Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this
In resuming my speech in the Committee stage of the Coroners Bill I note that it is now some 2½ months since we were last in Committee to discuss this bill. I think that warrants a quick recap. The National Party will support this bill. The bill aims to reform the coronial system to improve its effectiveness. It aims also to ensure that the system responds better to the needs of bereaved families—[ Interruption] If Bob listened he might realise that this may apply to him some day. It aims also to address the cultural and spiritual needs of all New Zealanders. We live in a modern and dynamic society. I do not think anyone would deny that the make-up of our society has changed considerably since the original Act governing coronial functions was drafted. I think it is important the legislation reflects that.
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 legislation has a number of key elements. Firstly, it will establish the office of a chief coroner, a position we have not had before. Prior to this, many coroners have operated on a part-time basis. I think it is worthwhile that the 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 them working on a part-time basis. They come from many different professions and backgrounds. Many of them come from the police, the legal professions, and the medical professions. But now, with the appointment of 20 full-time coroners, many of those people will be forced to reapply for their positions. This is one point on which the National Party may take issue with the drafting of the bill. It could be considered unconstitutional and, indeed, unfair just to dismiss these people after so many years of service, with no compensation. I think the legislation needs to address that point. Also a workforce issue could arise in managing to get 20 full-time, fully legally qualified people to maintain this function in the future.
A 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. One of the good things about this legislation is that it will standardise processes throughout the country so that whenever a New Zealander comes into contact with the coronial system that person and their family can be assured that they will be subject to a standardised process that is the same the length and breadth of 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 key function of the chief coroner will be to oversee the performance of, and the standardised procedures carried out by, the 20 new full-time coroners.
This bill also introduces a specific regime for the retention and release of body parts and bodily samples. My colleagues will address that issue in the debate on later parts of the bill. I know that Dr Worth has a specific interest in that. As he said some 2½ months ago, it can be extremely distressing for a family after a death, when a body may have been interred or cremated, to receive some time afterwards—via the postal system or some other means of delivery—body parts and bodily specimens relating to their loved one.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this
Dr Coleman has led off in the debate on this part in magnificent style and has properly focused on the issues that are appropriately discussed in this Chamber at the Committee stage of the Coroners Bill, which National supports. I would like to put some of the issues of the working-day coroner in a degree of perspective against the background of clause 4, which deals with the coroner’s role in relation to a death. I relate my comments particularly to what goes on at the moment in the office of the Auckland coroners.
Of course Auckland has a very substantial history of coronial activity. It really goes back to the office of coroner first established in the Auckland City district in the 1840s. As the Minister reminded me in a discussion I had with him earlier tonight, the first recorded inquest was held on 27 July 1841 by John Johnson, then a doctor of medicine, at the police office in Auckland. In those early years between 1841 and 1864, 384 inquests were recorded, all of which were conducted by a medical practitioner. The very first inquest at which some form of autopsy or medical examination was performed was held in 1841. The body in that case was examined by the assistant surgeon, Patrick Gammie, at the request of the coroner.
Let us take a cross-section in community terms of what went on in Auckland last year—although we could go back further—to see the causes of death in the Auckland district. In 2005 we had 534 deaths from natural causes, 151 from suicide—a very troubling issue and one that I know other members will speak about—87 from motor vehicle crashes, 22 from homicide, and 16 from drowning. We had 39 deaths of young children, babies under a year old—a very timely topic at the moment, to the sadness of this Chamber. That number of 39 deaths of infants up to a year of age breaks down in two ways. Firstly we have early neonatal deaths—11 from birth defects and nine from sepsis, to produce a total of 20 deaths out of 39. When looking at the remainder, those 19 other young children who died, I think it is sobering and interesting to reflect that in gender terms there were eight male babies and 11 female babies. In terms of diagnosis, 13 of those children died from what is called SIDS, or sudden infant death syndrome, and we had six overlaying deaths, 12 deaths from co-sleeping, and seven cot deaths.
In Auckland we have something that I think is a bit unusual, certainly compared to other districts: two very highly qualified full-time professional coroners. Those two people are Sarn Herdson and Murray Jamieson. I say that in the context of the comments Dr Coleman has made, because one of the significant shifts in this legislation is a move to full-time and professional coroners. That is not without controversy, as he said, because the Government has decided simply to junk without compensation—in my view, completely against all constitutional principle—a number of coroners who have given valiant and competent service. Significant constitutional issues arise there, because, as National members will later recount, we are talking about people with tenure akin to judicial tenure, and that is to be stripped from them.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
Following on from what Dr Worth said, the National Opposition will support the Coroners Bill, but major constitutional questions arise that should not be treated lightly by the Minister. We will be dividing the House on this issue, because it is an important constitutional issue. It is interesting to observe that, as so often happens, English law is undergoing a change at the moment towards being a fully professional coronial system, and its 1988 legislation is soon to be repealed and replaced by a Coroners Act that also brings in the concept of full-time coroners. As will be highlighted when we come to the debate on the schedules of the legislation, the English are doing it properly, as opposed to this Government, which is acting unconstitutionally.
