Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4666] 
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 Other details such as the manner in which death occurred the circumstances of death or the inquest are not to be published without the coroner’s authority and no further particulars will be permitted unless the making public of them is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety as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.