Coroners Bill

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) Link to this

I move, That the Coroners Bill be now read a third time. The Coroners Bill is a major reform to improve the quality, consistency, and timeliness of coroners’ investigations and decision making, and to take better account of the diverse social, cultural, and spiritual needs of families. When the Law Commission reviewed the coronial system, it received many submissions saying that despite the high ability and sensitivity of many involved in the coronial process, the current coronial system was haphazard, patchy, unsystematic, and inadequate. The Law Commission noted at the time that more than 70 coroners were spread throughout the country, with differing levels of qualifications and experience. Coroners were mainly working part-time, often in isolation, and with limited formal administrative support. Appointment processes were considered inadequate, and there were no training programmes for coroners. There was a perception that the coronial system did not take enough account of cultural beliefs and values, especially those of Māori. There were also reports that some coronial practices had been insensitive to the needs of families, in relation to the treatment of the deceased, and the removal and retention of body parts.

The Coroners Bill goes a long way to address these concerns by, firstly, establishing the office of the chief coroner to provide leadership and coordination; secondly, moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners; thirdly, ensuring families are notified of significant steps in the coronial process; fourthly, introducing a specific regime for attention and release of body parts and body samples; and, fifthly, enhancing inquiry and inquest processes. Families will particularly benefit from these reforms. Among other things the bill broadens the definition of family to take into account modern family arrangements and cultural relationships, allows families to appoint a representative to liaise with a coroner, requires the coroner to perform the duties without delay, requires the coroner to notify families at significant stages of the coronial process, allows families to review and touch the body of a deceased person with a coroner’s authorisation, and gives families the right to object to a post-mortem examination if the death does not appear to be suspicious. It introduces a regime for the retention and return of body parts and body samples, restricts how retained bodily samples can be used, and sets up a process for dealing with complaints about a coroner’s conduct.

The Coroners Bill has thrown up some challenging issues, particularly around suicide and the making public of details of suicide deaths. This is a serious issue and it has been the subject of considerable discussion and debate. Suicide affects all our communities, and our youth suicide, in particular, is a concern. I am pleased to see that we are making good progress in reducing the number of youth suicides with a 25 percent reduction in the number of suicide deaths since 1996.

Suicide is not only a problem for the young. About 80 percent of suicides now occur in people aged 25 and older, and men aged between 25 and 44 years now have the highest suicide rate. The media suggest that removing the restrictions on reporting details of suicide will improve public understanding of the issue and reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths. The Government does not agree. An increasing body of evidence is showing that media reports of suicide can trigger emanative and copy-cat suicides and lead to increases in both the overall number of suicides and the use of a particular method of suicide.

The Coroners Bill does not prevent the media publicly discussing the issues of suicide. It can restrict the publication of the details of a specific case, such as how a person died, for important reasons. The Government wants to encourage public discussion and the understanding of suicide, but it needs to do it in a safe way that avoids further deaths and respects the privacy of bereaved families. I am confident that the approach we have taken is the right approach.

Another issue in the bill has been around the retention of body parts and body samples. This is a completely new regime. The Coroners Bill will ensure that body parts and body samples can be taken only for the purposes of the post mortem, and that families are notified of the proposed retention, and can request the return of the parts and samples. It also restricts how retained parts and samples can be used. These new provisions balance the value of retaining tissues for later examination, against the family’s desire to have the tissue returned for cultural, spiritual, and other reasons. Because the provisions are new we will have to watch to see whether we have the balance right.

There has also been a lot of discussion around the transition arrangements for existing coroners. Our National colleagues have queried the constitutionality of disestablishing existing coroner positions and the matter of compensation. Moving to a smaller number of coroners is a key element of the new coronial system. The Government has given careful consideration to what should happen to existing coroners. We are disestablishing all the positions so that all coroners are treated equally and judicial independence is maintained. There is no constitutional impropriety about disestablishing existing coroner positions. We are not disestablishing positions to remove any particular coroner, and the new coronial system will be a significant improvement.

