Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4666] 
Coroners Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 1 August. 
Part 3 Inquiries into circumstances and causes of deaths 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with inquiries into causes and circumstances of death and I particularly want to say something about clauses 61 to 63. As the commentary on the bill written by the Justice and Electoral Committee states clause 61 places restrictions on the making public of details of self-inflicted deaths. The term “making public” will also include publishing on the Internet. 
The bill continues the regime of the 1988 Act which placed very tight restrictions on what the news media could report about self-inflicted deaths that occur in New Zealand. It is indeed a very wide provision. Clause 61(1) will prevent the media from exercising their judgment in reporting self-inflicted deaths unless the coroner’s authority has been obtained. If the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted the only details that may be made public are the name address and occupation of the deceased and the fact that the coroner has found death to be self-inflicted. Other details such as the manner in which death occurred the circumstances of death or the inquest are not to be published without the coroner’s authority and no further particulars will be permitted unless the making public of them is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety as set out in subclause (3) of clause 61. Moreover the coroner in determining whether the disclosure of particulars is unlikely to be detrimental must have regard to the characteristics of the dead person comply with practice notes issued by the chief coroner and have regard to other matters the coroner considers relevant. 
 This is an extremely important subject. It certainly detained the select committee for some time and in my opinion there were some very very high-quality submissions on the topic. Out of deference to two of them I want to read into the record some of the submissions that were made. 
The first of those submissions was made by Paul Thompson editor of the Christchurch  
Press 
. Mr Thompson submitted that the provisions in the bill make the reporting of self-inflicted deaths even more controlled than they are currently. He did not think that the restrictions were necessary and he thought that they should not be extended in the way proposed by the bill. He also submitted that statutory restrictions of this kind are unusual in the Western World if not unique and saw no reason why New Zealanders should be any different in relation to this matter than Australians Canadians or Americans. I say that I have also checked the draft bill that the Lord Chancellor and Ms Harman propose to introduce into the UK Parliament and it seems there is nothing there either. Mr Thompson said that the restrictions suggested a paternalistic patronising attitude towards New Zealanders that was outdated and unnecessary. He said that suicide cases may be many and complex and that although they may be difficult to deal with they are no longer a matter that is too shameful to mention. Discussing the issues he said in a sober and sensible way would hardly be consistent with glamorising suicide. 
To similar effect were submissions made on behalf of the Commonwealth Press Union which was most unhappy that section 29 of the 1988 Act is to be re-enacted and indeed expanded. The media freedom committee of the Commonwealth Press Union said that the restrictions placed on the New Zealand media exceed those of other jurisdictions and suggested that clauses 61 and 62 of the bill should not be enacted and that there should be a cooperative approach to the whole issue of suicide. Instead it was suggested that the media could subscribe to a code of conduct on how they report suicides while at the same time being able fully and frankly to discuss the issue in New Zealand. 
This was a very difficult issue which as I have said has occupied our deliberations. I hope we have got it right; I am just not certain that we have. I would like to support the press on this issue. Indeed following the committee process I have made inquiries of those who have suffered suicides in their families. The preponderance of views—Madam Chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Christopher Finlayson. He wants to continue. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Thank you Madam Chair. If I can finish this topic then I am sure the Minister in the chair Rick Barker will make a contribution. The preponderance of views of those who have suffered suicide in their families seems to be that they would like to support the media on this issue but have a real fear of tabloid journalism. Most people I have spoken to seem to believe that the best way to deal with this difficult topic is by speaking out about suicides rather than by concealing them and allowing half-truths and speculation. 
There is a general trend towards open reporting and open discussion of difficult topics and those values are based on the recognition that truth is valuable and that the community is healthier when it deals with difficult topics on the basis of truth rather than speculation. I add that those are not my words but those of counsel for the  
New Zealand Herald  
in a hearing held in the Coroner’s Court for North Canterbury in November 2004. 
For myself I am prepared to support the provisions to be enacted—and it is to be noted that National does not have a minority report on this part of the bill—but I think they ought to be kept under very careful review and it could well be that we could review these provisions again in a couple of years’ time. There is no provision in the bill to deal with post-legislative review but that certainly does not prevent another look being taken at this legislation in the near future. 
While I am on my feet I want to say something very briefly about inquests because the procedure for inquests is set out in clauses 70 to 81 and one can see from those clauses that an inquest is primarily inquisitorial although there are also some adversarial aspects. For example there is a power provided in the bill to allow parties or interested persons to cross-examine witnesses. 
Two points are of note. The first is that the coroner who decides to hold an inquest must fix among other things a place where the inquest will be held and subclause (1B) of clause 71 was inserted by the select committee because there was a concern that with fewer coroners inquests may need to be held many miles from where a death has occurred. So in fixing the place of inquest the coroner has to take into account certain matters—for example where the members of the family of the deceased reside where witnesses will be giving evidence and so on. 
Finally I refer to clause 73 which provides that specialist advisers may sit with and help coroners. I said in the select committee that I thought it was rather odd that a coroner should require a legal specialist adviser especially where under the new regime coroners must have held a practising certificate as a barrister or solicitor for at least 5 years. And the same principle applies with regard to relief coroners appointed pursuant to clause 94 because they must have legal qualifications. I suppose there could be circumstances where questions of foreign law arose that would necessitate some legal assistance although evidence of foreign law is a question of fact not of law. So I cannot really understand the reference to legal specialist advisers in clause 73. But again it is hardly a matter that would justify National dividing the Committee. 
That is all I wanted to say about Part 3. Thank you Madam Chair for letting me take the second call. The whole issue of the reporting of suicide is an extremely important one and I hope we members of the Committee will be able to discuss it fully and openly tonight because we have to get this one right. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Firstly I reassure Mr Finlayson that the Justice and Electoral Committee has got this legislation right. I read with interest the submissions such as that made by the Press Council. I draw his attention to what I think is the most important line in that submission: “The Press Council eschews debate on the issue of ‘contagion’ or ‘copycat suicide’ except to say that the evidence to support this is very unclear.” On the basis of eschewing the research the Press Council opts for freedom of the press. 
