Coroners Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCoroners Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11755. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Coroners Amendment BillIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Parts 1 and 2JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I envisage that certainly on this side of the Chamber there will be a rigorous debate during the Committee stage around the Coroners Amendment Bill. I will just flag for this Committee that we have a total of four amendments on the Table most of which relate to Part 2 of this bill. We look forward to the opportunity to debate them at great length. They are in my name Phil Goff’s name and Kelvin Davis’ name.Coming first to Part 1 of the bill I want to start by just outlining again that when it comes to the general purpose of this bill—what its intent was as it was raised in the beginning by the Minister for Courts—we were generally supportive of some of those objectives. Some of those objectives were to improve coroners’ recommendations reduce duplication clarify which deaths should be reported—there was also Law Commission advice on the way that suicides and suspected suicides should be reported—and generally improve accountability transparency and leadership. Our position through all of this though has been—particularly when it comes to the workload management which it is very clear in Part 1 is some of the reason that the purpose of the Coroners Act is being changed—that we need to be very clear as to at what cost some of those amendments may come.Just to give some context to Part 1 according to the initial briefing that we received from the Ministry of Justice there are about 6000 deaths reported to coroners every year. Coroners accept jurisdiction—because of course not all of those cases will be within their jurisdiction—in over half of those which is 3500 cases. About 1300 of those cases will then become an inquiry keeping in mind that only about 300 will ever be the subject of a public inquest. I will come to the definition in a little more detail later on but—to very briefly give an overview of the difference between an inquiry and an inquest as we had it explained to us at the Justice and Electoral Committee—basically an inquiry is able to be held on papers in a closed office;an inquest allows a much higher degree of scrutiny and a wider remit for the coroner to investigate and call for evidence. So an inquest is more in-depth. That becomes important particularly to Part 2 of this bill. That is a little bit of context for what this bill was meant to achieve.Our view however is that caseload management should not come at the cost of proper inquiries and inquests held in cases where we need to ensure public confidence in particular. I want to come first to the amendment made in Part 1 clause 4 amending section 3—the purpose section—of the Coroners Act. My understanding is that the original Act recognised in its purpose section “the cultural and spiritual needs of family [and] others who were in a close relationship” and “the public good associated with a proper and timely understanding of the causes and circumstances of deaths:”. We are looking at a much more deliberate purpose clause. In the bill it instead states that the purpose of the Act is “the making of recommendations or comments that if drawn to public attention may reduce the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar to those in which the deaths occurred.”I imagine that on face value most members of the public would absolutely agree that that would be useful guidance by which the coroners’ office should govern itself.My view is that we have inconsistency within this bill with the purpose clause itself. If the purpose clause for all intents and purposes is stating the idea that if those recommendations are out there the likelihood that we may reduce further deaths is going to be enhanced then surely it would follow that this bill should require that anyone who is the subject of a recommendation be obliged to at least respond to that recommendation. Those amendments are ones that we have made in a Supplementary Order Paper that will affect Part 2 of the bill I believe—I will double-check. But ultimately this purpose clause is not given proper effect in the bill as it stands without an obligation for agencies be they public or private to respond to a coroner’s recommendations.In Labour’s view that is a very simple amendment—a very simple amendment—and one that would make a substantive difference. It is one that the last Chief Coroner called for to be adopted. Otago University has conducted a piece of research that has called for it to be adopted. If the Minister in the chair Amy Adams is about to take a call and state that that is happening anyway then again there is no reason not to embed it within the legislation. We think it is important and actually research has shown that it has not been picked up enough. But I will come to that in my further contributions.I come then to clause 6 replacing section 7—replacing the Chief Coroner’s functions. Some of the more substantive additions are around an additional function in new section 7(2)(a) “to establish and help maintain relationships between coroners and other persons carrying out functions or duties within the coronial system:”. We heard within the debate on this bill at the select committee from memory from pathologists particularly who talked about the difficulty in jurisdiction issues. We have heard about that to a certain degree from people reporting their experience with the police as well. It seems a useful function for the coroner to have that primary role of managing those relationships and functions for anyone who has some interest or say or role in the coronial system.What I do want to