Penk Chris; Tirikatene RinoCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. The Minister in the chair Rino Tirikatene is relatively new in his role but he's demonstrated the wisdom that would befit much more experience than that. He's preempted the objections or the questions that I was going to raise with him. First time in the chair in the committee of the whole House stage—we're not going to let him off quite so lightly as not to answer any questions at all but we'll do that in a reasonably light touch because actually we've given a little bit of airing at the second reading to this particular issue both on this side of the House—and I include in that with gratitude our colleague and friend from the ACT Party Nicole McKee—and the Minister has addressed the question in the sense of outlining why on balance he does not think it necessary to adopt my suggestion and nor did the Government members on the Justice Committee. Of course there must be a balance between the interests of justice in the very broad sense of maximum exposure to circumstances but also the dictates of justice as timely justice would require. So I do acknowledge there's the tension there. I don't think anyone in this House would say that there shouldn't be some kind of balance struck. We've just ended up I suppose in a slightly different place about exactly where that balance lies and the weighting perhaps that we give on each of those respective factors.I think it would be helpful however for the record just if the Minister can confirm—well he doesn't have to but I'm going to suggest and hope he will respond to my suggestion that it should be an unusual use of a coroner's power to say that it's not in the public interest to report on the circumstances of a death. I think I've got that right—I hope I haven't inadvertently thrown in a double negative. But my suggestion is that while a coroner will be afforded that discretion that he or she may choose not to report on the circumstances of a death precisely because that coroner won't know what other decisions elsewhere might have been made similarly and therefore the public interest in building up a pattern of risky circumstances that might lead to a death we might lose that opportunity as a system.So if the Minister can provide anything for the record that I think would be helpful for coroners going forward applying the law even as it stands now unamended by the Supplementary Order Paper no doubt given that we've had an indication that won't succeed on the Government side then I think that would be a helpful thing to take out of this process.Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Minister for Courts): I thank the member for his contribution and also restating his position on the Supplementary Order Paper. I'd just reiterate that the changes that we're making are an administrative step that will help streamline the process to write up and publish findings. They do not reduce however how a death is investigated prior to the written findings being issued. Like all coronial decisions this assessment is informed by the evidence provided to the coroner. So the Coroners Act will still require coroners to establish the circumstances that led to the death so far as possible and the Act will still require coroners to include the circumstances of the death if they consider that publishing these details will contribute to the public interest in terms of reducing the likelihood of further deaths occurring in similar circumstances and this is in line with the purpose of the Coroners Act. So I'm confident that coroners will continue to fulfil their statutory duties to establish the circumstances of deaths that they are required to investigate and will include these circumstances in their findings when necessary to help prevent similar deaths from occurring in future.So in essence the coroners yes they do have the discretion. They will as they are obliged to do look at all the circumstances. When they feel that it is in the public interest that those wider circumstances are included in their report then they will do that. So I'm confident that providing that discretion to coroners based on their experience they will be able to make that judgment call around what is in the public interest. I'm sure that if it came up in their examination of not only the cause of death but also the wider circumstances if it becomes clear that there is indeed a matter that is of public interest they will be obliged to include that in their report writing. So I'm confident that where we are at with the provisions of this bill and the way that it has been constructed the functions and the roles of the coroner remain the same. This is just about ensuring that we can get a more expeditious flow of cases and where special circumstances do warrant in the public interest that they be recorded that will be done.