Blue Jackie: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4713] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 In speaking to the title of the Coroners Bill I share the concerns that my colleagues have noted today in their speeches. Although I do not have a legal background—my background is medical and I did not have the opportunity to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee that heard this bill—I too was surprised when I read clause 93 which looks at how coroners are appointed. I understand that prior to this bill the backgrounds of coroners have not been limited and they did not have to be barristers or solicitors. In fact coroners come from all walks of life. I understand that some are justices of the peace and some come from a medical background as well. They have all fulfilled this role admirably. 
So I was quite surprised to read in clause 93 in this new bill that a coroner must now be a barrister or a solicitor and has to have been working in the profession for the last 5 years. Although I realise that a coroner has to understand the judicial process I must admit I was quite concerned when I read what this clause really meant. Basically it means that the current lot of coroners who do not fill the criterion of being a barrister or solicitor will be heaved out. 
I felt very concerned in terms of this provision that we are losing expertise by dumping those people. There should be perhaps some sort of grandparenting or phasing in process. Otherwise we could face a situation where we have 20 new full-time coroners versus 20 very experienced coroners who are not solicitors or barristers. I think that is a dreadful situation to be in. In this country we have to value expertise and loyalty and I am concerned when I read this clause. I am pleased that I am not alone in that—it has caused some concern among my colleagues as well. I hope there is a chance later on somewhere for this legislation to be amended so that that expertise can be reviewed or so that there is a transition phase. 
I will jump to clause 23 “Viewing touching or remaining with or near body in coroner’s custody” in Part 2. I think this is a good change to the bill. The changes to this clause mean there is provision made for members or representatives now of the immediate family or people who are performing religious or spiritual services or advice to be present. I think that is a very good thing. It is a compassionate change and has regard for the members of the family to grieve and to be counselled and supported by a religious person or spiritual adviser. Those people of course need the coroner’s permission but I think on balance that it has been an excellent addition. 
I turn to clauses 110 111 and 112 in Part 4. I did struggle with the quite legalistic-type phrases in these clauses not having a legal background but their intent is quite clear. They are quite significant amendments. Clause 110 states that a coroner may by written notice require a person to supply “information or documents or other things”. Subclause (1A) which was unanimously agreed upon by the committee states: “(1A) The person on whom the notice is served must give or produce a thing (whether the thing is information a class of information a document a class of documents or any other thing) sought by the notice except to the extent that the person is excused from doing so by section 111.” Clause 111 “Grounds for refusing to comply with written notice” is also new and was also unanimously agreed upon. Those grounds are set out in the provision. 
Clause 112 “Warrant for information document or other thing” states: “(1) A District Court Judge may issue a warrant for the search of a specified place (including without limitation a dwellinghouse or marae) craft or vehicle if satisfied on an application in writing made on oath by a member of the police …”. The clause goes on to describe the grounds where that would occur. Part of the clause is completely new and I see that it was also unanimously agreed upon. This means I gather from reading it through a few times that a District Court judge will now be able to issue a warrant authorising the New Zealand Police to search for information that will be helpful in determining the circumstances surrounding how a person died. I am sure that colleagues will agree it is important that coroners have the powers to investigate unexpected or sudden deaths expediently. 
Shane Ardern 
: Absolutely. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes for many families that is a truly terrible time. Loved ones will be in shock. There will be many questions that need answering. I am pleased that the new part of the bill allows for expedient use of the coroner in authorising warrants. It will be important that those questions are answered so that families can get on with the grieving and move on. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.