I did some cursory investigation myself and found every piece of evidence to be very clear. It did not take much to research the information through the Internet. The first thing is that copycat suicide has been recorded over and over again. Every piece of research showed that when a high-profile suicide is attempted others follow. We had the example in Hong Kong whereby a very unusual method was used for suicide. It had never been seen before and by putting it in the public arena in a very short period of time it became the third most common form of suicide in that area. Every other piece of research showed that when someone particularly a young person commits suicide other suicides follow. The copycat and contagion effect is documented incredibly thoroughly. It is beyond doubt. So the Press Council is saying that it wants to have the ability under the guise of freedom of speech to report suicide and that the public’s right to know is greater than the negatives that can befall the general public. I am very cynical about this. 
I have another issue I want to raise before I carry on. I am sure Mr Finlayson would agree with me that any family that has suffered a suicide will say that that is a personal family matter. It is about their family and their family issues. Everybody in a family will feel a sense of guilt about a suicide because they will wonder in their deep thoughts what they could have done to prevent it and what they did that made the person suddenly tip over the edge and decide they wanted to be somewhere else. Very often for the family there are suicide notes an enormous amount of recrimination an incredible amount of guilt and a whole range of other issues. To have these matters discussed in public would be to defile that family. These are private family matters. To have the public trawl over them in some voyeuristic manner would add insult to the injury of that family. To have the media highlight some really unusual characteristic or some difficulties in the relationship would be to make those who already feel very tender and have a sense of guilt feel incredibly ashamed and guilty. 
The Press Council has swept aside those issues and shown no interest in them at all but of the many families I have spoken to about suicide all have given me a very clear message: they do not want their private family affairs and these matters to be held up in public for all to see. They want them to remain private family matters—and the emphasis should be on that. 
The second point I make to Mr Finlayson and all those who have any shadow of a doubt about this matter is that the research shows that copycat suicide and contagion is a very real factor. Anyone who has studied this issue will tell us that when someone commits suicide in an area it sends a signal to others that suicide is an OK thing to do. That person is the permission-giver. We had a very good example of that recently in a small central North Island town where a number of people took their lives one after another. Despite Parliament’s prohibition on reporting that matter a senior executive of a television programme said: “Despite what the law says I believe that the public has a right to know.” Although there were legal consequences arising out of doing it the programme went on to display all of the facts. That case demonstrates the responsibility taken by the media on this issue. 
If I could for one instant believe that the rules that were agreed to would be honoured I would be tempted to consider the matter but I can not. The fact is that contrary to what the media shows the number of suicides in New Zealand is falling. That is the situation. The public perception is somewhat different. The second inaccuracy in the public perception is that youth suicide is the main problem but that is not the case either. The most common form of suicide in New Zealand is that of a person who is male and is aged 25 to 30 years old and older. Those statistics will come as a surprise to people. The third thing is that a disproportionately high number of Maori commit suicide. Again that is contrary to the public perception because the media have highlighted only those issues that they know will maximise their traction. If the media were able to highlight a particular youth suicide in an area the shock and horror aspect of it would certainly sell newspapers and a subsequent copycat suicide would sell even more newspapers—and we are told that that is the benefit of freedom of information. Well I do not accept that. My view is that Parliament is entitled to have a view on these things. It has had a view on them and it has been very successful. The rate of suicide in New Zealand is declining and I think that Parliament is taking exactly the right stance on this issue. 
Another point I would make in the last few minutes I have is that this is not so much a justice issue as a health issue. I am very pleased to see that Jim Anderton has put out a strategy on reducing suicide numbers. Many of these issues are covered in that strategy. I believe we should work through that strategy over time and measure it and if at any point in the future those who are responsible for analysing the information on these issues—people primarily in the health sector and in social services—say that we are at the stage where we can maturely debate these things and that that will not have flow-on consequences for us then I am prepared to accept their advice and guidance on the matter. But when members of the newspaper association say they eschew research that gives me no confidence in their opinion at all. Had they put up an argument based on international research and considered opinion on the consequences of publicising suicides I would have said their argument had some merit. But it does not. Contrary to what they have said the research internationally is unequivocal and very clear. 
So I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its decision. Personally I am absolutely convinced that it has the argument right. I think the balance is exactly right and I support the bill 100 percent. It is my own personal experience and the experience of many other people I have spoken to on this subject that this is a family matter and should remain a family matter. 
The last point I will raise for the Committee is that I understand that Mr Finlayson has put on the Table an amendment to Part 4. I wish to invoke the 24-hour rule on this matter because it has financial implications. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you for allowing me to take the call on Part 3 of the Coroners Bill. I want to say that at this stage there are some issues about what the Minister has said that I will dispute and that will become obvious during my address. 
This part of the bill as has been said deals principally with inquiries into causes and circumstances of death and the conducting of inquests. Basically the coroner has the control and the discretion whether to open inquiries to conduct inquiries to decide on making public any evidence etc. We have heard that the provision that seems to cause the most debate in this part is clause 61 in relation to restrictions on making public the details of suicides. Under the bill nobody can make public the particulars of a self-inflicted death without the consent and authority of the coroner although one can publish the name address and occupation of the person concerned and the fact that the coroner found the death to be self-inflicted. So it is not a blanket prohibition on publishing any details of the person. 
Bob Clarkson 
: What about the dead ones over there? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Suicide is certainly not a joking matter and it has been called New Zealand’s sad little secret. 
Again I would dispute what the Minister has said because if we look at some of the research we see that according to the  
Dominion Post  
of 4 July 2006 each year about 500 New Zealanders commit suicide and the horrific number of 2500 actually attempt it. In the words of the  
Dominion Post 
 article: “It is time New Zealanders brought that secret into the open. It needs to be treated with at least the same degree of urgency and seriousness that is given to the road toll which kills 100 fewer people each year. The most recent suicide figures available—for 2003 with the delay the result of the time it takes cases to make their way through the coronial court system—paint a grim picture. That year 515 people died by suicide compared with 465 people the year before.” To me that indicates an increasing trend of suicide rather than—as the Minister has alluded—a decreasing trend. 
The report further states: “Three times as many men as women kill themselves. Maori are more likely to kill themselves than non-Maori. Those living in the most deprived areas are more likely to kill themselves than those living in wealthy areas. For women it is the young who are most likely to succeed in committing suicide with 15 to 24-year-olds having the highest rate. For men it is the 25 to 44-year-olds. Those figures”—ashamedly—“put New Zealand’s rate of suicide amongst the worst figures in the developed nations of the OECD.” 