I have said before to the Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, or to his colleague the Minister of Justice in the context of legal aid, that they could learn a thing or two from their socialist cousins in England, because the proposals contained in the English bill, when appointments under the 1988 English Act cease to have effect, provide that the Lord Chancellor can make regulations for compensation to be paid to those who lose office on the coming into force of the bill. I would be happy to give the Minister those provisions, because that is the constitutional way that those who have held coronial office in New Zealand, and whose services are no longer required, should, in fact, be compensated.
As Dr Worth and Dr Coleman have observed, coroners in this country have performed a sterling service over often very lengthy periods of time. I found it incredible that one coroner for a rural and provincial district observed to me that the only time he was ever visited by officials of the Ministry of Justice was when someone visited him to tell him that this new regime was coming in and his services would probably no longer be required. So coroners cannot expect to be thanked, and under this Government they can expect to be unilaterally sacked, without any expectation of compensation. So although National thinks the new regime is a great improvement on the 1988 Act, and that the move towards a professional coroner—as Dr Worth said is evidenced in Auckland—is good, there are issues that we will need to canvass very carefully when we deal with the schedules.
As I recall, when the Minister was speaking in the second reading debate, he more or less dismissed an important clause that was introduced by the Justice and Electoral Committee, namely clause 4A, which provides that coroners must perform their duties without delay. It is a clause that I think is extremely important. Some of the most touching evidence we heard before the select committee came from good New Zealand citizens who felt that coronial inquests had gone on and on and not come to an end, and it prevented people from getting on with their lives. That is most unfortunate, and it is why it is so important that it be emphasised to coroners that they perform their tasks consistent with justice and without delay. I regret to say—and it is most probably because coroners are so busy and have so few resources under the existing regime—that it is a sad fact that sometimes coronial inquests go on too long.
I can think of a number of coronial inquests in recent times that have taken far too long—for example, the air accident in Christchurch—and this stops people getting on with their lives. As Lord Falconer said in his introduction to the English Coroners Act, and I think this really hits the nail on the head and applies with equal force to the New Zealand legislation: “Coroners have a vital task. They give certainty and reassurance to bereaved people, and they meet the public interest by determining the facts of deaths which are reported to them. These deaths may be violent on occasion, they may be unnatural, or they may be of unknown cause, but the coroner will investigate these cases and will conclude a formal inquest, and that will, among other things, identify lessons for preventing future deaths.” It is extremely important that those functions be carried out without delay, and that is why the committee was so emphatic that even if that was implied in various clauses, it needed to be spelt out in words of one syllable that coroners are expected to perform their duties without delay.
As to the other parts of Part 1, I do not think I need to delay the Committee for too long, at all. National approves of the appointment of a chief coroner who will have an overview of the work in New Zealand and will also issue practice notes and provide guidance to other coroners. As clause 5 states, that will “help to inform and achieve consistency in coronial decision-making and other coronial conduct …”. Those are good things, but there are questions that the Committee will need to discuss. I sincerely hope that as we go through the bill and address those one or two points, the Minister will take them seriously and take them into account.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
Being a coroner is an important and sensitive role. It is important because coroners are required to inquire into sudden and unexplained deaths, and to establish, as far as possible, the cause and circumstances of those deaths. Then, through investigations, coroners are required to find a way to avoid future unnecessary deaths from occurring. It is a sensitive role, because death usually involves families and wider networks of grieving people left behind. A sudden and unexpected death is even more shocking and emotive.
National supports this Coroners Bill because it replaces the Coroners Act of 1988, which was well overdue for an overhaul. The main purpose of the bill is to professionalise the coronial system so it will be more consistent, more effective, more timely, and more sensitive to family and cultural needs. Many submitters to the select committee process were family members who felt dissatisfied, and even undermined, by the present coronial system. The very large numbers of coroners working, mostly part time, has made it almost impossible to deliver a consistent and timely service across the country. Many coroners—and indeed JPs who do coronial work on occasion—are very experienced and do very fine work but, as cases are becoming more and more complex and technically challenging, it is timely that new provisions are introduced. The public must have confidence in the system.
