Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4396] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Following on from what Dr Worth said the National Opposition will support the Coroners Bill but major constitutional questions arise that should not be treated lightly by the Minister. We will be dividing the House on this issue because it is an important constitutional issue. It is interesting to observe that as so often happens English law is undergoing a change at the moment towards being a fully professional coronial system and its 1988 legislation is soon to be repealed and replaced by a Coroners Act that also brings in the concept of full-time coroners. As will be highlighted when we come to the debate on the schedules of the legislation the English are doing it properly as opposed to this Government which is acting unconstitutionally. 
I have said before to the Minister the Hon Rick Barker or to his colleague the Minister of Justice in the context of legal aid that they could learn a thing or two from their socialist cousins in England because the proposals contained in the English bill when appointments under the 1988 English Act cease to have effect provide that the Lord Chancellor can make regulations for compensation to be paid to those who lose office on the coming into force of the bill. I would be happy to give the Minister those provisions because that is the constitutional way that those who have held coronial office in New Zealand and whose services are no longer required should in fact be compensated. 
As Dr Worth and Dr Coleman have observed coroners in this country have performed a sterling service over often very lengthy periods of time. I found it incredible that one coroner for a rural and provincial district observed to me that the only time he was ever visited by officials of the Ministry of Justice was when someone visited him to tell him that this new regime was coming in and his services would probably no longer be required. So coroners cannot expect to be thanked and under this Government they can expect to be unilaterally sacked without any expectation of compensation. So although National thinks the new regime is a great improvement on the 1988 Act and that the move towards a professional coroner—as Dr Worth said is evidenced in Auckland—is good there are issues that we will need to canvass very carefully when we deal with the schedules. 
As I recall when the Minister was speaking in the second reading debate he more or less dismissed an important clause that was introduced by the Justice and Electoral Committee namely clause 4A which provides that coroners must perform their duties without delay. It is a clause that I think is extremely important. Some of the most touching evidence we heard before the select committee came from good New Zealand citizens who felt that coronial inquests had gone on and on and not come to an end and it prevented people from getting on with their lives. That is most unfortunate and it is why it is so important that it be emphasised to coroners that they perform their tasks consistent with justice and without delay. I regret to say—and it is most probably because coroners are so busy and have so few resources under the existing regime—that it is a sad fact that sometimes coronial inquests go on too long. 
I can think of a number of coronial inquests in recent times that have taken far too long—for example the air accident in Christchurch—and this stops people getting on with their lives. As Lord Falconer said in his introduction to the English Coroners Act and I think this really hits the nail on the head and applies with equal force to the New Zealand legislation: “Coroners have a vital task. They give certainty and reassurance to bereaved people and they meet the public interest by determining the facts of deaths which are reported to them. These deaths may be violent on occasion they may be unnatural or they may be of unknown cause but the coroner will investigate these cases and will conclude a formal inquest and that will among other things identify lessons for preventing future deaths.” It is extremely important that those functions be carried out without delay and that is why the committee was so emphatic that even if that was implied in various clauses it needed to be spelt out in words of one syllable that coroners are expected to perform their duties without delay. 
As to the other parts of Part 1 I do not think I need to delay the Committee for too long at all. National approves of the appointment of a chief coroner who will have an overview of the work in New Zealand and will also issue practice notes and provide guidance to other coroners. As clause 5 states that will “help to inform and achieve consistency in coronial decision-making and other coronial conduct …”. Those are good things but there are questions that the Committee will need to discuss. I sincerely hope that as we go through the bill and address those one or two points the Minister will take them seriously and take them into account.