The question of compensation has been raised. The bill is clear that former coroners are not eligible for compensation as of right. Most coroners work part-time and are paid fees rather than a salary. All legally qualified coroners are eligible to reapply for appointment under the new Act, and experienced coroners are certainly well qualified to be considered for appointment. Reducing the number of coroners has created some concern about a loss of service in provincial areas. Coroners will continue to work in provincial areas as well as the main centres, and working full-time means coroners can spend time building relationships with different groups in the local community. The introduction of new coronial systems does not mean that we do not value the old one.

I want to conclude by thanking all the coroners, justices, and others who have given dedicated service over the years. They deal with some very sad and difficult cases and their contributions have been invaluable to New Zealand and to their local communities. The time has now come to move forward to a new coronial system that will improve the quality, consistency, and timeliness of coroners’ investigations and decision making, and to take better account of the diverse social, cultural, and spiritual needs of the family. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

On 25 July 2000, Justice Baragwanath, the President of the Law Commission, submitted the report on coroners to the then Minister of Justice, Mr Goff, and it has taken some 6 years to have the legislation reach this stage, and I will say something about that in a minute. The Minister, I think, has quite adequately summarised the problems with the old coronial system, which had been around, as the Law Commission report said, for many years. Indeed, that is what some coroners themselves said. The coronial system seemed to be the poor relation in the justice system, and there were many problems that appeared to be developing with the Coroners Act of 1988. It was described in the report as a haphazard regime.

The Minister has outlined some of the problems with this regime—for example, inadequate procedures for the appointment of coroners, lack of uniformity of coronial practice throughout New Zealand, which in the course of the select committee stage seemed to be a major problem, a real need for the training of coroners to be improved, and, as the Minister commented, a perception that in the coronial system, as it was under the 1988 Act, there was little or no regard taken of cultural values, particularly Māori cultural values and beliefs. So there has been a move, and this is what the Law Commission proposed, toward a more professionalised approach to the appointment of coroners and, particularly important, the appointment of a chief coroner who would be in charge of the coordination of coronial services and the development of an effective coronial support system, importantly including information systems.

So that is what lay at the heart of the Law Commission’s report. As I said, in July 2000 the Law Commission stated that an urgent overhaul of current systems and practices was required, and, interestingly, it referred to the Ontario coroners’ motto, which was “to speak for the dead in order to protect the living”, and that was going to be a key objective of the coronial system in New Zealand. I am disappointed that it has taken so long for this report to give rise to the legislation, which is now at the third reading stage. All too often it takes too long for the reports of the Law Commission to be acted on. The same could be said of the evidence reference, which commenced, I think, as far back as 1989, and is now at the select committee stage.

Tomorrow the Law Commission is celebrating its 20th anniversary, and is having a seminar, and one hopes that over the next 20 years of the Law Commission we will see more of its legislative proposals enacted. This report exemplifies that it does some very good work indeed. So I acknowledge the work of the Law Commission, and, in particular, I acknowledge the work of the commissioner who was responsible for writing the report, and who made a huge contribution, Denese Hēnare. She was on the Law Commission until 30 June 2000, when she was forced off for political reasons. I think it is a great shame that her formidable law reform skills were lost to New Zealand. She was replaced by one of the Labour Party cronies, which is the sort of thing we expect from this Government.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

I join my colleague the Minister for Courts in supporting the Coroners Bill. I also pay tribute to a coroner of long standing in my electorate of Waimakariri who came to see me some time ago when this bill was going through its earlier stages. His advice—and his view as a person who has been dedicated, in a professional sense, to this sort of work for many years—was very helpful. He is a lawyer in my electorate, one David Crerar. This bill is about moving from a system that had dedicated folks in it but was somewhat ad hoc and fragmented, to a far more professional and coordinated coronial system, and I share the Minister’s views in that respect.

I want to address just a couple of things that Mr Finlayson said—apart from the pomposity that he injects into speeches sometimes. I am told of Mr Finlayson that he fell in love with himself at the age of 4 and has been absolutely faithful ever since, and that is exhibited in Parliament. He spoke about JPs and lamented the fact that somehow on the passing on this bill there would be a passing of JPs. Well, as he said later on in his address, there has to be legal training in respect of these positions as we move to a far more professionalised system.

