O'Rourke Denis: Coroners Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionO'Rourke Denis: Coroners Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): In this bill there is generally a need to balance public interests and private interests. That includes balancing the need for unnecessary inquests and at the same time the need for full transparency. Also there needs to be a balance between the freedom of the media to report deaths and their circumstances without sensationalising them or encouraging copycat suicides. There needs to be a balance to inquire fully into deaths that occur in official custody but at the same time we should be avoiding pointless inquiries so that some discretion can safely be used to avoid them.There needs to be a balance between independent inquiries of deaths of defence personnel in all circumstances when the deceased was not in hostile action and the circumstance when the death was in a hostile action situation. So the balance then would be a need for a transparent inquiry when that is really required and the need for the protection of national interests. So there are a lot of balancing acts to be thought about when going through this particular piece of legislation.I want only to comment however not on the bill itself—because I have expressed in previous speeches what New Zealand First’s position is on that—but on four of the proposed amendments. The Supplementary Order Papers that I want to comment on are first of all the two that Jacinda Ardern—numbered 145 and 146—has submitted. They relate to new section 57C and the question is whether it should be mandatory for a Government agency which is dealt with in Supplementary Order Paper 146 or anyone else which is dealt with in Supplementary Order Paper 145 to respond or to not respond to recommendations of a coroner. New Zealand First will support whichever of those Supplementary Order Papers turns out to be successful.I hope that at least Supplementary Order Paper 146 is because we think that is appropriate. There should never be a situation when a Government agency can simply ignore the recommendations of a coroner. That is not appropriatenor should such an agency ever feel that it can simply brush off without reasonable response recommendations made by a coroner. This does not mean that the response has to be of any particular kind but it needs to be genuine comprehensive well considered and a proper response to the recommendations of a coroner. We think therefore that his Supplementary Order Paper—or whichever one of the two is successful—is harmless worthwhile and would make a genuine contribution to upholding the effectiveness of the office of coroners. We also think that the 60-day period is a reasonable period as set out in the Supplementary Order Papers within which those responses should be made. So we support that one.The third amendment I want to comment on is the one submitted by Kelvin Davis to delete clause 41 which deals with the new section 80. We feel that we cannot support that Supplementary Order Paper. We believe there does need to be discretion exercised when there is a death in official custody—that discretion being whether or not to hold an inquiry into the death. We accept what the new section 80 says—that the criteria is set out there as to whether the coroner should exercise their discretion in favour of or against having an inquiry. So we want to see that new section remain in the legislation so we will not support Kelvin Davis’ amendment to delete it.The fourth and the last one that I want to comment on is Phil Goff’s amendment—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. All of the amendments that you are referring to are in Part 2. We are on Part 1 of the bill.DENIS O’ROURKE: I am sorry; I misunderstood. I thought we were debating the whole of the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No it is part by part. So can you just come back to Part 1.DENIS O’ROURKE: Well in that case I will leave it there and I will come back to this when the appropriate time comes.