point out though is that under these functions we also have the overseeing of coroners’ investigations by managing the workload of coroners issuing practice notes and monitoring the operation of the system. In terms of managing the workload one issue—which was not discussed substantively but on which I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view—is what has been reported at least as an increase in coroners’ offices using external resources in order to deliver on their statutory obligations. Our understanding is that the workload within coroners’ offices is such that they have started contracting externally in order to assist them in the completion of their functions.If that is the case my question would be: in managing the workloads of coroners to what degree does that primary function of the Chief Coroner allow them to go to the Minister’s office point out these resourcing issues and establish the degree to which they are able to maintain the workload within the office rather than having to contract out those core functions?We would have concern if that becomes a habit within the Chief Coroner’s office in order to maintain those primary functions. If they have the role of managing workload to what degree would it fall back on the relationship with the Ministry of Justice and the Minister for them to say “We do not have the ability to internally manage those workload issues.”?Coming over then to the Chief Coroner’s functions in new section 7(2)(e) it again also states there: “to set up and maintain a register which must be publicly available of coroners’ recommendations and comments (or summaries of those recommendations and comments) …”.Again our view would be that a complete register surely would require that we have a response to coroners’ recommendations included in that register and at the moment there is no legislative power to ensure that that happens. It seems to me all the way through the initial parts of the purpose clauses and the function clauses to be a missing element of this bill and one that would be remedied by our Supplementary Order Papers 145 and 146.I want to come briefly to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 174 though which amends clause 14 to add new section 19A. It amends some of the New Zealand Police’s responsibility for coordinating the extraction of bodies in relevant circumstances. I just want to clarify with the Minister—it strikes me on reading this Supplementary Order Paper that this might perhaps be a response to the horrific evidence we heard as a committee around the hot-air balloon disaster in the Wairarapa. One of the key issues there seems to be that there was not enough clear responsibility in that case for the police to be able to communicate with families in that circumstance. Their view was that it was strictly for the coroners’ office—that they could not communicate with those families even though the police did have responsibility for the extraction of bodies. I would like to hear the Minister’s view. Would this Supplementary Order Paper remedy that situation—PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you for this opportunity. I rise in support of my colleague Jacinda Ardern who has just resumed her seat. She has already mentioned that we have a number of Supplementary Order Papers at this particular stage of the bill and we will be talking about them as we go through the amending bill part by part.Part 1—and I want to flesh out a little bit more around that particular select committee hearing. I was a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee which listened to the harrowing tales from whānau who were affected by the tragedy that Jacinda Ardern has just mentioned. The ability to communicate with authorities was difficult. The ability to care for their loved ones at such a desperate time was really quite difficult. To hear those stories to be honest pulled at the heartstrings and drew a bit of a tear for some of the members on the committee because they were hard to hear; they were hard to listen to. But I guess this is the importance of this bill. We need to make sure that we get this right.I do want to make a very brief mention of the inquiry established by the Māori Affairs Committee to look at the way that the Coroners Amendment Bill—and indeed just the overall practice of dealing with and managing tūpāpaku is an important thing for Māori whānau. I think as New Zealand grows we find there is a blend of tikanga Māori customs and probably more Western customs if you like—more Christian customs. So I just wanted to make quick mention of that because I understand that that inquiry is well under way and submissions will be heard soon.Part 1 is around the Chief Coroner’s functions. The Chief Coroner’s main function as in new section 7(1) set out in clause 6 is to “contribute to the integrity and effectiveness of the coronial system provided for by this Act.” My colleague Jacinda Ardern has already mentioned some of those challenges that will be faced that we believe will come out of this particular amendment bill. Some of those are around capacity;some of those are around making sure that there are clear processes in place so that there is a clear and coherent register. We are actually empowering coroners to make sure that they are able to do their job as intended by that particular clause to “contribute to the integrity and effectiveness of the coronial system provided for by this Act.”It says in section 7(1) in clause 6: “(b) overseeing coroners’ investigations by—(i) managing the workloads of coroners;”. I happen to know a couple of coroners who have already mentioned to me on several occasions how stretched they are. There was a particular recent case—a tragedy in my whānau last week. A whānau member passed away tragically on a farm on a