As the Minister who is charged with looking after those eminent Kiwis who are JPs, I can assure Mr Finlayson that there will not be some sort of great passing of JPs into the wilderness. JPs will continue to do their ministerial and judicial duties, which they have done so well over the last 100-odd years. However, many of them are not legally trained and, therefore, as we ramp this system up to a higher plane, shall we say, there is a need for training to be injected into the system.

I think this is a superb bill. The bill deals with tragic circumstances. Ultimately when families are part of a coronial inquiry it is about tragedy. It is a very serious issue that has been dealt with by the coroners who have served for many years in a very respectful way. The coronial role is a difficult office with difficult decisions and difficult analyses to make. I pay tribute to those coroners and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise to say just a few words from New Zealand First’s perspective on the passing of this bill, and to indicate again that we will support the bill’s passage through its third reading. Pretty much everything has been said, but I think it is worth noting that we are all agreed—and not just from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s examination of the bill and of the former coronial system, as opposed to the system proposed in the bill—that the past system was viewed as troubled. Chris Finlayson said it was haphazard, and I think that was a very apt description. The procedures were inadequate and inconsistent. Performance standards varied. There was not really a professional path for coroners, as is proposed in this bill.

In particular, we note with some pleasure the greater recognition of the rights of families and the greater emphasis on cultural and spiritual sensitivity in the procedures that have to be followed. I do not think this country will ever look back upon the affairs at Green Lane Hospital with any great sense of pride. What happened there, in terms of the collection and storage of body parts, was offensive to many cultures within this country, not just to Māoridom. It is hard in this day and age to comprehend that such acts could or would occur. The procedures as defined in this legislation, and the rights as stated now for the families involved, are very clear. Hopefully that will see an end to any practices such as those we witnessed.

The key thing to remember is that this bill will enhance professionalism. We listened to the arguments—and they were good arguments—put up by various members of the House, led again, I think, by Chris Finlayson, as to the rights of those who are currently serving as coroners and their concerns that they would not be compensated for losing their appointments. But New Zealand First notes there is nothing to prevent those people from applying to be appointed as coroners again. The greater advantage will be that they will be full-time coroners and will be paid salaries determined by the Remuneration Authority. The very same Remuneration Authority that sets the wages and allowances for members of Parliament will now be doing that for coroners.

I finish by saying that just as in the case of the justices of the peace legislation that went through recently, it is good to see that some of the inconsistencies in services provided by the Government over the last 20 years—systems and procedures that have become outdated and outmoded—are being addressed. The justices of the peace legislation was a good step. The Coroners Bill is, again, a good step. From my side of the House, I look forward to seeing a similar review of the security guards and private investigators legislation. It is another Act that is out of date by some 34 years, and it is one that I have had discussions on with the Minister, Clayton Cosgrove. I think that when we have finally tidied up that legislation we will look back and, as with this bill, wonder why we did not do something about it a long time ago.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to support the Coroners Bill in its third reading. We have heard an awful lot about this Coroners Bill over the last few months, but it a very interesting and important bill. We know that it replaces the Coroners Act of 1988, and that it has been in need of updating for many years. In fact, it has taken over 6 years to get to the stage we are at now.

The Justice and Electoral Committee heard a large number of submissions and they came from a wide range of people. They came from professionals working in the industry, from organisations, and from families. They were mostly supportive, although, of course, they all had their own issues and concerns. The two issues that really taxed the committee the most were the issues of suicide—particularly youth suicide—and how that is reported in the media, and the disestablishment of the coronial service, in terms of what is going to happen to those coroners who have given us long and faithful service.

In looking at the purpose of the bill, we understand the need to professionalise the coronial service. We heard lots of submissions that highlighted the fact that the actual work being done across New Zealand was often a little bit inconsistent and could have been a lot more effective. We also heard stories where families had perhaps not been treated as sensitively as they could have been, and where perhaps there were clashes in cultures. We thought that it was really important that people had faith in our coronial system, and that professionalisation of the system could support the public’s faith.

