Ardern JacindaClauses 1 to 3JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is with some disappointment that I see we have reached this stage of the debate with some of the more substantial parts not being able to be included at this point in the discussion because in all of this some of the amendments in the clauses that are left for debate are still contingent of course on the coroners' reports carrying some weight. So if this bill in its entirety—whether it be the discussion that we have had about narrowing down what a coroner reports on down to the different jurisdictions that some of the subparts set out and deaths to be reported and post-mortems as they are set out in the final schedules—is set out so that we can have an efficiently run system where there is a clear jurisdiction for coroners surely it all leads to nought if there is actually no requirement for us to do anything off the back of a coroner's report. In all of this debate around the jurisdiction of coroners the difference between whether or not they are resuming or adjourning an inquiry and the role of pathologists versus coroners surely all of that just becomes a debate of fancy if at the end of the day what a coroner produces as a report holds no weight—absolutely none. So my frustration with us being at a point where we are debating consequential amendments and some of them as they relate to the Burial and Cremation Act Search and Surveillance Act Visiting Forces Act—all of that still is a debate around the detail when actually the coroners themselves are producing reports at great expense to the taxpayer that hold no weight. We had an opportunity here in this debate to give just a little bit more clout to those reports. We had the opportunity for those recommendations not to be enforced not to be compulsory but to at least trigger a response.I would have thought that the families who are involved in these situations and who find themselves in a tragedy be it via an aviation accident—and we had a lot of those people come before the select committee and talk about the deaths in the agricultural sector in agricultural aviation right through to the families who came and talked about the tragic deaths related to the hot air balloon accident north of Wellington. In all of those cases those families surely would want to see at least a requirement from those companies Crown entities and Crown organisations that are involved to at least look and respond to a coroner's report.So my argument as we reach the conclusion of debating the consequential amendments—the schedule of this bill—is that actually it all becomes just trivia if we cannot at least conclude as a Parliament that what a coroner says matters; that what a coroner concludes is worth that investment from the taxpayer and is worth the submissions that those family members and organisations produce with the time that it takes. Because here we have debated at great length: Oh when shall we have an inquiry; when shall we have an inquest? We have got to save some time and some money." Well what are we saving time and money for? Apparently so people can do a full inquest when it is required so that we can then ignore everything that they say.The final response that I would like to make then in relation to all of those subsequent amendments and schedules is that the debate becomes pointless if we do not have some requirement on those affected organisations to at least respond. That is a point that I want to underline in this final concluding debate in this House."