Dunne Peter: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2676] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call in support of this bill. I will begin by drawing on the very graphic examples that the member who preceded me has just presented to the House as compelling evidence of why change is necessary. I think it is worth recalling for the House at the risk of sounding like an aged veteran that this current Act was passed in 1988 around the time that we were first coming to grips with the so-called “unfortunate experiment” in Auckland that the items Mr Mark referred to about the routine storing of babies’ parts at Green Lane Hospital were not public knowledge that there was a climate that really did not see the cultural issues that have been identified in this debate as being all that significant and that the air of mystery that surrounded the process was still one that said that this was best left to doctors and coroners and people who know about those things and that families ought to be left out in the cold. 
That was only 18 years ago and things have moved a huge way in that time. Technology has changed. DNA sampling which then was just a concept people mused about is now a reality. So many horrific “unfortunate experiments” have been revealed that there is a new mood in the community for a far greater assertion of the rights of the family and those close to the deceased person in terms of the way in which that person is treated through post-mortems and other such examinations. So it is timely that this bill picks up contemporary trends and legislates in a way that recognises the concerns that are being expressed. I suspect that if one looked at the record from 18 years ago when this measure was last debated one would not see too much concern expressed about how long the process took. The view then would have been as long as we got a decision at some point. That is a measure of how much things have moved in the meantime. 
I think that this bill is a positive step forward. I take the comment made earlier by a previous speaker about the elephantine progress of legislation. This Act may well be one that is kept under far more constant review than once every couple of decades because I think that social attitudes technology and other things will change very rapidly. 
The second comment I want to make relates to the reporting of self-inflicted death or suicide. I am one who traditionally has held the view that the greater the degree of openness in these matters the better. Over the years I have worked with a number of suicide prevention groups and other groups and I have to say that my view has changed somewhat. I think that there is a very real danger—and a lot of the evidence would support this—of creating a situation where the worthy presentation of information about the risks in the situations people get up to actually creates a copycat syndrome. I think we have to be very very careful about that. I respect immensely the legal mind and intellectual capacity of Sir John Jeffries and I would be very heavily guided in the normal course of events by submissions that he might make. I believe that the submissions he prepared on behalf of the Press Council were well intentioned and noble and that a man of his integrity would ensure that if the provision were liberalised the law would be applied in that way. 
 But I do not have the same confidence with regard to the news media as a whole. I become somewhat anxious when the leading charge for change in this area in the interests of making the public better informed and more aware comes from our New Zealand news media. Because my view of them frankly in these matters is that the lurid and the sensational win out over the public interest every time. For that reason I think that the position recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee and I agree it is a close-run thing is actually the correct one until we do not have a situation where the New Zealand media will treat getting the last sensational detail as a competitive advantage. I do not think in the interests of our young people in particular that we can afford to make the reporting of these circumstances more open than it is at the moment. 
Finally I want to make a comment about both Mr Mark’s speech and Ms Turia’s speech. Although I have experienced death at close hand I have not had the experience of post-mortems. But I have talked to a number of people who clearly have been through that trauma. I think that anything that can be done firstly to give the family in those situations more information about what is going on and why; secondly to assure them of dignity courtesy and respect in a process that is timely and considered; and thirdly to be able to give some confidence that the system is actually undertaking these examinations for a purpose not just because that is what it always does has to be an advantage. 
I believe that the coronial system has served New Zealand well to date. I take my hat off to people such as the Wellington Coroner who I think has been an outstanding coroner and I sincerely hope we do not lose his services as a result of this new legislation. But I think that this bill on the whole is a step forward and it deserves to be passed into law at the earliest opportunity.