In the past, coroners have done a good job for New Zealanders but, as we have noted, most of them were part time. As part-time coroners they tended to do a small number of cases every year, which meant they did not get the experience of repeated cases that a professional full-time coroner would have had. Of course, coroners are only called in cases of sudden and unexpected deaths, so most of their work is done under difficult circumstances and often in emergency situations. That makes the issue even worse, and more difficult for the families who have to deal with those unexpected deaths.

I would also like to comment on the JPs who often pick up the pieces after coroners, and who stand in for them in difficult circumstances. As cases become more complex, as scientific evidence is used more frequently, and as cases become more detailed, now is the time to professionalise this service with full-time, legally qualified coroners.

Another important part of this change is the appointment of a chief coroner. It is very important to have a chief coroner, in terms of leadership and coordination of the coroners who work for the service. Twenty full-time coroners will have greater expertise, and will work better and more consistently, if there are protocols and practice notes created by the chief coroner. Another reason to have full-time coroners is that we expect that a full-time person focusing on only one job will have time to deal with more public education, and will be able to work more effectively with other organisations involved in the service.

When we go back to the submissions, we see that a lot of them were based on unsatisfactory experience of the coronial service. Five main themes came through, and we tried to deal with each of those themes in turn. One of the major issues that seemed to cause the most anguish to families was time delays. In that case we focused on timing, and we asked coroners to do their work without undue delay. Other submissions were from people concerned about the lack of understanding of different cultural values at times of unexpected death. We worked hard and asked long questions to make sure that this legislation is more sensitive to all cultures. There have been restrictive practices in terms of access to bodies, which is an important issue for most New Zealanders. We have been able to come up with new protocols that will make that an easier thing to deal with. There were also complaints that coroners often did not work closely enough with other authorities, and that things could have been much smoother if there had been a better liaison between different departments. Finally, there was another comment that perhaps coroners were not independent enough of the police, and that they did not necessarily make all their own decisions without police interference.

Death, of course, is a frightening, unhappy, and stressful time for any family. An unexpected death is even worse. So in this legislation we have tried to get a good balance between the family’s cultural and spiritual needs, and the public’s need to be able to understand the causes of death and how we will deal with them. Several reforms in this bill really focus on the rights of families and different cultures. I have mentioned timing, and that we have asked that coroners make sure their work is done without undue delay, but we have also been concerned about the location of inquests. We have asked coroners to take into account where families are located, to make it easier for families to attend inquests.

We also thought it was important that we learnt from those unexpected deaths; therefore, we have requested a register of coroners’ recommendations and comments. Very often, coroners make insightful comments about those events, and it is important that their comments are recorded and that the public can have access to the records, so we can learn from them and manage situations better in the future.

The whole issue of body parts and bodily samples was a very sensitive one. My colleague Ron Mark has mentioned the Green Lane Hospital incident. That made it even more emotive when we were talking about it in our select committee. We have tried to come up with a good balance between the need to return body parts and the need to maintain bodily samples, or even parts, under certain circumstances, for research and future analysis. We felt it was really important that those little samples were maintained in cases where there was identification of genetic disorders, which could be useful in the future, and of course in cases of solving crime. But we have provided a mechanism for the return of body parts, which will mean that people can feel secure that their bodies will be respected.

We were concerned about the definition of family, and we have widened the definition to mean family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family groups, and to include those whose relationship to the dead person was spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner of any sex. We heard submissions from people who were very distraught because they were not allowed to be part of the process with the coroner, because their relationship was not recognised. We also made new, easier ways to deal with viewing, touching, and remaining near, the body—or tūpāpaku for Māori. That provision is extended to include people beyond the family who have spiritual or supportive roles and whom the family select.

Finally, I say that we support this bill. The only exception we are concerned about has been mentioned, which is the disestablishment of coroners who were appointed by a warrant of the Governor-General. I would like to show our appreciation of those coroners, and of the justices of the peace who have supported those coroners. They have worked long and hard for New Zealanders, often in difficult and uncomfortable situations. We thank them.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be supporting the Coroners Bill in its third reading, as, it seems, are most parties in this House. Nandor Tanczos was the Green Party MP who was considering this bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee, and he feels very strongly that we should support it and that it has been significantly improved through select committee consideration.