The issue surrounding clause 61 really does concern the safe reporting of suicide by the media. The bill does not preclude that; it merely requires the coroner to make that decision. The bill is not necessarily denying honest open reporting of suicides but it puts a brake on the possibility of glamorising or sensationalising suicide and running the risk of copycat incidents. Again I think we have to be careful about copycat incidents. If we read the Press Council reports—and I appreciate that the Press Council might have a somewhat vested interest—we see that they state that any blanket statements about copycat suicide fail to address two major unresolved issues. 
The council says that blaming the messenger as the direct cause runs counter to the professional health view that suicide has many causes. The major presumption about the simplistic argument that suicide stories lead to suicide is the presumption that the tragic victims actually saw or read such a story and this can hardly be tested. Having said that I want to traverse some of the arguments of the media for which I have some sympathy. But then I also have sympathy for the friends and family of the suicide victim who will be always asking themselves whether there was anything they could have done to prevent the suicide. 
Like my colleague Mr Finlayson I would also like to quote from an editorial in the  
Press 
 whose editor I believe has put some considerable work into this issue. It states: “The justification for them”—the reports on suicides—“is thin and feeble. It is that open honest reporting of suicides would somehow ‘glamorise’ or ‘sensationalise’ them (words that have been used by health professionals in this debate) and thus make it acceptable to impressionable vulnerable people who might be inclined to indulge in copycat practice. The evidence for this is tenuous at best. The effect of the restrictions is in fact to perpetuate antiquated attitudes towards suicide as something shameful a matter to be kept darkly secret and one that New Zealanders can only handle when it is discussed in blandly general terms. These attitudes are not the case any longer in the wider community it is just that the legislation has not yet caught up. An odd anomaly of the restrictions is that they apply only to suicides that occur in New Zealand. Those that occur in other countries can be reported on in the usual straightforward way. No media outlet has any interest in ‘sensationalising’ suicide much less ‘glamorising’ it inadvertently or otherwise. To suggest that candour on the subject would in some way encourage it or make it more acceptable is ludicrous.”—this is according to the  
Press 
—“That is not so in other countries—Australia Canada the United States Britain—and would not be the case here.” 
The issue is a vexed and complex one. It is important and we are appreciative that such deaths—any deaths in fact—are not swept under the carpet that the families can find out what went wrong and that there is absolute transparency so families can have some sort of closure to such tragedies. It is a time of much emotion and the emotional needs of the families must be taken into account as well as the need to ensure proper justice proper transparency and proper processes. I do not think we can highlight enough the importance of the Coroners Bill in this respect. I do not know whether the issue of the reporting of suicide cases will ever be a straightforward one. I do not know whether it will ever be resolved. It is complex; it is vexed. We now have the coroner—who arguably may be the best person to do so—decide whether it is in the best interests of the public and the family that the details of a suicide are published. The coroner does have that discretion although the other argument is the freedom of the press. There may be no easy answer but the Coroners Bill which does put in place a comprehensive system of inquiry and inquest is perhaps an improvement on the old system. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Coroners Bill. I believe that the amalgamation of coronial services will give some certainty and consistency across the investigation of sudden death. Also it will provide for those most affected by such deaths—the families—some sort of certainty and consistency as to what they can expect from the public agencies involved in those inquiries. 
Within my electorate four coroners are operating. They all operate as lawyers in general practice and have a responsibility for coronial matters within their patch. Three of those coroners would be ready within the next few years to stop practising and exercising their warrant as coroners so they agree with this legislation. Within those various areas though it is amazing to see the difference in time delays for providing such things as pathologist reports and so getting to inquests. In one area we can expect that after a sudden death an inquest will be held within 8 to 10 weeks. In other areas the wait can be as long as 9 months to a year. In one particular case the time delay was over 4 years. That does nothing to ease the pain of those people—the family—most closely associated with any of those deaths. In fact all it does is rip the lid off the pain again and everything is left to hurt. 
In respect of suicide matters I agree with the power of the coroner under the bill to decide whether information will be released to the public. I think that as far as death goes we have a lot of big answers to find within our country. For some unusual reason we murder people more than in most other Western countries. I have never really been able to get a handle on why that happens and I guess I could be profited somewhat if I could decide what that answer was. The other sad fact is that we kill ourselves more than people in a lot of other countries as well. 
One of the little duties I have been performing over the last few years is to officiate at funerals. Last year I officiated at 26 funerals in my small town and two of those were suicides. There was huge public interest. Despite that the circumstances of those deaths do not belong to the public; they belong to the families who are most closely involved. 
One of the things that I think the amalgamation of coronial services will do in respect of suicide is to allow for some closer study to be done into the causes of suicide and the common links of suicides. These links amount to only anecdotal evidence at the moment. Maybe I will highlight just one example. During my career I attended lots and lots of suicides. Suicides range as the Minister said from quite young people to very old people. In fact it is surprising how many very old people commit suicide. It is surprisingly common in that age group. One trend that followed all the way through in a lot of youth suicides I attended was the suicide victim’s association with cannabis. Yet to try to get toxicology tests done on a body to establish the levels of cannabis in the system—or alcohol for that matter—was quite difficult to achieve because they cost a lot of money. It cost about $1200 per test on body tissue to find out the level of cannabis in the system. What happened of course was that none of the Government agencies was prepared to have that money come out of its bucket. So I look forward to a time when we can get some sort of consensus amongst coroners and those who investigate these sad deaths that those sorts of tests should be done and that it is in the public interest to explore the reasons in and around suicide. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 3 of the Coroners Bill. I did not have the privilege of being on the Justice and Electoral Committee which examined the evidence but I have listened to the debate over the couple of months that it has been going on and I must say I think this is a very important issue for our country. 
National is sceptically supportive of the Government’s stance on Part 3 which deals with the reporting of suicide. I think this is an issue that needs to be looked at closely and especially with regard to clause 61 “Restrictions on making public of details of self-inflicted deaths”. A point to make is that in no other jurisdiction in the Western World are the rules around the reporting of suicide as stringent as they are here in New Zealand. For that reason this is something we will have to keep under review. 
