Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4708] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. Let me go back and summarise what the National Party in Opposition did when we were previously in Committee on this bill. We were very concerned about Parts 3 and 4 and for the benefit of the previous member for Whanganui Ms Pettis I say we had two questions and two questions alone that we wanted to engage the Government in debate on because they were very important. 
The first of those questions was not necessarily one where we were opposed to what was happening. It concerned suicide and the media—a hugely important issue. If the member for Wigram would get off the phone and listen then perhaps he might learn something because the issue is an extremely important one. National warily supported the existing provisions set out in the bill. 
The second question we were concerned about related to clause 3 in schedule 3. We said that it raised a major constitutional question. Clause 2 of schedule 3 proposes: “On repeal of the former Act every former coroner vacates office under that Act as a coroner or deputy coroner.” Clause 3 of the schedule however provides: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner under clause 2.” In the course of a number of speeches by some of my parliamentary colleagues we referred to the opinion of former Deputy Solicitor-General Mary Scholtens QC who provided advice to the Coroners Council that was tabled at the Justice and Electoral Committee. We referred to the Law Commission’s very recent report on access to court records which addressed the fundamental question of judicial independence as an underpinning of parliamentary democracy or democracy in New Zealand. I undertook a very detailed analysis of the 1988 Act and the Coroners Bill to illustrate the judicial nature of coronial office and how it is quite wrong to declare the office of coroner vacant without any form of compensation. 
There were two issues only; all we wanted to do was to focus on two key issues. I regret to say that the only people who spoke in this debate were National members—other than the Minister who in fairness engaged in the debate on these issues and the members for Hamilton West and Otaki who moved closure motions. Otherwise we had silence from the other members on the Labour benches. They made no contribution whatsoever. Neither did the member for Wigram who was so sanctimonious on this issue earlier this afternoon. These issues are very important. It behoves Parliament to do its job and look very closely at the issues of suicide and the media and of constitutionality. 
Jill Pettis 
: Sit down and we’ll vote for it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The very noisy Jill Pettis could have come down to the Chamber to address those issues last night but she failed to do so. 
I ask Ms Pettis just what Labour MPs contribute to this Parliament. They do not engage in debate. In the good old days—and I sat in the public gallery in the good old days—there would have been a clause by clause analysis of the bill and the greats of the Labour Party like Sir Geoffrey Palmer would have got stuck in and engaged in the issues in an objective and a professional manner. In this place now we cannot even debate things part by part and have Labour members participate in the debate and that is very disappointing. They ask patsy questions they do not respond to serious questions and they do not even try to defend their own colleagues when they are in a pickle. They are nothing more than third-rate apparatchiks and I am very disappointed in them. And I am very disappointed that Ms Pettis did not condescend to come down to the Chamber and engage in this debate because the issues are big-deal issues. Those questions were the only two we sought to raise and they were critical. 
I will be very brief as I continue because all I want to do is to engage in—for the benefit of people like the member for Otaki and Ms Pettis—a little history. Back 20 years ago in this place we had as a Prime Minister—and those members opposite had as the leader of the Labour Party—a distinguished trial lawyer. They had in the Deputy Prime Minister an Attorney-General a Minister of Justice and a first-class former law professor and his skills are exemplified by the fact that he is now president of the Law Commission. They had dear old Frank O’Flynn the former MP for Island Bay who was Minister of Defence and a Queen’s Counsel. They had David Caygill Richard Prebble and Bill Jeffries. One could argue the toss with those guys but one knew that they were qualified and that they would be prepared to engage in the debate. 
And on issues as fundamental as the independence of the judiciary and suicide and the media I imagine that Geoffrey Palmer would have wanted to take the call on every single clause and talk with the authority and skill one had come to expect of him. I cannot believe that if Sir Geoffrey Palmer were in this place as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice that odious clause 3 in schedule 3 would be enacted. I think it is a great disappointment not only that it is being enacted but also that we did not have the chance to debate it with our Labour colleagues. Debate in this place is the stuff of Parliament and I am just very very disappointed in that. 
Mr Fairbrother should have taken part in the debate. He would have made a very competent Attorney-General had it not been for the fact that he is out of favour because he lost the Napier seat. Not even Mr Chauvel condescended to take part in the debate. One would have expected given his legal background that he would be interested in it. 
So I have to conclude my contribution to the Committee stage of the debate by expressing great disappointment in the way the Labour Party has performed in this debate. Sometimes issues are much bigger than partisan politics; they deserve a real contribution. My challenge to the leader of the Progressive party is to get on his feet now—it is not too late—and engage in the debate on these issues instead of sanctimoniously pontificating as he did during question time.