It is one of those bills that passes through this House relatively unremarked, but it is an important bill, with significant implications for everyone who has contact with the coronial system, whether as a grieving family member, a friend, an investigator, or a medical professional, and whether those people are trying to understand a death or helping prevent such deaths in future. It is a huge bill, with 134 clauses over four parts and five schedules.

The Green Party believes that the bill is well overdue. Dissatisfaction with the coronial system is longstanding and significant, and the way in which the role of coroners has evolved has not kept up with the needs of our communities in recent times. There have been a number of criticisms in relation to the inconsistency of standards amongst coroners, delays in holding inquests and bringing findings, the relevance and quality of some of those findings, and the lack of regard to the spiritual and cultural needs of people, in particular—but not confined to—tangata whenua. That is not to say that the story is all bad; in fact, many coroners have given very good professional service to this country and their communities over a number of years. Their contributions have been important and have helped prevent fatalities in a number of areas.

I think it is fair to say that this bill builds on the strengths of the present system—looking at what works well and can be retained or adapted, while attempting to rectify the problems that undoubtedly exist—and the Green Party is of the view that the bill largely does that. Most important, perhaps, this bill professionalises the coronial system. It provides for fewer—but full-time—coroners, who are legally qualified and properly trained for their duties. It is simply not tenable in the complex and materially sophisticated world in which we live for the qualifications and training of coroners, with the important responsibilities they have to discharge, to be ad hoc. The bill provides for coroners’ proper remuneration, to be determined by the Remuneration Authority, and sets in place a clear complaints system consistent with that for judges. It sets up a new office of chief coroner, whose function is to help ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the coronial system. The chief coroner will, amongst other things, issue practice notes and guidelines to help assure more consistency and better service, coordinate support services, and so forth.

In essence, the bill provides for a proper framework to support and improve the work of coroners. As well as legal and medical specialist advice that the chief coroner will provide, the bill also recognises the need for cultural advice to be available, and it contains a number of clauses that recognise the tremendous sensitivity around the handling of dead bodies, especially in relation to post-mortems. The grief that families and friends already feel in these circumstances should not be amplified by insensitive treatment at the hands of coroners and pathologists. The bill has a number of clauses designed to reduce the offence that can be experienced in those circumstances. For the family of a deceased person, the idea that their loved one will go through a post-mortem is quite a traumatic prospect. So there have to be very, very clear guidelines around the basis of the decision as to whether a post-mortem will happen. The bill establishes those criteria, as well as a right to object to a post-mortem being held.

The issue of the reporting of self-inflicted deaths was a matter of some contention and debate, because it is a sensitive issue, and fairly strong submissions were heard from media representatives, in particular, about the public interest in the reporting of suicide. We have an extremely high suicide rate in this country, and there is a good argument to say that we need a more informed and deeper public debate around those issues. The committee took that issue very seriously and had to balance it against other considerations, in particular the sensitivities of families who are already going through a highly traumatic time. The details of the self-inflicted death of a family member being splashed in the media in some way is something that none of us would want to see happen gratuitously.

Another issue is the risk of increasing suicide. There is some evidence that the reporting of suicides in some circumstances can increase the incidence of suicide and can lead to a copycat methodology, which does not necessarily increase the number of suicides, but may increase the number of a certain type of suicide. There is some evidence that the net amount of suicide can also be affected by media reporting. We believe that the bill has struck a reasonable balance on this issue and on many of the other sensitive issues that surround the coronial system. So we are very pleased to see this bill reach the third reading, and we are very pleased to support it. We hope it will result in a substantial improvement to the functioning and operation of the coronial system in New Zealand.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Over the last week in Aotearoa the people have been embraced by death. They have stood in line to pay their respects. They have scoured the newspapers, and watched in hushed awe as the ceremonial proceedings of the tangi were televised nationwide. They have cried, and talked, and marvelled at the spectacle unfolding in the public gaze. The tangihanga for the late Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu has been celebrated and recognised as a sign of the growing maturity of the nation. It has brought the significance of death into every living room, and we are the richer for it.