Personally from what I have heard and seen I do not think it is clear-cut that it is in the public interest to restrict the reporting of suicides but I accept that this bill will give coroners the discretion to do so. That is a very good thing because there is no question that we have a suicide epidemic in this country. If members look at some of the things that have happened in the last year in New Zealand they will see that in the town of Gore there was a spate of seven youth suicides over a period of a few months. There was a lot of speculation as to why that occurred but no one really seemed to know. There was some speculation about the media. I would not like to say the media had a role exactly but some of the media coverage around those deaths perhaps contributed to some of the subsequent deaths. 
Needless to say the point is that suicide is an extremely important issue in this country. I know from my own experience that one of the things that made the greatest impression on me as a medical student was turning up to the autopsy laboratory early one Monday morning. In those days—I am sure it is still the same at medical schools—students had to attend a certain number of autopsies. I can still clearly remember seeing two young men of my own age which was 22 at the time lying on the autopsy slab. They had taken their own lives in the same manner with a .22 rifle. I remember thinking that those two cases were completely unrelated in that the men were from different areas of Auckland and did not know each other. But it clearly pointed to the fact that suicide is a major problem in our society. That was nearly 20 years ago and the statistics really have not got a heck of a lot better since then. 
Yesterday the latest suicide trends for this country were released. I am not sure how the Hon Jim Anderton the Minister responsible for releasing the report has reached these conclusions but he has stated in his report that the number of self-inflicted deaths has increased from 465 4 years ago to 516 in 2003 which was 1 year later. That would seem to be an increase. However the 3-yearly average is decreasing over time so Mr Anderton feels that the long-term trend appears to be heading in the right direction. But I think the really interesting thing about the report and the statistics released yesterday is that the hospitalisation rate for parasuicide or attempted suicide is actually rising. It went from 66.6 hospitalisations per 100000 of population 20 years ago to 82.5 hospitalisations per 100000 of population for the period 2002-04. 
The interesting thing about that is that one cannot look at the suicide statistics alone; one actually has to break them down into their demographic. It is a well-known fact that men are more successful in committing suicide than women principally because men tend to choose more violent modes that tend to be unfortunately more successful. So there are more female survivors of suicide attempts than male survivors. Those figures tell us that despite the overall rate on a 3-year average declining because the parasuicide attempts and hospitalisations are increasing the problem of suicide is probably growing in our society. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Coroners Bill which deals with inquiries into causes and circumstances of deaths. I particularly want to confine my remarks to clause 73 which allows specialist advisers to sit with and help coroners. Clause 73(1) states: “If satisfied that it is desirable to do so the chief coroner may on the recommendation of a coroner appoint a cultural legal medical or other specialist adviser to sit with and help the coroner at an inquest by giving advice.” I am particularly interested in this area because of the situation of perinatal and maternal mortality but as well as that of course it includes child and youth mortality. 
My interest stems from the fact that during the 1990s the perinatal mortality committee ceased and it took something like 6 to 7 years before the Labour Government managed to get an effective Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee working in this country again. This is particularly serious given the circumstances relating to perinatal deaths and of course more recently to infant deaths and deaths of young children given the fact that we are at present confronting the tragedy of the Kahui twins. I think most New Zealanders would want to know that when the coronial investigation into their deaths occurs it takes place with the very best advice possible. 
There is no doubt that clause 73 which allows specialist advisers to sit with and help coroners is highly relevant. Professor Taylor from Dunedin who is the chair of the Child and Youth Mortality Review Committee was anxious that people are aware that this committee—which is a statutory committee set up under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 2001—reviews and reports to the Ministers on the deaths of people aged between 4 weeks and 24 years. This is with a view to reducing the number of deaths in this group and to allowing continuous quality improvement through the ongoing promotion of quality assurance programmes. One would hope that if in the case for instance of the Kahui twins there is expert advice on every aspect from their leaving the hospital to when the tragedy occurred good data will be available from a medical and scientific viewpoint to ensure that the lessons that can be learnt are indeed well recorded and fed back to the various caregivers whether they be health workers social workers or whoever they are. In this way in the future when high-risk babies leave hospital everything possible will be done to anticipate and to help prevent avoidable tragedies as happened in that particular case. 
Professor Taylor certainly believes the committee would like to ensure that good epidemiological advice and data are collected on each occasion. We have come through almost two decades since the late 1980s of not having good data in this very crucial area so it is pleasing indeed to see clause 73. Clause 73(2) states: “The coroner’s recommendation that a specialist adviser be appointed must be made after having regard to any relevant practice notes issued … by the chief coroner.” and subclause (5) states: “Advice given by a specialist adviser may be given any weight the coroner thinks fit.” 
What is so poignant at the present time is that we know that risk identification has become quite a clear evidence-based practice but we have this gap after people leave hospital during their early years of life when at times there is not good continuous care and treatment. One of the problems that has come up recently is that district health boards are not allowed to give information for instance on births to Plunket. The lead maternity carers may know about a child being born but Plunket is not aware unless it is told specifically. It seems in many respects that the information restrictions due to the privacy code have absolutely gone berserk. In this simple sort of area it is vital that the Government takes notice and ensures we have good information flow to all the relevant people—relevant in terms of the case before us of the Kahui twins and relevant in terms of coronial inquiries. We need to ensure that the data collection is as good as possible. 
One of the other things that the Child and Youth Mortality Review Committee believes is important is a specific requirement for information collected for coroners by police or health-trained investigators to be directly passed to the mortality review committees. There is absolutely no doubt that this is one of the things the Minister if he is interested in improving the situation should ensure—although it is difficult to put in the legislation—is actually made mention of and that is why I am doing so today. 
Another point that Professor Taylor makes is that there needs to be a much closer link between coronial systems and relevant health investigation management and that of course is patently clear in the tragedy we have seen recently. 
His final point related to clause 61 where there is a potential restriction for researchers publishing on the topic of suicide. The view again is that this can be done anonymously that data collection is extremely important if we are to learn from the mistakes. Once again the underlying principle is actually there if the coroner gives permission for researchers and other people like them who are interested in quality assurance and quality improvement to gather data. The important point is to make sure there are not unnecessary hurdles in the way and that collecting good scientific-based evidence will act synergistically with an improved coronial bill to ensure that where there are preventable problems they indeed can be improved. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 71 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Appointments administration powers offences and penalties and technical provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 to 5. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with the appointment and powers of coroners and with the general administration of the coronial system. A very important change introduced by clause 95 is one of the key reforms of this bill which is that there is to be a chief coroner. The appointment is to be for a period of 8 years and it is interesting that that person will not be eligible for reappointment. Hopefully the chief coroner will be the person who develops national standards and who will provide support to other coroners. 