As part of this professionalisation of the process, about 20 full-time coroners will be employed to replace a much larger number of part-time coroners and, as we have heard, a chief coroner will be appointed. The role of the chief coroner is key. It will be one mainly of leadership and coordination, and he or she will be responsible for providing support, advice, and, particularly, practice notes to the team, and for ensuring that investigations are orderly and timely. Time is of the essence. As we heard my colleague Mr Chris Finlayson mention, so many of the submitters who talked to us were devastated by the length of time it took to deal with their coronial process. The chief coroner is particularly charged with maintaining the consistency of service that we heard from submitters there was a great lack of. He or she will be required to streamline the system by encouraging cooperation, and by avoiding unnecessary duplication, between coroners and other investigative authorities and official bodies. Right now, most coroners deal with only a small number of cases every year. So moving to a system where coroners are full time will allow coroners to develop a greater expertise, and will improve that important timeliness of inquests and the release of coronial findings. Full-time coroners will also have more time to undertake public education and to develop a closer relationship with other investigating authorities.
The establishment of a full-time professional coronial system was strongly supported by submitters and by coroners themselves, although in this process many of those experienced and competent coroners will lose their part-time appointments. I would like to register publicly the National Party’s respect and thanks for those existing coroners.
KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
In speaking to Part 1 of the Coroners Bill, I want to go back in history a wee bit to the old Halsbury’s Laws of England. [] It is very interesting, I say to the member. The office of the coroner is of great antiquity, and no satisfactory account of its origin can be given. It is said to have existed at the time of the Anglo-Saxon kings. I find that interesting. The right to elect a coroner for London appears to have been granted to the citizens by Henry I in 1194. The justices in eyre were directed to see that in every county three knights and a clerk were chosen as custodians of the pleas of the Crown. The office may therefore be safely assumed to have existed at least as early as the beginning of the 13th century.
It is a history lesson, I tell the member, and one always learns from history.
It is vital that the public has confidence in our coronial system, and it is important in modern day, to take into account the needs of families. It is important to understand the causes of certain deaths, and this bill is overdue—according to the coroners, it is well overdue. It is not a perfect bill, as one has come to expect, but it is here none the less. It is certainly important to ensure that deaths—and especially violent and sudden deaths—are dealt with with sensitivity, with absolute professionalism, and with consistency and timeliness, and my colleague Mr Finlayson has referred to the duties of the coroner to act without delay. It is certainly arguable that that can be better achieved by having full-time coroners rather than the existing regime of some 60 part-time coroners, although I note there is provision in the bill for relief coroners who can be appointed on a full-time or a part-time basis.
I would also like to deal with the role of the coroner as dealt with in Part 1, which has already been alluded to. Again, I think it is really interesting to go back in history. If members will bear with me, they will see the similarities of the 21st century with the 13th century. In the 13th century the chief duties of a coroner were to inquire into the cause of death by holding an inquest or by ordering a post-mortem examination. That has not changed. Another duty was to hold inquests upon treasure troves. That has changed, because—unfortunately—we do not seem to have the same number of treasure troves that existed in the 13th century. In fact, we have lost a few of our treasure troves in just the last 7 years. Thirdly, the coroner acted upon occasion in the place of the sheriff. Again, unlike the 13th century, we do not seem to have a sheriff any more.
The coroner also had certain duties in respect of outlawry, and it would be interesting to know whether the coroner in that case had some duties in terms of corruption, especially in relation to the immigration field in New Zealand in the 21st century. In addition to that duty, in the 13th century in the City of London the coroner’s duties extended to the holding of inquests on outbreaks of fires. So the duties and the role of the coroner in some respects have remained very similar and have not changed; in other respects, they are very, very different. The history is really quite interesting. In those days “a coroner [might] not take pleas of the Crown, nor hold inquests of royal fish, nor of wreck, nor of felonies, except felonies on inquisitions of death.” I am not quite sure why we would want to hold an inquest of royal fish, to be perfectly honest, and fish is not mentioned in this 21st century Coroners Bill.