It is therefore an excellent coincidence in timing to be considering the Coroners Bill. One of the most consistent messages that has come through has been the appreciation that many New Zealanders have expressed of the way in which Māori approach death. Such an appreciation was echoed in many of the submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Wīremu Wīremu, Tepānia Kīngi, and Martin Waetford from Te Hiku o te Ika raised the issue that Māori must have input into the selection of the chief coroner and the selection criteria. The Dunedin Community Law Centre recommended there should be Māori advocates in the coroner’s office who can liaise between whānau and coroners—advocates who have been ratified by whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. Te Huinga Roia Maori o Aotearoa, the Maori Lawyers Association of New Zealand, noted that the appointment of coroners must be representative of New Zealand society. It had a particular concern that the coroners and their staff need to have an awareness of tikanga and the appropriate training as a prerequisite for their appointment.

The Māori Party is honour-bound to our constituents, to our customs, and to our culture to raise these issues once more. The Coroners Bill does not address the urgent need to increase the number of Māori coroners. The Coroners Bill does not address the need for coroners to be aware of tikanga issues in order for them to be appointed, or the need for them to receive appropriate training. The Coroners Bill does not include any provision for te reo or tikanga Māori to be a part of inquest proceedings. These are serious flaws impacting on the capacity of the coronial system to respond effectively to the needs of bereaved whānau, including their cultural and spiritual needs.

There are, however, other provisions within the bill that do take into account the recommendation of the Law Commission’s coroners report of 2000. That report identified that the current system did not adequately take account of Māori cultural beliefs and practices. So we are pleased that the bill now allows whānau members to view, touch, or remain near the tūpāpaku, the body of the deceased, with the coroner’s authorisation.

This last clause—the fact that whānau access to their deceased remains subject to the authorisation of the coroner—is insufficient. Tangata whenua absolutely believe that the tūpāpaku should not be left on its own at any stage after death. Whether it be at the place of death, in the hospital, in the home, in the funeral parlour, or at the marae is beside the point. Speeches will be made directly to the tūpāpaku, in the belief that the spirit does not immediately leave the vicinity of the body, and should be coaxed to leave by the speakers. Our processes of farewelling and grieving also bring those dearly departed together to be greeted, respected, and farewelled. We speak of “Ka hekete roimata me te hūpē, ka ea te mate.”—when our tears and mucous fall, the movement from life to death is acknowledged and atoned. Accordingly, access to the tūpāpaku, the body, as soon as possible after death is vital to Māori. Tangihanga, or the death ceremony, for Māori, as seen with the passing of Dame Te Atairangikaahu, requires that Māori gather and begin the mourning ceremonies immediately. Hold-ups in the release of the body, especially without explanation, cause enormous trauma to the whānau. So the explicit inclusion of new sections within the Coroners Act 1988, to ensure there are transparent and uniform procedures for the retention and release of bodies, is very important to our cultural safety and the authenticity of our procedures around death and dying. As we say, “I whānau tātau ki te mate, arā, te tūturutanga o te ora.”—we are born to die, the ultimate journey to life.

A particularly important initiative that has arisen from the passage of this bill is around the need for whānau consent related to the treatment of body parts for any reason other than the post-mortem. Traditionally, our people saw that body parts separated from the body were accorded a ceremony similar to a tangi. Yet, as experience has taught us, in the past it has not been the practice of hospitals to return body parts. So for many whānau the vital healing and grieving processes have been disrupted and disturbed through the disclosure that tūpāpaku—bodies—have been returned with body parts removed. In other cases, lengthy post-mortem examinations or removal of body parts has created major distress for the whānau in facilitating tangi arrangements.