I refer members particularly to clauses 120 and 121. They provide that the chief coroner will be able to issue practice notes. The sorts of things that are contained in the practice notes are set out in clause 120(2). The Justice and Electoral Committee inserted a provision requiring a coroner to have “regard to any practice note … that is relevant to the performance or exercise of the function power or duty.” 
Another key reform introduced by the bill is the introduction of a full-time coronial service. I refer members to clause 98 which provides that coroners are to “… act full-time unless authorised to act part-time”. I ask members to note however that clause 94 provides for the appointment of relief coroners. 
A very interesting and important clause for reasons that will become apparent later in my contribution is clause 97. The clause provides that a coroner “must not undertake any other paid employment or hold any non-judicial office (whether paid or not) unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the employment or non-judicial office is compatible with the coronial office.” That is perhaps another indication of the judicial nature of the coroner’s task. 
Most of the powers relating to coroners are set out in clauses 107 to 121 and that group of clauses also deals with the immunities of coroners. It is important to note that coroners are to have the same powers privileges authorities and immunities as a District Court Judge who exercises jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. A coroner “who is not a District Court Judge has at all times the same immunities as a Judge of the High Court.” Again this emphasises the judicial nature of the office. 
It is important to emphasise that a coroner is not a mere administrative tribunal that implements Government policy. One can see that an inquest is a judicial hearing and that coroners have powers that are generally recognised as a mark of a court of record. 
I refer particularly to clauses 108 to 111 because that group of clauses sets out where the coroner may for example call for investigations or examinations or even commission reports. Indeed clause 110 provides that the coroner may issue a written notice that requires a person “to supply information or documents or other things”. 
I will briefly touch on clause 112 which provides for warrants in the event that such written notices are not complied with. Yet these warrants are to be issued by District Court judges. I think that is odd and I raised the issue in the select committee because I think a coroner should be able to issue such a warrant. Again it is interesting to compare that with the United Kingdom legislation under which coroners can do exactly that. Maybe the Minister Rick Barker would like to respond but why he thinks a legally qualified coroner is not up to issuing such a warrant escapes me. The same applies to a warrant issued under clause 116 which relates to warrants for the removal of bodies. 
The expenses and penalties clauses follow the provisions of the Coroners Act 1988 and the 1999 amendment and I am not going to spend too much time on those but I do want to reflect on certain of the transitional provisions. They are contained in schedules 1 2 and 3. I want to say something about schedule 3 as National is very unhappy with clause 3 of that schedule. Clause 2 of the schedule provides that on repeal of the 1988 Act every former coroner vacates office but clause 3 provides that no former coroner is to be entitled for compensation. It is important to look at the scheme of the 1988 Act to show how iniquitous that is because under the 1988 Act there is no doubt about the judicial nature of coronial office. Coroners were for example appointed by the Governor-General under warrant. The coroner’s powers and immunities were similar to those contained in this bill. The removal provisions in the 1988 Act although not as strong as those contained in the Constitution Act in respect of High Court judges nonetheless also emphasised the judicial nature of the office. 
It has been well established that an inquest is a judicial hearing and under the 1988 Act coroners had powers that were generally recognised as I said earlier as marking out a court of record. The National members raised this issue at the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Labour members I regret to say could not see the problem. But the coroners had engaged the services of Mary Scholtens who is a former Deputy Solicitor-General a Wellington Queen’s Counsel and one of New Zealand’s leading public lawyers. She saw there was a problem. She said this was a situation where Parliament should have regard for constitutional conventions surrounding the independence of judicial officers and the potential for the undermining of those conventions. 
Interestingly today all members had the latest Law Commission report on access to court records made available to them. It was reported to the Minister of Justice on 30 June this year. The report emphasised the fundamental importance of judicial independence and stated that that was a core principle of the New Zealand constitution. It also stated that one of the essential elements of judicial independence is that the salary of judges cannot be reduced while they are in office and that they enjoy security of tenure. 
This very interesting report refers to a decision of the Canadian Supreme Court which described three conditions that are essential to judicial independence: security of tenure financial security and institutional independence of judicial tribunals regarding matters affecting adjudication. That is why National is so concerned about clause 3 of schedule 3. 
An alternative view was raised by the Crown Law Office which referred to the decision in  
Claydon 
 v  
Attorney-General 
. That case concerned the lawfulness of the disestablishment without compensation of Employment Tribunal members by the Employment Relations Act 2000 but the case is not relevant to this situation. Coroners are in quite a different position from that of the members of the Employment Tribunal which was what was considered in the Claydon case. They were on fixed-term contracts and had very different powers and functions. 
As Mary Scholtens observed in her opinion to the coroners’ counsel: “The distinction between coroners who are judicial officers and administrative tribunals such as members of the former Employment Tribunal who don’t attract the same constitutional protections is critical.” It is that concern that motivated the National Party to issue its minority view and that is why we introduce the amendment under my name. 
I say to the Minister that we are very disappointed that he has refused to look at this matter closely because it raises some very important issues. As I said in the debate in the second reading it is interesting that in the coronial legislation that is about to be introduced to the United Kingdom Parliament provision is made for moving towards a full-time coronial service yet the Lord Chancellor may make regulations providing for compensation to be given to those coroners who lose office. This is not time-wasting; this is an important constitutional principle. Quite frankly I think that if Sir Geoffrey Palmer who is now a distinguished leader of the Law Commission was still Attorney-General and Minister of Justice he would not have a bar of it. 
I am very disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to look at this issue openly because it is one that goes to the very heart of judicial independence. As we develop the debate in the Committee tonight the Minister will see there are some very real concerns which he simply brushed aside in a cavalier and I hasten to add arrogant manner. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Christopher Finlayson who effortlessly sketched in this important argument has suggested that the mind of the Minister Rick Barker is closed. For my part I express the view that his mind may still be ajar and that in the course of this argument he will see there is real merit and no disbenefits in acceding to what I hope in the future will be called the Finlayson amendment. 
