O'Rourke Denis: Coroners Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Coroners Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support the Coroners Amendment Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The work of coroners is often underrated but it is very important work. The Coroners Act 2006 has gone a long way to modernise and improve the service and this amendment will hopefully deal with some of the remaining issues.Strengthening coroners’ recommendations is covered in new section 57A. New subsection (1) reconfirms that a coroner can make comments or recommendations during the course of an inquiry or as part of the findings. New subsection (2) says: “Recommendations or comments may be made only for the purpose of reducing the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred.” New subsection (3) would impose further restrictions on recommendations or comments especially in paragraph (c) which requires an explanation of how the recommendations or comments may result in a reduction in deaths.These two subsections will require some very careful consideration by the select committee. I have some concerns that new subsection (2) is in fact too restrictive. I accept that there is a need for coroners to have clear limits on how far a coroner may go with recommendations or comments but the words “only for the purpose of reducing the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar” will I think cause rather too much limitation on what a coroner may legally comment on.An example I would give is the 118 people killed in the CTV Building in the Christchurch earthquake. The cause of that was clearly the earthquake itself but the building failure and also the command failures and rescue methodologies during the rescue phase also caused significant concerns and there were allegations made that deaths resulted from those. So it should I think be possible for a coroner to have a little more freedom to discover and comment on or recommend on those kinds of issues. Whether or not fewer deaths may result in similar events is not really all that important. So those are words that we should I think take another look at otherwise we might end up with an Act that does less than we need it to do.That amendment may in fact remove a coroner’s ability to comment and make recommendations on matters that are of great importance thus creating a gap in the system. So I will likely be seeking some amendment or at least some robust discussion in the committee. I would ask that Amy Adams and Jacqui Dean having heard their comments take another look at it and perhaps think about it again.Overall I seek a better coronial authority to comment and recommend rather than less authority to do so. The CTV building disaster also needed a commission of inquiry of course but the coronial and commission inquiries could both have been much more valuable in dealing with the many complex causative issues involved. There was much overlap between causes of building failure and of deaths caused potentially by rescue efforts and so on. So we must be very careful not to be too restrictive as far as coronial inquiries are concerned.There are many people in Christchurch like me who are deeply concerned about the lack of clear findings in that case of cause of who contributed and about accountability. There was so much illegality and so much negligence that it deserves thorough and robust inquiry wherever we can get it and that includes in the coronial system. We have seen far too few of those responsible identified and brought to book. This Government seems to be more interested in sweeping it all under the carpet instead of ensuring that its agencies have ensured full accountability.Regarding new sections 59 and 59A I see no particular issues at this stage with these. New section 59A prevents a coronial inquiry into the death of a member of the Defence Force only if it was caused by hostile action. So deaths such as those in the recent RNZAF Anzac Day helicopter crash would still be subject to coronial inquiry and that is appropriate. There was a lot of confusion in that case about who was responsible to investigate what as some of us will remember.Regarding new section 60 I agree with David Clendon. It must be mandatory for a death from any cause in official custody or care to have a coronial inquiry. New section 14(3)(c)(i) will include in the definition of a person in official custody or care a child or young person who has been placed in custody or care under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. It is essential that deaths in these circumstances always be subject to coronial inquiry for what I think are obvious reasons. The avoidability of the deaths of babies can too often be hidden issues needing full investigation even if the death was regarded as resulting from natural causes. This is also something that I think we need to look at and discuss thoroughly at the select committee stage.New section 71 is very welcome and necessary. It says that if a death is self-inflicted or there is reasonable cause to suspect that the death was self-inflicted no person may make public the method or any suspected method of the death or the place where the death occurred if the place suggests the method or any suspected method of the death or a description of the death as a suicide. There are exemptions provided for. The Chief Coroner may grant an exemption only if the Chief Coroner is satisfied that granting exemption does not present an undue risk that other people will attempt to copy the behaviour and that any risk that people will attempt to copy the behaviour of the dead person concerned is outweighed by other considerations that make it desirable in the public interest to allow the publication of the details.I also note with approval the new section 116A establishing a suicide and media panel to advise a coroner on applications for those exemptions. These are important matters. On the one hand it is important not to unduly restrict the media’s freedom to report but it is also essential that the reporting of suicides will not encourage copycat attempts by other people. So these new sections appear to provide for what I think is an appropriate balance and on behalf of New Zealand First I say we are very happy with those new provisions regarding section 71 and suicide.I look forward to further discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I have identified some matters—some very important matters—that I particularly wish to investigate and hopefully as a result of that discussion there can be further amendment of the bill. If so New Zealand First will then be happy to support it further.