Internationally renowned writer Patricia Grace described the traumatic experience of the whānau whose deceased baby’s eyes were removed in a hospital, for genetic research and experimentation. She described it in her novel Baby No-Eyes. The impact of the removal of the baby’s eyes is described as follows: “When we woke my mother sat up and looked into my face … ‘I want you to know you’re not an only child.’ ‘I knew there was someone,’ I said. ‘You have a sister four years and five days older than you.’ ‘Now I see her,’ I said. ‘Shot. Two holes in her head.’ ‘You mean she has no eyes,’ my mother said. ‘You mean her eyes were stolen.’ ”

The Law Commission recommended that the removal and the retention of body parts must purely and simply be to determine the cause of death, and for no other reason. The Māori Party is pleased, therefore, that the Coroners Bill introduces improved procedures to guide coroners in their work around the retention and release of bodies and body parts, including notifications of reasons for, and likely duration of, such procedures.

Associated with this, we are also pleased that the bill now sets in place a process to object to post-mortems if they are not legally required, and that coroners will be subject to the Judicial Complaints Commission. We would, however, concur with the recommendations from the Dunedin Community Law Centre that there must be much stronger acknowledgment that whānau must know they can actually object to post-mortems, and that the process is clear and simple. The coroner or liaison person must take seriously his or her responsibility properly to inform the whānau of what is involved, and to do so in a way that is sensitive to the recognition of tikanga around the tangihanga.

It is good to be in this House to consider matters that are of such central importance to us all. In Te Ao Māori our waiata, our mōteatea, our imagery, and our allusion are soaked with the heaviness of grief, and the lament is a natural part of life and death. One of our sayings is: “Wahine tangi haehae, he ngaru moana, e kore e mātaki.”, which literally expresses that mourning and laceration by women, like the waves of the sea, never cease. The images that are so vivid in our memory of the last week are those of kuia heaving with despair, crowned with the greenery of the parekawakawa, and bidding their queen her last farewell. But just as those parekawakawa were cast into the grave, so too must we also embrace the fullness of life and living as equally natural in our world. The Coroners Bill will assist with our ability to carry out the processes that respect our tikanga, that respond to the needs of whānau, and that reflect some of our concerns. The Māori Party supports this bill.

There are still many issues to address, and the Māori Party will try every avenue to see that those outstanding issues are considered in the implementation of the bill. Thank you.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it is with pleasure and pride that I stand to speak in support of the Coroners Bill. I acknowledge the committee for its skill and commitment in ensuring that the bill was returned to the House improved, in order to ensure that the key provisions were enhanced. Those provisions were establishing the office of a chief coroner, moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time and legally qualified coroners, ensuring that families are notified at significant steps of the process, introducing a regime for the retention and release of body parts and bodily samples, and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. That is really important in order to enhance public confidence during what is a very, very difficult time for families.

I acknowledge the sterling work of coroners over many years, the majority of whom were very supportive of the bill and its changes to enhance the coronial system. I also cannot go past this opportunity without acknowledging JPs, who have contributed so much in a very meaningful way and, I have to say, on a voluntary basis. It was important to the members of the committee that the report recognised the tremendous service that JPs have provided over many, many years.

The only significant issue of disagreement between committee members related to the issue of compensation for retiring coroners, which was raised by a very, very small number of coroners. The majority of the committee and, indeed, the majority of coroners, held the view that compensation was inappropriate. However, Dr Worth of the National Party appointed himself as the shop steward for the retiring coroners and advocated for a compensation package. I would hope that the National members show the same consideration for workers’ rights and withdraw Wayne Mapp’s 90-day “dismiss at will” bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this

It is a pleasure to be speaking in the third reading of the Coroners Bill. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have given the issues a pretty thorough canvassing, and they have been well summarised.

I know that this bill seeks to put some structure around the profession of coroner, but I think it is fair to say that the country has been very well served by the people who have carried out the coronial function in a very professional manner for decades and decades. It is extremely worthwhile that we in this Chamber pay tribute to the men and women who have held the position of coroner over the years. We currently have 54 coroners, most of whom work on a part-time basis. As we know, they come from a range of professions and backgrounds—from the police and from the professions of law and medicine. But now, with the appointment of 20 full-time coroners, many of those people will be forced to reapply for their positions. Obviously, most of them will not be successful in doing that.