National supports this bill. We have made that clear throughout and we have sought to focus on the main issues. This amendment is a main issue. I invite the Minister to reflect very carefully before it is too late in the context of the parliamentary process whether there is merit in the amendment that is proposed. Of course what we are talking about what is the crunch issue here revolves around clause 132 and the transitional provisions. It focuses directly on schedule 3 and there are two clauses in schedule 3 that are relevant. First of all clause 2 provides that on the repeal of the Coroners Act every former coroner vacates office and the other provision that is critical is clause 3 which provides that no former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office. 
I do not want to repeat the arguments Mr Finlayson has put carefully before the Committee but I think it is important to record that under the existing Coroners Act coroners were appointed by the Governor-General by warrant and had tenure until reaching the age of 68 which was later modified to 72. Until 2004 when a change was made to the legislation coroners had: “ … the powers privileges authorities and immunities of a District Court Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.” It is very significant to record that reflecting the protection given to their judicial office they could be removed only for inability or misbehaviour. Those are not quite the words that are contained in statutory provisions relating to the appointment and removal of judges—not now—but nevertheless they indicate in a clear and unmistakable way that these coroners are to have tenure. 
It seems that the Ministry of Justice has taken the view that cancelling coroners’ warrants by statute is not unconstitutional. But even if that view is correct and I do not accept that it is particular care clearly needs to be taken to respect constitutional provisions that have as their purpose the protection of the separation of powers doctrine which is the separation between the legislature the executive and the judiciary. 
It is also very important to note that a lot of these coroners have given substantial service. For example those who have been lawyers have made a deliberate choice whether to continue in their legal careers in the full sense of that word or to make themselves available for the public service that is involved in being a coroner often at light remuneration rates. I am sure a number of those coroners would not have made the choice if they did not believe as they had good reason to believe they had security of tenure. Now the Government is going to take away that tenure right without compensation. 
In these circumstances I urge the Minister to consider the issue of compensation. We are not talking about big amounts of money. We should be constitutionally prepared to face our responsibilities. We should accept that the importance of the separation of powers doctrine is never to be underrated. That is why in the short amendment that Mr Finlayson has put before the Committee he is proposing that there be an ability to pay compensation. 
Lest the Minister thinks National members are on a flight of fancy I hasten to reassure him that that is not so and that there is a solid legal base for the argument that compensation should be paid. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I am confronted now with two arguments. One is from Mr Finlayson who says that my mind is closed and that I have cavalierly brushed aside members’ arguments on the Coroners Bill without due regard and the other is from Richard Worth who with his eloquent and persuasive tones cunningly tries to inveigle me into a position of compromise and negotiation who says that all is possible and who puts before us a choice. 
I want to make some observations. Firstly I am really impressed at the industrial astuteness of National members in becoming self-appointed job delegates for coroners. I think that is really good. Secondly if Parliament sets up a particular process as it is entitled to do then of course at some stage if it wishes it is entitled to put that process aside. In fact that is partly what it is doing. Parliament is modifying and changing a process as is its right. Otherwise it surrenders its sovereignty—and Mr Worth would never agree to Parliament surrendering its sovereignty I am sure. 
I draw Mr Worth’s attention to the wording of the bill—let us read it. As a shrewd and cunning lawyer I think he is capable of reading it. The provision states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner …”. They are not entitled as a right. The words do not state: “No coroner shall ever be paid compensation.” 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Aha! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mr Auchinvole is obviously much further ahead than the two lawyers; he has cottoned on to it immediately. The provision does not preclude the possibility absolutely; it leaves the matter open. It states that a coroner is not entitled to an absolute right and I want Dr Worth to reflect on those words and try to figure out whether he can draw a straight line between the dots. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to take a call on Part 4. I too want to discuss in more detail the disestablishment of current coroner positions. The matter has been covered by my colleagues from a constitutional point of view and also from the point of view of compensation. My slant on it though is more from a practical point of view—one of justice and fairness. 
We know that under the new system approximately 20 full-time legally qualified coroners would replace our existing approximately 60 mostly part-time coroners. The commentary on the bill advises that yes current coronial positions would be disestablished. It states: “We were advised that any sufficiently qualified coroner would be eligible to apply for re-employment as a full-time coroner under the new regime.” That is the point I really want to elaborate on. 
Many part-time coroners at the moment are practising solicitors. They have a full solicitor’s practice but they may not necessarily want a full-time coroner’s job. They have many years of experience yet they are not going to get any redundancy or compensation. But worse than that our coronial system will lose a lot of that experience and wealth of knowledge. 
The Coroners Bill stipulates the qualifications that coroners must hold. A coroner must have held a practising certificate as a barrister or solicitor for at least 5 years. There are examples of hugely valued and experienced coroners throughout New Zealand who have been coroners for many many decades. They have that depth of knowledge experience and local knowledge around their areas but they do not necessarily have a law degree. So they are being unceremoniously dumped by this bill without being given any sense of recognition whatsoever. 
That situation is particularly pertinent in many rural areas. I have been to Gisborne to talk about the situation there and I know that coroners on the West Coast are in a similar situation. These regional and rural areas are unique and have their own characteristics. In the tragic circumstances around death it is important that coroners have some local knowledge of the people and their circle of acquaintances which is knowledge that a travelling coroner perhaps might not have. Some of those highly experienced long-term coroners feel—and I have some sympathy for them—they have been discriminated against. 
I have a letter from a coroner in Westport and he refers to other areas like Ruatoria Motueka and Kaikohe. I have already mentioned Gisborne. He has written a very comprehensive letter which details some of his grievances if you like. I think the best way to do him justice is to quote from his letter. I will obviously quote selectively; I will not read the whole letter. The letter states: “The proposal is that we be dismissed without compensation because we do not hold a law degree and have not practised as a lawyer for at least 7 years. In my case I was appointed by the then Minister the Hon Geoffrey Palmer later Prime Minister now Sir Geoffrey Palmer and shortly to be President of the Law Commission. I was going to become a lawyer like the other 58 coroners with law degrees who are my fellow coroners but in those days Latin was a compulsory subject and my school in Westport did not teach Latin. However I did work in the head office legal section of the Public Trust Office in Wellington for quite a number of years prior to coming back to Westport to practise accountancy. I am currently a retired Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants a member of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries and a Fellow of the Institute of Directors. I have also been a justice of the peace for 38 years the first 20 or so being constantly engaged on the bench at the Westport District Court. In those days justices carried out a great many more duties than they do today. At a coroners conference a few years ago the then Minister the Hon Phil Goff said that all the new appointments since he took over were qualified solicitors. I have no quarrel with that as he was talking about new appointments replacing a vacancy or vacancies.” 
