Barker Rick: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4668] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Firstly I reassure Mr Finlayson that the Justice and Electoral Committee has got this legislation right. I read with interest the submissions such as that made by the Press Council. I draw his attention to what I think is the most important line in that submission: “The Press Council eschews debate on the issue of ‘contagion’ or ‘copycat suicide’ except to say that the evidence to support this is very unclear.” On the basis of eschewing the research the Press Council opts for freedom of the press. 
I did some cursory investigation myself and found every piece of evidence to be very clear. It did not take much to research the information through the Internet. The first thing is that copycat suicide has been recorded over and over again. Every piece of research showed that when a high-profile suicide is attempted others follow. We had the example in Hong Kong whereby a very unusual method was used for suicide. It had never been seen before and by putting it in the public arena in a very short period of time it became the third most common form of suicide in that area. Every other piece of research showed that when someone particularly a young person commits suicide other suicides follow. The copycat and contagion effect is documented incredibly thoroughly. It is beyond doubt. So the Press Council is saying that it wants to have the ability under the guise of freedom of speech to report suicide and that the public’s right to know is greater than the negatives that can befall the general public. I am very cynical about this. 
I have another issue I want to raise before I carry on. I am sure Mr Finlayson would agree with me that any family that has suffered a suicide will say that that is a personal family matter. It is about their family and their family issues. Everybody in a family will feel a sense of guilt about a suicide because they will wonder in their deep thoughts what they could have done to prevent it and what they did that made the person suddenly tip over the edge and decide they wanted to be somewhere else. Very often for the family there are suicide notes an enormous amount of recrimination an incredible amount of guilt and a whole range of other issues. To have these matters discussed in public would be to defile that family. These are private family matters. To have the public trawl over them in some voyeuristic manner would add insult to the injury of that family. To have the media highlight some really unusual characteristic or some difficulties in the relationship would be to make those who already feel very tender and have a sense of guilt feel incredibly ashamed and guilty. 
The Press Council has swept aside those issues and shown no interest in them at all but of the many families I have spoken to about suicide all have given me a very clear message: they do not want their private family affairs and these matters to be held up in public for all to see. They want them to remain private family matters—and the emphasis should be on that. 
The second point I make to Mr Finlayson and all those who have any shadow of a doubt about this matter is that the research shows that copycat suicide and contagion is a very real factor. Anyone who has studied this issue will tell us that when someone commits suicide in an area it sends a signal to others that suicide is an OK thing to do. That person is the permission-giver. We had a very good example of that recently in a small central North Island town where a number of people took their lives one after another. Despite Parliament’s prohibition on reporting that matter a senior executive of a television programme said: “Despite what the law says I believe that the public has a right to know.” Although there were legal consequences arising out of doing it the programme went on to display all of the facts. That case demonstrates the responsibility taken by the media on this issue. 
If I could for one instant believe that the rules that were agreed to would be honoured I would be tempted to consider the matter but I can not. The fact is that contrary to what the media shows the number of suicides in New Zealand is falling. That is the situation. The public perception is somewhat different. The second inaccuracy in the public perception is that youth suicide is the main problem but that is not the case either. The most common form of suicide in New Zealand is that of a person who is male and is aged 25 to 30 years old and older. Those statistics will come as a surprise to people. The third thing is that a disproportionately high number of Maori commit suicide. Again that is contrary to the public perception because the media have highlighted only those issues that they know will maximise their traction. If the media were able to highlight a particular youth suicide in an area the shock and horror aspect of it would certainly sell newspapers and a subsequent copycat suicide would sell even more newspapers—and we are told that that is the benefit of freedom of information. Well I do not accept that. My view is that Parliament is entitled to have a view on these things. It has had a view on them and it has been very successful. The rate of suicide in New Zealand is declining and I think that Parliament is taking exactly the right stance on this issue. 
Another point I would make in the last few minutes I have is that this is not so much a justice issue as a health issue. I am very pleased to see that Jim Anderton has put out a strategy on reducing suicide numbers. Many of these issues are covered in that strategy. I believe we should work through that strategy over time and measure it and if at any point in the future those who are responsible for analysing the information on these issues—people primarily in the health sector and in social services—say that we are at the stage where we can maturely debate these things and that that will not have flow-on consequences for us then I am prepared to accept their advice and guidance on the matter. But when members of the newspaper association say they eschew research that gives me no confidence in their opinion at all. Had they put up an argument based on international research and considered opinion on the consequences of publicising suicides I would have said their argument had some merit. But it does not. Contrary to what they have said the research internationally is unequivocal and very clear. 
So I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its decision. Personally I am absolutely convinced that it has the argument right. I think the balance is exactly right and I support the bill 100 percent. It is my own personal experience and the experience of many other people I have spoken to on this subject that this is a family matter and should remain a family matter. 
The last point I will raise for the Committee is that I understand that Mr Finlayson has put on the Table an amendment to Part 4. I wish to invoke the 24-hour rule on this matter because it has financial implications.