Worth Richard: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4682] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 As we come to the closing of the Committee stage of this debate I think it is worthwhile noting two things. Firstly I want to be utterly fair to the Minister Rick Barker who has exercised a financial veto in respect of the Finlayson amendment under Chapter 6 of the Standing Orders and to give him an opportunity to recant if he wants to. He made it very clear. He said the effect of the Government’s position in respect of clause 3 of schedule 3 is that ex gratia - type payments were not ruled out. I think it is important to record that because clause 3 states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner …”. The Minister made the point that there should be a focus on the word “entitlement” but that the clause did not rule out the payment of compensation in appropriate cases. I put it that way to give him an opportunity to back off if he wants to. 
The second issue I seek to identify is that but for National it is highly probable that this legislation would not have been advanced. Why do I say that? Because there has been absolutely no contribution apart from the comments of the Minister from Government members. I reflect on the fact that not so long ago the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee was Tim Barnett rather than the present chairperson. He would have been in this Chamber making a contribution. I say that if it is fair enough that Martin Gallagher the chairman of the Law and Order Committee is here then we should also have the opportunity to hear comments from the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee Lynne Pillay. It is a shame we have not had a contribution from that member. If I speculate why that is I think we all understand that it is simply because she is not up to the task. 
The Coroners Bill is important legislation and National has sought to emphasise that at every point. We really have only one position of violent disagreement with the Government which is the issue of the tenure of coronial office and the appropriateness of compensation payments. 
Probably the most controversial issue the select committee had to grapple with was suicide reporting. I simply say that New Zealand’s print media increasingly regard the issue of suicide as one of urgent public interest and a major public health problem. Media representatives have said when talking about the benefits of publicity that blaming the messenger for causing or worsening the problem whose basic causes must be sought elsewhere fails to recognise the important and cleansing nature of the blaze of publicity being focused on the darker side of New Zealand life. 
The select committee grappled with this issue. The relevant clause is clause 61. Clause 61 remains in place with discretions vested in the coroner to do what he or she thinks is right. I express the hope against the background of the urgings from the Commonwealth Press Union and the New Zealand Press Council that it is time the issue was seriously considered that if there is to be greater publicity there should be some guidelines offered on this very tricky issue of suicide reporting. 
I offer further comment on the issue and say first of all that suicide should be reported when such reports are in the public interest. Media professionals have an obligation to avoid the distribution of material that is likely to incite or encourage self-harm or suicidal behaviour. I also say that media professionals are under a clear obligation to exercise care not to trivialise romanticise or glorify suicide particularly in media that target young people or that are likely to be available to them.