The coroner who wrote that letter has had 20 years of experience but he does not have a fixed contract. He is not covered by provisions in the Coroners Bill so he has no right of redress. He has no law degree because they did not teach Latin in Westport in those days. The enacting of this bill will mean that Westport and other areas within provincial New Zealand lose that hugely valuable knowledge base and experience. What is worse is that these coroners who have given a tremendous service to the community did not need to be lawyers in those days. They do a great job as coroners now but they are being dumped without ceremony by the callous provisions of this bill. 
There are transitional provisions and it would have been very very simple for those transitional provisions to have allowed these talented experienced dedicated but non-legal coroners to continue to benefit and give value to our coronial system in New Zealand. Unfortunately that is not the case but it would not take much—I hope the Minister will take a call on it—merely to amend the transitional provisions to allow for suitably qualified existing coroners to continue to be of service to the community. 
 JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I think my colleagues have canvassed the arguments pretty extensively with regard to Part 4. What should be commended in the Coroners Bill is the fact that it will establish the office of chief coroner. Although National has a number of reservations about the disestablishment of 44 posts with no compensation there are some admirable features to the new structure. Having a chief coroner and introducing some uniform professional standards we do not see as being a bad idea. The good thing about the bill is that it will introduce some uniformity across the country. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Oh it’s another good idea! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: If the Minister would just listen I might even offer some more praise for the bill. People are looking to the bill for uniformity of practice across New Zealand. New Zealanders have to be confident that when they come into contact with the coronial system they will be treated the same wherever they go in the country. 
Nevertheless we need to have a great deal of sympathy for those long-serving coroners for the unconstitutional way in which they will be unceremoniously dumped from their positions with absolutely no compensation. We have to ask who on earth would want to be a coroner. It is a thankless job. Coroners listen all day to stories of death they confront sad and obviously distressed families in their time of greatest need and they are often called upon to make controversial judgments then hung out to dry in the media. Many of these people after 40 years of service will be told: “Thanks very much for coming along. We were very happy to have you while we needed you but sorry you won’t be required under Minister Barker’s new regime.” I guess the question for the Minister is whether he is prepared to offer ex gratia payments to those people. Would the Minister like to take a call and answer that very question? 
I think that with all the years of thankless service these people have given to the country they deserve far better than what they will get under the Coroners Bill. These people have balanced their sense of social responsibility to give service to their communities while maintaining other professional duties. Many have been ex-policemen many have tried to maintain a legal practice at the same time and medical practitioners have also fulfilled the role. So very often the role of coroner has been taken on by people who are probably the best qualified in their community and who take up that mantle because frankly no one else is prepared to do a very thankless job that has been pretty poorly rewarded. A lot of coroners could have made a lot more money doing other things but they have been prepared to do a service to their community. 
I ask the Minister to think carefully about whether he is really firm on the provisions of Part 4 and whether there might be some leeway there so we can recognise the service of these people and not do away with them in such an unconstitutional manner. Frankly if we can do away with the coroners in this manner we have to ask who might be next. 
Looking through some of the editorials I see that it is quite clear that press opinion is largely supportive of these coroners especially in some of the rural areas. The  
Nelson Mail 
 states that the dismissal of these coroners is unconstitutional. It tells the story of Mr Smith a Coroners Council member who says that coroners have not had a pay increase since 1991. Someone who has been in that job for the last 15 years would have to be pretty keen— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That’s not correct. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Is the Minister accusing the  
Nelson Mail 
 of libel? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Fixed that in the last Budget. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: And what was it raised by? The Minister cannot just say it was raised. He has not got a figure; it is just a reflex response from that open empty mind. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It’s all public information. Get on the Internet. Google the answer. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am not going to get on the Internet; I am giving a parliamentary speech. That coroner Mr Smith was concerned that the move could set a precedent for similar changes in other courts. If we are going to do this to the coroners who will be next? That is the question. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I also want to speak to Part 4 of this bill. I say to the Minister for Courts that I do not want to play games in Parliament by joining the dots because this part of the bill in particular has serious consequences for some very able members of the community throughout New Zealand. They deserve more than the sort of nonsense we have just heard from the Minister in charge of the bill. 
I want to talk seriously to the Minister about transition provisions for the disestablishment of coroners. I particularly want to talk about the East Coast. I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I understand that the Law Commission began this process with a review and that it specifically mentioned areas like the East Coast and the West Coast to which my colleague Kate Wilkinson has referred. They are unique areas. I brought Kate Wilkinson up to Gisborne and we met with two of the three coroners there and discussed some of their difficulties with the proposals in this bill. The coroners in Gisborne and Wairoa are part-time. The Gisborne coroner is a well-respected barrister and solicitor who has been in the job for decades. Gisborne is 2½ to 3 hours travelling time from the nearest larger centres either side. The idea of losing that member of the community and the work he does is causing quite some dismay in Gisborne. 
But the area I really want to bring to the Minister’s attention is the coast. Up there based in Ruatoria is a part-time coroner—he is not a practising barrister or solicitor; he is a JP—called Hughie Hughes who is a very well-respected member of the community. He is based in Ruatoria and as the Minister knows that area of the East Coast has large tracts of land between very small and very poor communities. The roads are bad. Members might ask why on earth that would be of importance to a coroner. We actually said to him: “So what? Travel time doesn’t seem to be a huge issue.” He made the point that not only are the townships small and quite a number of hours distant from each other but they are manned by single policemen in one-person police stations with no back-up and often an inability to deal with all the cases. So the coroner travels and is a huge aid to the police up and down the East Coast. 
The example he gave of the position he holds in the community which is almost a unique position for a coroner was the tragedy in Ruatoria of the death of five young people in a car accident. The community was in shock and there was considerable angst between the local police and local families who of course wanted the bodies of their young and who were in a terrible state of grief. The coroner played the part of a totally independent person who had the respect of different iwi and hapu and of the police. The role he played there was one of a community service. 
