Mark Ron: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2672] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting the progress of the bill through the House. I have to say that one of the reasons why legislation takes so long to be passed is that people spend so much time talking about things they have already agreed to so I will not repeat the mistake by dragging this speech out any longer than I have to but simply indicate— 
Bob Clarkson 
: You weren’t there. 
RON MARK 
: No that is right. Dail Jones was on the Justice and Electoral Committee previously and after its winding up and the report back to the House there was a new committee. I was not on that committee and anyone who can read knows that. 
I simply say that the speeches given thus far have pretty much canvassed the entire issue and it is good to know there are people with a degree of expertise in the matter who are able to speak in the House in respect of coroners and the legislation. 
I say to the honourable Chris Finlayson that if the gentleman he knows is as confident capable and dedicated to the work as he suggested in his speech to the House we would assume from our seats that he would be a likely contender to be appointed as a full-time coroner. So where is the problem? Indeed where then does there lie a need for compensation? If such a gentleman were to be confirmed as a full-time employee why would he need compensation? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What if he’s not? 
RON MARK 
: Well there are plenty of casual workers out there who get no compensation whatsoever and we are still waiting to see someone in the House pick up on the plight of the casual worker who may get only 20 hours this week 39.5 hours next week and no hours the week after. I do not see a lot of heartbreak in the Labour Party camp about such an issue and I do not expect to see it on the National side because it is not an issue that it would— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Come on! 
RON MARK 
: “Come on!” says Mr Clarkson the member for Tauranga for one term. Is he telling me that no friends of his employ casual workers in their businesses and that he does not know of workers who might get 5 hours one week and 20 hours the next week and not be able to get a mortgage because they have no surety of income? In fact these professionals who take on part-time work as coroners are in a far better position to protect themselves and their future than a casual cleaner who comes in to clean Mr Clarkson’s office at 2 o’clock in the morning while Mr Clarkson is safely tucked up in bed snoring his head off one would think. 
When the bill came to Parliament New Zealand First expressed some concerns about it particularly the lack of uniformity amongst coroners the varying experience levels and the lack of leadership. The bill seems to take care of those issues. There is formalised training and ongoing employment on a full-time basis which we supported. We also supported the concept that legislation should take into account spiritual and cultural beliefs be they Maori Indian or whatever. Surely we are in an age where those issues should be taken into account. Clearly the committee has done that work and it is reflected in the legislation and we applaud that. 
Some of the opposing views were that 54 mostly part-time coroners in New Zealand would have to step down without compensation and that was something we noted when the bill was first introduced—and I think Dail Jones spoke on that matter. There are concerns about how the changes will affect small communities in rural areas with longer travelling distances to coroner hearings. I have not heard that mentioned here but obviously the committee dealt with those issues. 
We also raised our concern about the clause dealing with immediate family and how widely that was defined. We note in the report back that the definition has been expanded further to include civil union partners. I guess one of the concerns we had when it comes to clause 31 is the right of some family members to object to the post-mortem of a deceased person. We expressed a concern that in a case where a close family member who fitted within this very loose broad description of a family member was in actual fact a suspect in the death of the deceased person through that clause that person would have an ability to prevent a post-mortem taking place. We signalled that that was an area of concern. 
I guess our final area of concern which has already been discussed by a number of members in their speeches is the issue of making public details of self-inflicted deaths. We in New Zealand First do not believe that such a move would have been wise and it is good to see that no such changes were made. 
My final comment relates to body parts and bodily samples. Again it is good to see that finally we have in place clearly defined protocols procedures and rights and obligations because it was the lack of such that led to Green Lane Hospital’s discovery of babies’ body parts. Being the father of a child who died in a cot death I can tell members that the decision-making process is actually taken right out of parents’ hands. We saw our own wee baby girl taken away and we knew there was going to be a post-mortem. That was a very difficult thing to come to terms with as grieving parents. To subsequently find out that there was now doubt as to whether we had received our daughter back completely intact was let me assure members an exceedingly distressing moment in our lives. Although we found that Tracey had not been in any way affected like that our hearts went out to the thousands of parents who received the worst possible news—that they had received their infant baby’s body back minus pieces without any knowledge whatsoever that that had been the case. 
 It is pleasing to know that in this day and age in Parliament we have people who sit on select committees and work across party lines and who do the work to ensure that the protocols rights responsibilities and obligations are clearly defined in respect of such matters as they have been in this bill. I commend the committee for its work. 
New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill and looks forward to further debate during the Committee stage around some of the issues that were raised by Mr Finlayson in respect of compensation.