any rebuttal or debate whatsoever from Government members. There was some comment, at times, from the Minister, but it certainly did not at all address those deficiencies or concerns.

We currently have a coronial system of some 60 part-time coroners, some of whom have legal qualifications, some of whom do not. Those with legal qualifications will be able to apply to be full-time coroners under this new regime; some will want to, some will not. Those who do not have 5 years’ experience as a barrister and solicitor, even though they may have been excellent coroners for 20 years, will have no choice without those legal qualifications, and their function as coroners will be extinguished and gone.

It is laudable to have a dedicated and professional body of coroners with national leadership by the chief coroner. What is not laudable is to abandon and dump, without recognition, conscience, and compensation, those many hard-working, experienced, part-time coroners who have spent countless hours in the service of our community. Their experience is wasted, their knowledge is wasted, they are no longer valued, and they are no longer wanted. This issue is particularly relevant in some of our rural areas: the West Coast of the South Island and the east coast of the North Island, for example, and areas like Ruatōria, Motueka, Kaikohe, and Gisborne. These are unique rural and regional areas with their own characteristics. At the moment, they are very well served by part-time, dedicated local coroners armed with local knowledge, knowledge of the people, knowledge of the area, and knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the region. Under this bill, those part-time, dedicated local coroners will be gone and replaced by a roaming coroner who is perhaps lacking in that vital local knowledge and local sensitivity. I fear that many of our rural and provincial areas will suffer by the passing of this bill. Is that fair? Is it reasonable? Are these concerns even considered or listened to by this Government? Regrettably, I would have to say no.

It would not be too difficult to include in the transitional provisions the ability for existing part-time coroners, albeit without legal qualifications, to continue as usual until their retirement. I understand that the age of retirement in the bill is 68. This is a somewhat arbitrary figure, but an age limit no less. There could certainly and easily be a phase-in period, and everyone would win. But no, this Government has no concern for provincial New Zealand and for what is in the best interest of provincial New Zealand. What is so wrong with allowing our existing talented, experienced, dedicated non-legal coroners to continue to contribute, benefit, and give value to our coronial system? All our existing part-time coroners will be dumped. They will receive no money, no compensation, no redundancy, and probably no thanks.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this

In speaking to the title of the Coroners Bill, I believe that it is useful to go over the real purpose of this legislation before the Committee, because it is easy to lose sight of its true objectives. Its purpose is to help prevent deaths and to promote justice.

For years in New Zealand we have had a very efficient coronial system that has been staffed by highly professional coroners, many of whom have given up other professional obligations to give service to their communities. Many coroners have come from the legal profession and some of them have continued legal practice. Some of them have been medical practitioners, and quite a number have been retired policemen. Those people have taken up this work because there has been a need for it in the community. We should reflect that the reason for any coronial inquest is to prevent future deaths occurring in similar circumstances, so the role of the coroner is a very important one in our society.

This legislation will establish a chief coroner, and it will establish professional standards for coroners. I know coroners have always acted in a professional manner, but the legislation will put some formality around that profession. As we have heard, there will be 20 full-time coroners throughout the country. The aim of that and, I believe, the purpose it will achieve, is that wherever people go in New Zealand and have cause to have contact with a coroner—a time of great distress for any family—they will be assured that they will be subjected to a standard set of processes, and that those processes will be appropriate to New Zealand society and the community we live in. There is no doubt that our society has changed and it is important that the coroner’s function actually reflects the needs of the society it serves. I know that in past years there have been issues around the release of bodies to certain groups in time to have funerals, and that has created a great deal of distress. Now, under this legislation, there will be some certainty and some standardisation, and all New Zealanders will know what they can expect when they deal with the coronial office.

But as members have already heard, the National Party is concerned about the unconstitutional nature of the idea of just dismissing existing coroners. People will be told that they, after years of service, are no longer welcome. Members may yawn, but the reality is that that is a most unfair way to treat someone who has given years of service to the community. Members have to ask why anyone would take up a position of service to the community when that is the treatment that could be expected.

The second element that the National Party takes slight issue with, but is supporting—although is watching with a sceptical eye—is that of the reporting of suicides in the media. As we heard in question time today, there has been a 20 percent increase in suicide attempts in the last 7 years, and a 45 percent increase in attempted suicides amongst young women aged 15 to 24. If members look at the actual outcomes of mental illness, they will see that that is a clearly measurable outcome; it is something we really have to be concerned about.

