O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I have already commented in the previous session of the Committee on some of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been submitted but I do want to comment specifically in this speech on Phil Goff's amendment regarding deaths in hostile action. The reasons I want to comment are that I can see that in the current law there is coronial jurisdiction for deaths of defence personnel regardless of circumstances in addition to the court of inquiry process and that process also has a safeguard in that it is itself subject to an external legal review panel conducted by a Queen's Counsel. Under this bill that coronial jurisdiction will continue when the death does not happen during hostile action. The Justice and Electoral Committee's changes to section 59 of the Coroners Act specifically the addition of new section 59A(2) and (3) inserted by clause 32 will operate to protect the national interest by preventing an inquiry when the coroner determines the death was caused exclusively by the hostilities during hostile action and not otherwise. But the section—and this is the issue—also allows coronial inquiry into deaths during hostile action as well if the Attorney-General directs that should happen. Phil Goff's amendment simply reverses that and says that instead the section will always allow such an inquiry unless the Attorney-General acts to prevent it. So it is really just as simple as that. On the face of it that does not seem like a big deal but I actually think it is quite important and some other speakers have mentioned the reasons why. However I want to point out that whichever of those two options—what is in the bill or Phil Goff's amendment—will be adopted new section 59A(4A) sets out the manner in which the Attorney-General will consider whether to act or not. I want to read that out because I think it is quite important. In new section 59A(4A) it says: (a) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to identify the cause and circumstances of the death; and (b) whether the investigation or inquiry could reveal information that may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand; and (c) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to examine military tactics; and (d) whether a court of inquiry has been or will be assembled under section 200A of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 for the purposes of collecting and recording evidence about the relevant death." So there you can see in a nutshell what the primary considerations are. As others have said there does need to be a balance here between on the one hand protecting the rights of families to understand what happened—and the public of course as well—and on the other hand these specified circumstances that really are extremely important for New Zealand's national interest and they must be balanced as well. In deciding which way to go—with what is in the bill or with Mr Goff's amendment—I think there are three reasons why Mr Goff's amendment should be supported and New Zealand First will vote for it. I would ask the Minister in the chair Nick Smith whether he would consider voting for it as well and making that change for perhaps these reasons and maybe some others. I am sure we all want a good bill. I am sure this is not a political contest. We just want something that will work something that will achieve the balance I have spoken of and most particularly something that will operate so that the public generally and most particularly the families concerned will be able to see three things. Those three things are: (1) that there has been no political interference and no strange happenings behind closed doors that give rise to suspicion; (2) that the process itself is properly transparent and those matters I have referred to are properly considered in an open way and that people can get information about that to satisfy themselves of that; and (3) that it does place the emphasis in the right place. I think actually this is the most important reason for me. I think it is the most important reason because it is a matter of emphasis and the emphasis should be I believe in favour of transparency—showing the public and showing the families concerned that there has been proper process that there is nothing to hide and that the only reason why if it does apply that there should be no coronial inquiry is one of those four reasons I read out regarding the national interest and for no other reason whatsoever. So I think that those are three very powerful reasons that mitigate in favour of the approach taken by Phil Goff in his amendment and why I believe the Government should consider this again. I would ask the Minister of Justice to do so. If she feels that it is not possible for the Government to do so I would ask the Minister in the chair to comment on why it should not bearing in mind those three reasons I gave. If that happens I would be willing to listen to that but as it is at present I believe Phil Goff's amendment should be supported."