Williams Poto; Naylor JonoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to make some brief comments to underline the argument that my colleague Jacinda Ardern has been making particularly in relation to new sections 57A and 57B and also the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 145 and 146 in Jacinda Ardern's name. What I want to do is just extrapolate a little bit on the argument that she presented around the coroner's investigation and reporting on the matter of death as a result of accident or crime and the recommendations that are then made by the coroners. The example that Jacinda Ardern uses and that is also part of the Labour Party minority view is the case where a road death has occurred and where there is an issue—for example of the misuse of alcohol—that is a major contributor to that death. However as part of the investigation the coroner discovers that there are other contributing factors that may or may not be as weighted in the result of the death but are significant and are contributory—they may for example be road conditions. So in the case of a death that has occurred as the result of the misuse of alcohol where there have been other contributing factors the coroner is unable to actually include in his or her report these other factors that may or may not be significant. However—and this is the point I want to underline—those elements may be significant in other accidents or other deaths and the fact that they are unable to be reported as part of the investigation actually means that we are losing the opportunity to then ensure that other accidents and other deaths are potentially prevented.I think it is significant particularly when this year—and I hear over the last 3 years—the road toll is actually on the rise. Part of the concern for those in the road transport organisations would be things like road conditions weather conditions and the condition of motor vehicles as well as the condition of the driver in charge of the vehicle at the time of the crash. This really speaks also to the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Jacinda Ardern which not only look at the ability of the coroner to make those recommendations but also require agencies and individuals to actually respond to those recommendations. The SOPs do not require that the individuals or organisations make recommendations for changes but they do require that they make a response. This is really important because then the coroner should be able to report on those findings and those findings will be useful in being able to prevent other deaths in the future.In that regard I also want to talk to the submission that was made by the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand with regard to the reporting of suicide. Where we are discussing being very open about making recommendations and requiring responses about other deaths there is a particular sensitivity when we are reporting suicides. One of the pieces of evidence that the Mental Health Foundation gave was in the reporting of suicides—the sensitivity that is required and the level of detail that is then reported in order to prevent copycat suicides. However when we look at best practice for organisations that support those who are having suicidal tendencies or thinking of self-harming one of the recommendations that it makes is that we are sensitive to the actual mechanism of that death. We must continue to talk about suicide as a concern for our community but there are ways to do it that are sensitive to ensure that we do not then perpetuate other copycat suicides. It is a very important element to consider when we are asking coroners to report findings on deaths where people have taken their own lives.On that note I just want to finish with the issue that was raised by my colleague about the wishes of whānau. My colleague Louisa Wall raised this in the context of investigations of Defence Force personnel who have died in combat but the notion of the wishes of whānau needs to be underlined throughout this work. It has been noted that whānau wish to be consulted about releasing the details of the death of their loved ones but it does not actually recommend to us the weighting of their decision making in the release of the evidence of the investigation that the coroner has made. It is interesting because whānau will have differing views. Some will be very open to the nature of their loved one's death being advised to the general public and some will not. That might be due to the nature of the death or it might be due to the family's sensitivity but I would encourage the Minister to consider more fully the impact that whānau believe that they can have in relation to this and the wishes of the whānau in regard to the death of their loved ones. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR (National): I move That the question be now put.