Sunday. Sadly just because of the sheer workload and of course the process of the coroner the tūpāpaku or my relative was not released back to the whānau until late Monday evening which made things quite difficult for the whānau. But I think that probably the most difficult thing in that whole process is that whānau are just left out to flounder;they do not know what is going on. They are unable to communicate meaningfully with anyone to make sure that their loved one in the care and possession of the coroner is actually cared for according to our customs—cared for in the way that we would expect anybody to care for those who have departed.The reason I talk about that workload is that further on in section 7(2) the Chief Coroner has the following additional functions that arguably are there to support the Chief Coroner’s main function. It says: “(a) to establish and to help maintain relationships between coroners and other persons carrying out functions or duties within the coronial system:”. I understand that part. That is pretty clear with me. However I think—and we will discuss this later on in the amendment bill—a bit later on it actually defines who some of those people can be and their role in the particular coronial process. It says here: “(b) to help to inform and to achieve consistency in coronial decision making and other coronial conduct (for example by issuing practice notes): (c) to perform the functions of a Head of Bench under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 in relation to the exercise by coroners … (d) to help to avoid unnecessary duplication in investigations into deaths by liaising and encouraging co-ordination”.I think that is an important part because throughout the submissions we heard how there seemed to be a breakdown in communication far too often between authorities such as the police the coroner themselves and the hospital or the doctor involved in the particular case in respect of whether or not the point of contact with the whānau was actually the right one or whether or not there were numerous stories being told to different people or the same story being told to different people. We know how often a breakdown in communication occurs when despite hearing the same story people retell it in a different way.So I understand all that and from the outset the provisions look pretty practical. They look like they will be a good way to make sure that the experience families have with the coroner is a good one considering the difficult times. However it gets back to that issue I mentioned earlier around resourcing and capacity actually making sure that we empower coroners to do the right job without forcing more roles and more responsibilities on to them and not supporting them to achieve their function. I think that should be of huge concern to us.Paragraph (e) says: “to set up and maintain a register”—it goes back to what Jacinda Ardern was saying—“which must be publicly available of coroners’ recommendations and comments (or summaries of those recommendations and comments) made after 1 July 2016:” We understand the need for a register. I think that is a pretty good thing; it is common sense and it is pragmatic. It allows people to follow what is going on because unless you have the unfortunate circumstance of losing somebody you would not know what the coroner does and you would not know how the process works or how the system is set up. So I think it is actually quite important that you have a register there.However more importantly it talks about the recommendations and the comments and making sure that they are in a register;you will find that in Supplementary Order Papers 145 and 146 by members on this side of the Committee.And as we debate this bill further throughout the evening you will find that actually we are going to get on to the recommendations from the coroners. It reminds me of the Waitangi Tribunal: coroners do a fantastic job they work considerably hard given they are under-resourced in my opinion they come up with great recommendations and they seem to just fall into the nothingness or into the abyss into the information highway that leaves everybody else behind and nobody actually sees or understands what these recommendations mean and how important they are to a particular industry.We heard some submissions throughout the select committee hearing about the forestry industry and we know the appalling record of health and safety in the forestry industry. Members on this side of the Chamber heard about and spoke to some of the whānau of victims from the forestry industry and we were really really concerned. Well how do we fix this? Are some recommendations or pragmatic steps put in place able to fix this? But it means nothing if once again like the Waitangi Tribunal it is a lion with no teeth.I know my time is coming up short. Clause 7:“In section 9 replace the definition of chief coroner with: chief coroner means the person appointed under section 105 and includes either of the following people while he or she is authorised to act for the chief coroner under section 105A(1) section 105A or 106: (a) the deputy chief coroner: (b) the acting chief coroner”. Given some of the discussions from the coroner who came in front of the select committee I think it is important to have roles of delegation because they talked about how stretched they were. They talked about how it was difficult to actually feel that you could go and have a bit of a break and get the break that you need to make sure that you do your job properly given just the huge workload. In their absence it is important that we have those particular roles delegated.Just in closing my contribution on this particular part we will see that some of the Supplementary Order Papers coming in will make I think some real pragmatic changes to this bill and we will be looking forward to moving on to the next parts.