O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Tax and death: the two certainties in life—and of course none of us are going to escape the latter. It's how we deal with that death that really determines so much about how we are judged as a society. This is a very simple bill as many of the speakers have spoken about but the simplicity of the bill underlies just how important it is to get it right at this most vital time. One thing that has been somewhat overlooked in the debate is the why.When you're a young police officer as I once was far too many years ago one thing you learn on beginning is that those things that may have attracted you into the police—the fast car chases or the other things that appear nightly on our TV screens—it's not about that at all. It's about dealing with people. In fact the most important thing is dealing with sudden deaths. That many have spoken about tonight. The understanding—we talk about the coroner—as to why we actually have that percentage of around 20 to 30 percent of deaths that unfortunately a medical practitioner does not offer a certificate as to cause. When you're a young police officer and you turn up the thing that you always hope for is that you will get from a GP a certificate as to cause of death. Of course what that means is that the authorities—from the coroner and police—are no longer involved and the body can then be handed over to the family and then all those matters that we've spoken of tonight all the needs the cultural needs can be met.However what this bill is about is those other cases that become coronial cases. Now it's often not quite understood what the role of the coroner is. Essentially the role of the coroner is to establish when where how and why that death occurred. Obviously these are all things that are covered by the certificate as to cause which means that the attending practitioner has seen—there are stipulations here: they need to have seen them in a recent period of time and be prepared to actually execute that certificate as to cause. However establishing the circumstances of the death—ensuring that that when where why and how are ascertained—is where the aggravation frustration and other emotions of the family become involved.Certainly one of the things you learn when you start dealing with these sudden deaths is that your job is to maintain that balance and that balance is between the requirements of the coroner to establish those very things that I've discussed—which he or she must because that is their job; that is their task—and the needs of the family.One learns very early in the piece that it's not the easiest thing to do certainly—turning up at a family home where a life has just been turned on its head as a result of the death in what does become something of a form-filling exercise. At the end of it the body is actually removed—right in the middle of all this emotion the body is removed. And that is in the case where there on the surface of it don't appear to be any suspicious circumstances but of course again the role of those attending police officers and those first attending is to ensure in fact what they see is actually what has occurred.The ABC of policing is to accept nothing believe no one and corroborate everything because there have been many cases—and many I'm sure have resulted in criticism and questions in this House—where subsequently those that have been what we say written off as a sudden death did turn out to be the result of foul play. And that is why we come to the absolute need to ensure that we get that balance right while it is incredibly important as all speakers have touched on tonight to make sure that the cultural requirements the cultural necessities and just the cultural deserves of those we're dealing with are actually met.So when we say the when" I think of my own personal experience of the starkness of perhaps the different culture in the way we deal with death. There was a case I was involved in in Castlepoint when I was working in the Wairarapa where a body was discovered during the weekend. It would appear it was a mother and daughter and it certainly would appear that that body had been a result of an incident that had occurred post-European times—just in fact in the last 30 or 40 years. So it was wound up. We had basically essentially the beginnings of a homicide inquiry until relatively early in the piece it was discovered or was ascertained that it was pre-European—the body was pre-European. Of course at that stage there was clearly no—the cause of death was natural. At that stage of course a whole new cultural norm came in.I remember being particularly impressed with how quickly the word got around and that in fact within the culture and with the memory of the local iwi they did remember and were able to place this particular person who we'd found. And instead of this body being removed in a say European and a very controlled way which it would have been to preserve the evidence of course it was a very different way in which it was treated. And that was a very stark reminder to me of the different way things are dealt with.Of course there is also establishing where the death had occurred. And this again is why it's really incredibly important that that work is done at the time because often bodies are moved particularly where there are suspicious circumstances. So again it's important to establish the "where"—what occurred and where it is—and that when we're reporting back the coroner we have got it right.Again at the risk of standing here telling war stories I recall another case where I was involved where bodies—it was again a Sunday afternoon—a number of bodies kept turning up in the river and it started out looking incredibly suspicious as to what had happened. We were very quickly able to go back and establish that it was a tragedy: a father and two sons were actually crossing a river when there had been a cloudburst and a flash flood through this river which had tragically carried them away. So it was something that on the surface of it—in fact because of the river the force of the river two of the three of them had ended up losing all their clothing—was going to take a lot of explanation but by reconstructing and being able to work out exactly where things occurred we were able to go back to the coroner.Again all these things happened with grieving families watching—making sure that we treated them with a sensitivity but again making sure that we got the details necessary. If you look at the bill that is why the balance is right in making sure we do treat it with cultural sensitivity.Of course how it occurred—this is the crux of why—[Bell rung] I'm only at three war stories and I'm already near at the end of my time. But how this occurred again is exactly why the crux of this bill—so why the coroner still must be involved. The coroner must with all confidence be able to at the end of this exercise ascertain exactly what did occur—of course with the why which is the motive.In fact the situation has become more complicated with the DNA. In fact now there's a necessity to ensure there's absolutely no chance that there will be any contamination of the body in any other way. Actually what also adds on to I suppose the family who may be watching is not only police officers turning up but turning up the way they are clad where there's no chance of any contamination of any more DNA which again adds to that.This legislation even becomes more relevant to actually enshrine this in legislation to ensure that as the advances in science as the way we treat—particularly again I'm referring always to coroner's cases but mostly to those cases of suspicious death. It becomes more relevant to ensure that in those cases as we require more and more shall we say preservation of the scene we do take note of the absolute necessity to keep the cultural requirements and the family requirements intact.So I do commend this bill to the House and I believe it is a bill that has its time. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee."