Goff PhilHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I just start by thanking Jacqui Dean for her comments and for the hearing that I got at the Justice and Electoral Committee on the change that I am now bringing to the Committee by way of my amendment. She said that she thought the contribution was a thoughtful one and I think that all members on that committee did give it proper consideration and there was support for at least acknowledgment of the arguments from all sides of the House.As you know the decisions that are made about bills are not made at the select committee but often they are made by the Minister and I am urging Minister Smith quite genuinely to answer the questions that I have raised. The amendment that I am bringing forward is an amendment that I am bringing forward on behalf of the family members of those who were killed in service of their country. They have expressed genuine concern heartfelt concern about what this means for the information they might get about the circumstances in which their loved ones were killed. It is not a frivolous contribution that I am making. I thank the New Zealand First Party—Denis O'Rourke—and the Greens for their support and the Labour Party of course but I do not see this as a partisan amendment. I see this as an amendment that is actually based on addressing the concern that the Defence Force raised but in a way that best satisfies the requirements of transparency and accountability.Minister if I can take your attention just to look at what the regulatory impact statement from the department behind this bill actually said about the option that I am promoting. The question—it goes through all the options and it asks whether these options balance transparency with the risk of inquiring into matters of State. The answer that the department itself says about what I am recommending is: Yes. Achieves a balance—it ensures that coroners investigate the deaths of members of the [Defence Force] except where the Attorney General considers there are risks to national security." So it cannot be that concern about national security prevents the Government from supporting my particular amendment. Again the department says that "A coronial investigation will provide independent scrutiny of the circumstances in which the death occurred which is accessible to the public." I am asking you Minister why we should not have independent scrutiny in a way that is accessible to the public but most particularly to the families who have suffered the loss that they have.For the next question from the regulatory impact statement "Does the option duplicate investigations?" the answer is "No". In fact the coroner has always relied on the New Zealand Defence Force to provide some of the factual material about what happened in the circumstances of the death. It asks whether it is consistent with other legislation—yes Minister my amendment is. It is consistent with the Visiting Forces Act 2004. In its conclusion it sums up by saying yes this option does give us "Adequate opportunity for an independent inquiry." it "Does not contravene national security." it "Provides transparency …" and it says as an adjunct that coronial resources would of course be stretched if there was a major war but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the 21st century where the circumstances of death are pretty much the same as those that occurred with the loss of 10 New Zealand lives in the Afghanistan conflict.So I am asking you Minister; this is the one place where you can be accountable to the House. This is the one place where I and other members of Parliament can get an explanation from you as to why you would not support this amendment for which the bereaved families have shown real support and about which the former Chief Coroner has said is more democratic and is more consistent with the countries that we would always compare ourselves with in this field: Australia the United Kingdom and Canada. It is consistent with what they have done. What we are talking about is a coronial investigation that is the status quo. That right is there for the coroner to look into the deaths and there has been no evidence that coroners have done other than work cooperatively with the New Zealand Defence Force.It is not too late for the Government to change its mind. I am not trying to embarrass the Government; I am simply saying this is the option that makes sense and this is the option that those families want."