Collins Judith: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18093] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I have had a quick look at the Coroners Bill and at the amendments it proposes to make in terms of how coroners operate today. The National Party is supporting the bill going to the select committee but with some concerns. Some of these concerns have been noted by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall particularly in relation to the fact that no matter what we do about coroners and their work if we do not have enough pathologists a lot of what the coroners do is somewhat after the event or somewhat pie in the sky. We need the pathologists to give us the evidence that the coroners need. 
One of my concerns is the move towards having just a few full-time coroners. One of the things I particularly like about the current system is that so many coroners work independently as lawyers often in general practice where a great deal of common sense is required. 
Stephen Franks 
: Independent. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We do not want coroners who have always been hugely independent as Mr Franks has just noted and outside of the establishment to become part of yet another branch of the public service with possibly the same sorts of constraints that some judges and tribunal members now find themselves working under. We do not want coroners losing their feeling of independence and their ability to say what they need to have happen so that they can come to the right decisions. I do have some concerns about that. It is certainly an issue the National Party members of the select committee will be taking up. 
In addition I note with some concern the wider definition of “immediate family” and family generally. Like Mr Jones I have some concern about this particular provision. When I had a quick look through the bill its background and the Bills Digest I noted that there seems to be a huge amount of political correctness coming into the coroners’ court. It is a concern when we in New Zealand are so desperate in our need to be multicultural that we actually forget that we have a culture ourselves—it is called the New Zealand culture—and that some of the reasons some other cultures had for various burial practices have actually passed. We no longer live in an age without refrigeration. We no longer live in an age when people cannot be embalmed. We do not have the sorts of constraints that many other cultures had when they set up their burial practices. 
It seems to me that we should not in our rush to embrace all cultures forget the fact that the coroners’ court is there for a reason. It is primarily there to find the cause of death when the reason is not particularly obvious or when a death is sudden and unexpected. So in relation to people who murder other people—and Mr Jones took up this point—the last thing that we want is a system that is so PC where we bend so far over backwards to take into account every person who might ever be interested in someone’s death that a murderer is able to prevent a post-mortem. That is a really big concern that we have. One of the reasons for that concern is that most people who are murdered are murdered by the person they were living with or someone they once lived with. Strangers very seldom go around murdering others. So I think we need to be very careful about that. I am sure it is something the select committee will look at and get further advice on. 
Stephen Franks 
: Come and help us. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Franks wants me back on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I am passionate about health unlike the Minister who is leaving the health portfolio on Monday. 
Burial practices and deaths are something that particularly concern people. There is one thing that is certain—more certain than the fact that this Government will never come up with a decent tax policy—and that is that we will all die one day. I always come to this House thinking that every day is a wonderful day because it is a day I am not dead and it is a day I will be able to stand up for the ordinary common-sense people of New Zealand. I certainly would not want to give anyone on the other side of the House any pleasure by dying early! Death is not a laughing matter but we do tend to have a bit of humour about it because we all know that it will come to us. 
It is important when we have unexplained deaths that we have a coronial system that takes into account people’s sensitivities but does not and must not bend over backwards so far that the truth is lost. I am not sure where the call for this bill has come from. But I see in the bill’s explanatory note that Maori had some concerns about coronial practices. The explanatory note states: “… while undertaking consultation with Maori for its review of succession law the Law Commission became aware of concerns about coroners.” I am not quite aware of why we need a whole new bill and why any genuine concerns cannot be dealt with without impinging on the coroners’ role by way of practice notes or those sorts of matters. By putting through a bill like this we are having this whole area looked at again. In particular I am concerned about the cost of it given that we do not have enough pathologists—so the whole thing could be a bit of a moot point. 
We do not seem to be doing anything about getting more pathologists and I am concerned that by making a coroner’s position a full-time job we will lose the top people we currently have in the role. It will not be a hugely career-enhancing role I would have thought to become a full-time coroner. It might be something that some Labour MP who has been tossed out of Parliament and who once had a practising certificate would want to be. But the reality is that I do not think it will be a career-enhancing role. There will not be many people coming out of law school in their 20s saying “What I really want to be in life is a coroner”. Even someone who is successful in practice probably will not want to move into that particular role in their 30s or 40s. At the moment the current system allows people who are very experienced very good and into common-sense solutions to be able to take on that role. 
I am also concerned that it will be anticipated that the coroners will now operate in the smaller centres as well. One of the reasons I am concerned about that is not that I do not want smaller centres to have the benefit of coroners but that I know that one of the problems judges have at the moment is the way they are traipsing around the country trying to fulfil their particular roles in relation to all the different districts. The High Court judges have the same issue. Of course one of the problems with trying to get good people into those jobs is that many people who have families and commitments in their own homes do not want to be traipsing around the country for weeks on end for these sorts of hearings. It is certainly one of the issues that coroners or those who wish to become coroners will take into account when they decide whether to take up positions. 
So I have some concerns about the bill and the National Party has some concerns and we will be looking at those and teasing them out during the select committee process. Hopefully we will be satisfied after some changes have been made. 
Debate interrupted.