There is no doubt that our society has changed since the original Coroners Act was drafted, and it is important that the coronial function actually reflects the needs of the society it serves. We live in a modern and dynamic society, and the new legislation reflects that. More considerations have to be accounted for around the coronial process in the country we live in now than once might have been the case.

This bill aims to ensure that the coronial system responds better to the needs of bereaved families. It aims also to address the cultural and spiritual needs of all New Zealanders. New Zealanders need to be reassured, when they are confronted by extremely sensitive circumstances at what for most people would be a disastrous stage of their lives—when a loved one or close relative is the subject of a coronial inquest—that wherever they go in New Zealand there will be a consistency of process. That is what this legislation will provide.

I know that in past years there have been issues for many New Zealanders around the release of bodies to families in time for funeral services to be performed. That has created a great deal of distress for people. Now, under this legislation, there will be certainty and standardisation. All New Zealanders will know what they can expect when they deal with a coronial office.

The purpose of this bill really is to help prevent deaths and to promote justice through investigating and identifying the causes and circumstances of sudden or unexplained deaths, or deaths that occur in special circumstances. This legislation will allow coroners to make recommendations or comments with the aim of reducing the number of further deaths in similar circumstances.

The bill has a number of key elements. Firstly, it will establish the office of a chief coroner—a position we have not had before in this country. The appointment of a chief coroner is something that is probably long overdue. A key function of the position will be to oversee the performance of, and the standardised procedures carried out by, the 20 new full-time coroners. The result is that there will now be rigorous processes around coronial inquests and that a consistency of service will be offered across the country.

This legislation will set down guidelines for professional standards to which coroners will adhere. Of course, coroners have performed their function to the highest standards of professionalism, but the terms under which they operate, and what may be called their practice guidelines, have never really been established. A further key element of this legislation is to ensure that families are notified at each step of the coronial process. When people are in distress over the loss of a loved one, the timeliness of the inquiry can often make a huge difference to how they deal with the grieving process.

But, as members have already heard, the National Party is concerned about the unconstitutional nature of the idea of justice missing the existing coroners. Two clauses in schedule 3 of the bill are particularly relevant. Upon repeal of the Coroners Act 1988 every former coroner will have to vacate office. What is worse, the new bill ensures that no former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office. People will be told, after years of service, that they are no longer required and that they will receive no compensation when they go.

It is important to note that under the existing Act coroners are appointed by the Governor-General by warrant. They had tenure until the age of 68, and that was later modified to the age of 72. Now their warrants are being cancelled and the Ministry of Justice is comfortable with that. The National Party view is that particular care needs to be taken in respect of such constitutional provisions. One would expect that people make their arrangements and commitments on the basis of security of tenure—a tenure that will not be served out for the majority of them, as the pool of coroners is reduced from 54 to 20. We think this is harsh treatment indeed and we have grave reservations in this regard. It would be not unreasonable for coroners who are not being reappointed to receive some financial compensation.

The second element that the National Party takes some issue with, but is supporting—although we will continue to watch it with a sceptical eye—is that of the reporting of suicides in the media. As has been reported in the media recently, 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 this is a particularly clear and measurable outcome. It is something that we really do have to be concerned about.

Although I do not think it is clear-cut that it is in the public interest to restrict the reporting of suicides, I accept that this bill will give coroners the discretion to do so. That is a very good thing, because there is no question that we have a suicide epidemic in this country. However, a point to make is that in no other jurisdiction in the Western World are the rules around the reporting of suicide as stringent as they are here in New Zealand. For that reason, this is something we will have to keep under review.

We have to look at how people in those young age groups actually communicate. People in the 15 to 24-year-old group now get a lot of their information through the Internet, or by 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. There was, of course, last year in Gore a situation of seven youth suicides spread over a space of just a few short months, and that was shattering for that community. There was some speculation as to whether media coverage might have played some role, but I think, on balance, there is benefit to having media transparency.

In conclusion, the National Party supports this legislation and sees it overall as a step forward. In doing so, we pay tribute to those who have served, and who continue to serve, as coroners. We still maintain that the dismissal of many of the existing coroners is unconstitutional, and we will be maintaining a sceptical watch on provisions around the reporting of suicide in the media.