Barker Rick: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2664] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Coroners Bill be now read a second time 
. The Coroners Bill reforms the coronial system to improve the quality consistency and timeliness of coroners’ investigations and decision making and to take better account of the needs of families. The bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988. The Government introduced the Coroners Bill firstly to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system; secondly to take better account of the diverse social cultural and spiritual needs of families; thirdly to maintain the need to understand the causes and circumstances of death in a timely way; and fourthly to promote cooperation between coroners and other agencies also involved in the investigations of deaths. 
I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its work on the bill. The committee dealt with some difficult issues such as the retention of body parts and bodily samples and the making public of the details of self-inflicted deaths. I want to highlight two areas in the bill that have received particular attention. The first is about the reporting of suicide deaths. The bill largely continues existing restrictions on the making public of details of deaths that appear to be suicide. Like the committee the Government gave considerable thought to whether to continue the restrictions. Suicide affects all sectors of the community regardless of age economic status or ethnicity. Youth suicide is clearly a tragic event and an area of legitimate concern for all New Zealanders. The most recent provisional suicide statistics published by the Ministry of Health reveal that contrary to public perception men between the ages of 25 and 44 years continue to have the highest age-specific suicide rate. 
The reasons behind New Zealand’s suicide rates are complex. Possible explanations include the increasing rates of depression alcohol and drug abuse changes in the family structure and the trends towards a more risk-taking society. What is clear is that suicide is a sensitive area for family members. Families struggling emotionally with a bereavement by suicide often feel stigmatised shamed and socially isolated by the death as well. It is important that those families’ privacy be given due weight and consideration and not be trampled on by others seeking to sensationalise the tragedy for their own purposes. 
Some people have suggested that removing the restrictions might improve public understanding of the issues and reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths. No evidence is offered for this and it is contrary to overseas research. The Government supports the status quo until such time as health studies support a change. Studies show that the way the media report suicide can influence suicidal behaviour and increase the overall number of suicide deaths. The risk of imitative suicide means that we must take a more cautious approach. 
The bill ensures that the coroner considers whether making details public is likely to have a detrimental effect on public safety. It also helps protect the privacy of deceased persons and their families. The bill is not about restricting freedom of the press. It does not prevent public discussion of the public health issue of suicide. It may restrict the publication of the particulars of a specific case such as how the person died but for good reasons: they are essentially private family matters. 
The second point I want to make is about the number of coroners. This bill is a major reform of the coronial system and is widely supported. Central to the new system will be a team of mostly full-time legally qualified and well-trained coroners led by a chief coroner. Working full time means coroners can develop and maintain expertise much more easily than coroners who deal with only a few inquests each year. This means that coroners will not have to juggle coronial work with other work commitments so cases are likely to be completed more quickly. It also means that coroners will be able to spend more time building relationships with communities and groups that have special cultural and spiritual requirements following a death. 
Appointing full-time coroners means that fewer people will be required. At present there are about 60 mostly part-time coroners many of whom deal with a small number of cases each year. Although some coroners are nearing retirement many current coroners could continue in office for years to come. Under the new Act all existing positions will be disestablished. However all legally qualified coroners will be able to apply for positions under the new Act. Some existing coroners may not wish to work full time but may be happy to continue their involvement as relief coroners. 
Suggestions were raised by National members of the committee that coroners rely on coronial work for income and they will be financially disadvantaged if they are not appointed under the new Act. Those members suggest that coroners should be paid compensation for the loss of office. The Government does not agree. Coroners are judicial officers with a limited and specialised jurisdiction. They are not judges of a superior court and the bill does not undermine judicial independence in a manner that requires Parliament to compensate them for loss of office. Most coroners work part time and apart from two full-time coroners coroners are paid fees set by regulation. 
As an example a coroner who receives a report of a death but decides not to hold an inquest is paid a fee of $80. A coroner who completes an inquest lasting less than 2 hours is paid $250. A coroner is paid at a rate of $100 per hour for an inquest lasting more than 2 hours. The fees I have listed account for most of a coroner’s role. Most coroners do not earn a significant income from coronial work and those who do are well qualified to be considered for appointment under the new Act. The bill allows former coroners to continue in office to complete inquests and to deal with any deaths that have been reported to them. Coroners will be paid any fees due to them for the work they have done. The existing coronial system needs to be wound up so that we can put the new system in place. This bill will give us a much better coronial system. 
I now want to mention briefly some of the valuable contributions the committee made towards improving the bill to be more responsive to families. The coronial process is distressing for people who have lost a close family member. We want to ensure that the coronial system responds to the needs of families and also to ensure that the wider public can have confidence in an excellent coronial system. Some of the changes include: firstly returning body parts and bodily samples to the family only when specifically requested; secondly ensuring coroners perform their duties without delay; thirdly maintaining a register of coroners’ recommendations; and fourthly considering the location of family members interested people and witnesses when fixing the place for the inquest. 
I am confident that this bill will enhance public confidence in the coronial system; improve the quality consistency and timeliness of coronial decision-making; and take better account of the cultural and spiritual needs of families. I commend the bill to the House.