None the less, the coroner’s role is fairly well pronounced in the bill. The coroner is to receive reports of deaths, to decide whether post-mortems are required, to authorise the release of bodies, or parts thereof, and to decide whether to hold open inquiries. I think there is a provision in this part of the bill that possibly requires some scrutiny, because when we are dealing with death, the last thing we want is for any family to have uncertainty about what is happening. There is enough uncertainty in dealing with the trauma and emotions relating to death—
David BennettI will soon get to the Middle Ages. We need to eliminate uncertainty, especially in times of death. We also need to pay particular scrutiny to the definition of “immediate family”, which, in relation to a dead person, means “members of the dead person’s family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group, who—(i) were in a close relationship with the person; or (ii) had, in accordance with customs or traditions of the community of which the person was part, responsibility for, or an interest in, the person’s welfare and best interests;”. I believe there could be some uncertainty in the definition of “immediate family”. I would not like to see a family that is suffering from the trauma of the death of a loved one to have then to prove they are the immediate family for the purposes of the Coroners Act. I would certainly appreciate the Minister’s elaboration on “immediate family”.
As I said, it really is vital that there is no room for uncertainty and that the issues of perhaps competing interests of various family members can be dealt with professionally, quickly, and competently. I think some of that consistency will be achieved with the appointment now of full-time coroners, although, as Mr Finlayson pointed out, there is no provision for any compensation. It would be interesting to see how that relates to the Employment Relations Act in terms of redundancy, because there are few jobs—apart from those of members of Parliament, of course—that can be terminated at will, if you like, without any form of redundancy payment or compensation. Many of our experienced part-time coroners have spent many, many years in the field doing a lot of work for the good of the community, but now they will be dumped without remorse, without compensation, and without redundancy. There is some sort of inequity, I think, in that system, and I wonder whether that could be addressed.
I think I will leave my call at that. I have other history lessons to talk to in relation to Part 2, and I would not like to be seen to be filibustering on this very important bill.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Hoi anō, e rua ngā wāhanga o taku kōrero i tēnei pō. Ko tētahi mō ngā kaiwewete tūpāpaku, ko te mea ka rua ko te whakamomori. Roto i a mātou i Te Tai Tokerau he tino āwangawanga. Kua roa rawa tō rātou noho waenganui i a mātou. Kei a mātou ngā kaiwewete tūpāpaku e noho ana mō ngā wā roa roto i a mātou. E mōhio ana rātou ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi, me ngā kaumātua o te rohe, me ngā tikanga ā-iwi. Engari mā tēnei ture, ka whakakāoretia i tō rātou tūranga. Ka tukuna tēnei mahi ki tētahi tangata he matatau ana ki te ture, engari e kūare ana ki ngā tikanga. Nō reira, hakoa e mea ana te pire nei e aroha ana ki ngā tikanga Māori e kore e wakatinanatia i tēnei wā.
Mō te whakamomori, kei roto i taku whānau tērā tikanga. Ko tētahi o ngā tino tikanga kia whai atu i te take, he aha te take i whakamomori ai taku whānau. Me pēhea rā te wakatika i te whānau kia kaua e pērā ai. Atu i tērā, e hiahia ana te tangata kia wakapāho atu i tōna kōrero. Engari e mea ana te ture, e kore e taea. Engari mō te Māori, he kaupapa nui tēnei.
[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee.]
[Indeed, I have two parts to my address this evening. One relates to coroners, and the other to suicides. There is a huge concern amongst people in the north. They have lived in our midst for a long time. We have coroners who have been among us for a long period of time. They know the families, subtribes, the people, the elderly in the area, and the customs of the tribe. But this law will remove their positions. This position is given to a person who is competent in law but ignorant of customs. So, despite this bill saying that it is sympathetic to Māori customs, it will not be mandated at this time.
Regarding suicides, I have that situation in my family. One important thing to follow up is why there are suicidal tendencies in my family, and how the family can rectify the situation to remove the tendency. In addition, people might want the outcome communicated to them. But the law states that this is not possible. But the matter is a very important one to Māoridom.]
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to raise an issue for guidance from you. Because at the moment we are getting an interpretation from the translator. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that we should be receiving a translation. The outcome is hugely disruptive for the speaker who is having to pause and get word by word interpretation, whereas only a translation is required.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this
No, what we are going through now is an interpretation, and that is the correct procedure. It is not a translation; it is an interpretation, and I think it is going very well.
Horekau he raruraru ki a au. Tā mātou tino kaupapa, kia kōrero atu i ngā whakaaro roto i te ngākau, ki te whakapāho atu ki te ao whānui kia rongohia wētahi atu whānau, ki te wakatipu i wā rātou tamariki. Nō reira, e kore mātou e whakaae mā te ture e whakakahoretia i tā mātou whakapāhotanga.
[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee.]
[I do not have a problem with it. Our policy really is that one should be able to express oneself, to let the whole world know so that other families know about it and raise their families accordingly. We do not agree that the law should remove this ability for us to broadcast it.]