Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): 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."