I would say that it is debatable whether suppressing discussion in the media is really in the community’s best interests. We have to look at how people in those age groups actually communicate. People in the 15 to 24-year-old group get a lot of their information now through the Internet or text-messaging and not necessarily through the print media. So making parents and family members aware of issues around youth suicide may actually be of greater overall benefit to society as a whole. I think we need to be really quite cautionary in saying that we are keen to have a long-term blanket ban on media reporting of suicide. I also have to note that New Zealand has the most stringent rules in the Western World around media reporting of suicide. There was, of course, last year in Gore a situation of seven youth suicides, spread over a space of just a few short months, that was shattering for that community, and there was some speculation as to whether media coverage might have played some role. But I think, on balance, there is some benefit to media transparency.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

In speaking to the title of the Coroners Bill, I share the concerns that my colleagues have noted today in their speeches. Although I do not have a legal background—my background is medical, and I did not have the opportunity to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee that heard this bill—I, too, was surprised when I read clause 93, which looks at how coroners are appointed. I understand that prior to this bill, the backgrounds of coroners have not been limited and they did not have to be barristers or solicitors. In fact, coroners come from all walks of life. I understand that some are justices of the peace, and some come from a medical background, as well. They have all fulfilled this role admirably.

So I was quite surprised to read in clause 93 in this new bill that a coroner must now be a barrister or a solicitor, and has to have been working in the profession for the last 5 years. Although I realise that a coroner has to understand the judicial process, I must admit I was quite concerned when I read what this clause really meant. Basically, it means that the current lot of coroners who do not fill the criterion of being a barrister or solicitor will be heaved out.

I felt very concerned, in terms of this provision, that we are losing expertise by dumping those people. There should be, perhaps, some sort of grandparenting or phasing in process. Otherwise we could face a situation where we have 20 new, full-time coroners versus 20 very experienced coroners who are not solicitors or barristers. I think that is a dreadful situation to be in. In this country, we have to value expertise and loyalty, and I am concerned when I read this clause. I am pleased that I am not alone in that—it has caused some concern among my colleagues as well. I hope there is a chance later on, somewhere, for this legislation to be amended so that that expertise can be reviewed, or so that there is a transition phase.

I will jump to clause 23, “Viewing, touching, or remaining with or near body in coroner’s custody”, in Part 2. I think this is a good change to the bill. The changes to this clause mean there is provision made for members, or representatives now, of the immediate family or people who are performing religious or spiritual services or advice to be present. I think that is a very good thing. It is a compassionate change, and has regard for the members of the family to grieve and to be counselled and supported by a religious person or spiritual adviser. Those people, of course, need the coroner’s permission, but I think, on balance, that it has been an excellent addition.

I turn to clauses 110, 111, and 112, in Part 4. I did struggle with the quite legalistic-type phrases in these clauses, not having a legal background, but their intent is quite clear. They are quite significant amendments. Clause 110 states that a coroner may, by written notice, require a person to supply “information or documents or other things”. Subclause (1A), which was unanimously agreed upon by the committee, states: “(1A) The person on whom the notice is served must give or produce a thing (whether the thing is information, a class of information, a document, a class of documents, or any other thing) sought by the notice, except to the extent that the person is excused from doing so by section 111.” Clause 111, “Grounds for refusing to comply with written notice”, is also new, and was also unanimously agreed upon. Those grounds are set out in the provision.

Clause 112, “Warrant for information, document, or other thing”, states: “(1) A District Court Judge may issue a warrant for the search of a specified place (including, without limitation, a dwellinghouse or marae), craft, or vehicle if satisfied on an application in writing made on oath by a member of the police …”. The clause goes on to describe the grounds where that would occur. Part of the clause is completely new, and I see that it was also unanimously agreed upon. This means, I gather, from reading it through a few times, that a District Court judge will now be able to issue a warrant authorising the New Zealand Police to search for information that will be helpful in determining the circumstances surrounding how a person died. I am sure that colleagues will agree it is important that coroners have the powers to investigate unexpected or sudden deaths expediently.