The service of those sorts of people in some quite specific areas in New Zealand is important. The role cannot be played by a person who comes in from the outside—maybe from Hawke’s Bay which would be 5 hours’ distance—has no knowledge of the people concerned and does not have the confidence of the local people who are mainly Maori people and therefore may not have the respect that is given to a person such as Hughie Hughes. I say to the Minister that these are unique cases. They are not something that will be found right throughout New Zealand and the Law Commission made that point itself. So my role here is to ask the Minister that when he is looking at the transitional provisions and thinking about how he is going to put this law into place he considers the uniqueness of the situation of those part-time coroners on the two coasts. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: An amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to Part 4 is ruled out of order under Standing Order 322. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended 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 schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: An amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 3 of schedule 3 is ruled out of order under Standing Order 322. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 5 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 As we come to the closing of the Committee stage of this debate I think it is worthwhile noting two things. Firstly I want to be utterly fair to the Minister Rick Barker who has exercised a financial veto in respect of the Finlayson amendment under Chapter 6 of the Standing Orders and to give him an opportunity to recant if he wants to. He made it very clear. He said the effect of the Government’s position in respect of clause 3 of schedule 3 is that ex gratia - type payments were not ruled out. I think it is important to record that because clause 3 states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner …”. The Minister made the point that there should be a focus on the word “entitlement” but that the clause did not rule out the payment of compensation in appropriate cases. I put it that way to give him an opportunity to back off if he wants to. 
The second issue I seek to identify is that but for National it is highly probable that this legislation would not have been advanced. Why do I say that? Because there has been absolutely no contribution apart from the comments of the Minister from Government members. I reflect on the fact that not so long ago the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee was Tim Barnett rather than the present chairperson. He would have been in this Chamber making a contribution. I say that if it is fair enough that Martin Gallagher the chairman of the Law and Order Committee is here then we should also have the opportunity to hear comments from the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee Lynne Pillay. It is a shame we have not had a contribution from that member. If I speculate why that is I think we all understand that it is simply because she is not up to the task. 
The Coroners Bill is important legislation and National has sought to emphasise that at every point. We really have only one position of violent disagreement with the Government which is the issue of the tenure of coronial office and the appropriateness of compensation payments. 
Probably the most controversial issue the select committee had to grapple with was suicide reporting. I simply say that New Zealand’s print media increasingly regard the issue of suicide as one of urgent public interest and a major public health problem. Media representatives have said when talking about the benefits of publicity that blaming the messenger for causing or worsening the problem whose basic causes must be sought elsewhere fails to recognise the important and cleansing nature of the blaze of publicity being focused on the darker side of New Zealand life. 
The select committee grappled with this issue. The relevant clause is clause 61. Clause 61 remains in place with discretions vested in the coroner to do what he or she thinks is right. I express the hope against the background of the urgings from the Commonwealth Press Union and the New Zealand Press Council that it is time the issue was seriously considered that if there is to be greater publicity there should be some guidelines offered on this very tricky issue of suicide reporting. 
I offer further comment on the issue and say first of all that suicide should be reported when such reports are in the public interest. Media professionals have an obligation to avoid the distribution of material that is likely to incite or encourage self-harm or suicidal behaviour. I also say that media professionals are under a clear obligation to exercise care not to trivialise romanticise or glorify suicide particularly in media that target young people or that are likely to be available to them. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a couple of comments made by the previous speaker Richard Worth who is normally a very thorough and accurate person. It is an extremely rare case that one can pick up Dr Worth for being wrong on a point of substance. It is very rare. He is a very learned colleague he debates constructively and favourably in the House and his being wrong is an unusual situation. But we heard an example of it tonight when he made an observation that the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee had not participated in this debate. He said that she had not. 
I suggest the member checks the  
Hansard 
 record because I recall sitting in this very chair and listening to Lynne Pillay making a contribution earlier on in the Committee stage. I can only assume Dr Worth was asleep or in deep conversation with a colleague and failed to admit it or was somewhere else; I am not sure. But I want to say that he was very unfair to Lynne Pillay. I do not want to be ungenerous to Dr Worth; I think he could have been mistaken. It is unusual for him to make a mistake like that. 
The second point I want to come back to is that I was challenged earlier about the fees for coroners. I want National Party members to get hold of the bench and brace themselves for this. This is what the Government has done after 9 long years of neglect by National of coronial fees when it did nothing for coroners. The previous fee for deciding after receiving a report of a death not to make further inquiries was $40; the new fee is $80. For completing an inquest lasting less than 2 hours the previous fee was $250; the new fee is $400. Those are substantial increases. 
The other point that should be made to Dr Worth is that we do not have an employee-employer relationship with coroners. That is the first point that needs to be made. It is a very clear point. When he looks to consider these positions in terms of normal industrial law he has the wrong basis for doing so. But I also say to Dr Worth that when one reads the legislation one sees that schedule 3 is very clear. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Clause 3. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Clause 3. I made it very clear to him. 
The other point I want to make briefly before concluding is in response to Anne Tolley’s comments about the East Coast and other places. The whole principle of change for this bill is to ensure we have as a previous National Party speaker said national standards that apply across the country. We want the highest level of professionalism possible in coronial services. I have seen quite considerable variation across the country and I think everybody in New Zealand should be entitled to the finest coronial services possible. That is the purpose of this legislation. When the transition is going through members can be assured that we will be very mindful of those particular issues in terms of the location of coroners. I have every confidence the chief coroner will ensure that we have excellent coronial services throughout New Zealand. 
I am also equally sure that when we look back on this legislation in 10 or 20 years’ time people will say it is good legislation. I have no doubt about that. It will move coronial services forward and all the issues that were raised by Dr Worth about coronial databases and accurate information will be there as well. I think Parliament has done itself proud with this legislation and I thank everybody who has participated in the debate. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 There were two issues at stake tonight and the Minister was the only person from Labour who responded to them which is proof if proof be needed that the gene pool in Labour has seriously deteriorated. This would never have happened under Geoffrey Palmer. Instead we have a Minister of Justice who grew organic vegetables and on the basis of his answers to questions today some would say he has become one. We have an Attorney-General who is a history teacher. The Minister in the chair Rick Barker is a trade unionist and the Associate Minister is a clerk. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is clearly inappropriate for the Minister of Justice to stand in the middle of the Chamber and converse with members during Mr Finlayson’s speech. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Of course it would be a matter of decorum. I would not want to offend the dignity of the Chamber. I happened to be conversing with a member when Mr Finlayson got up and attempted humour but I do apologise for any offence. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.