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Before addressing some of the key clauses of the Coroners Amendment Bill in this part I would just like to make two more general comments.This first is that we do have considerable sympathy for our Labour colleagues’ view that this legislation unfortunately does not go as far as it might. There are things missing from this that could usefully be put in here. The primary legislation is now about a decade old. Coronial legislation is not something we want to be coming back to too often. We all want a system that functions well and meets the needs of New Zealanders effectively. For that reason we will be supporting I think most if not all of the Labour Party’s proposed Supplementary Order Papers 145 and 146 which do for the most part reference a later part of the bill.The other general comment that I would make is derived from some comments from the Chief Coroner’s submission to the select committee. In it the Chief Coroner said at the outset she notes that the amendment bill does impose some further requirements some further obligations on the Chief Coroner and indeed on other coroners. She points out: “The ability of my office to meet these requirements is dependent on sufficient resourcing.” She goes on to say: “The Office of the Chief Coroner staff consists of a judicial support manager and a personal assistant.”—at that point at least—“…there are two recent law graduates responsible for legal research for the Chief Coroner and the 16 coroners nationwide.”I have heard comments along those lines from all of the coroners I have spoken to personally: that they operate in an under-resourced environment that there probably ought to be two more of themand that they all need more administrative assistance in order to do their work in a timely fashion. Because after all as the point has been made nobody actually wants to be involved with a coroner and it is incumbent on us to endeavour to make sure that we get the most effective means we can so that they can do their work as swiftly as possible and get the outcomes.To speak to some of the specifics in this first part of the bill one of the first matters that came to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s attention was the conversation or discussion about the relationship between coroners and the police. I think it is not a well-known fact that the coroner’s office has no particular investigative resource of its own; it is completely reliant on New Zealand Police to go out and do the investigations for it.The original drafting of the bill had it that “the Commissioner of Police must cause to be made all investigations that are reasonable and necessary to help to achieve the purpose of this Act in relation to the death including any investigation directed by the responsible coroner.” The Chief Coroner again was concerned at the use of the word “reasonable”. She felt and the committee in turn agreed that the original wording actually gave too much discretion to the police to say no to a coroner—to refuse effectively to carry through investigations that the coroner might have thought were necessary and called for.I do think that the wording that has replaced it now still allows for the Commissioner of Police to object if he or she thinks that a request from the coroner is unreasonable or unnecessary. There is then a process where the commissioner might go to the Chief Coroner make the case and ideally they will come to some arrangement whereby the needs of both will be fulfilled.To me again this whole concern about that relationship seems to rest on a resourcing issue. It does require significant resources over time for police to investigate well to the standard required by the coroner particularly when an inquest is occurring. It would seem to me that they are put in this unfortunate position of the coroner’s office and the police having to have the language nailed down fairly tightly because I do not believe there is any sort of inherent opposition from within police to following the reasonable instructions of the coroner’s office. But there is a concern that on occasion they may well lack the resources to do that given the demands that are placed on them and the obligation they are under to prioritise everything that they do.I think that was reflective as I say of the fact that too many of the functions and purposes of our justice system throughout are being constrained by a lack of resource and it is reflected in the changes made here.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.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I want to come back to two amendments that I was not able to address in my first contribution. The first sits within Part 1 and it talks about the definition of those areas where there is jurisdiction for the coroner to investigate a death in official custody or care. This issue was not something that was discussed in great length directly by the Justice and Electoral Committee but we—inadvertently I think—stumbled across some definition issues when we were debating deaths in custody as they relate to those who are under the care of Child Youth and Family (CYF) in a residential facility.The discussion that was had was why when going back—and this arose off the back off the bill as it stands in Part 2—it was changing the criteria to allow the coroner greater discretion around whether or not a death in custody is an inquest or an inquiry. I had a selection of coroners’ reports around deaths in CYF’s care which I had requested under the Official Information Act on a previous occasion to better understand some of the child protection issues we have here in New Zealand. Within that stack it became clear to me that there was a real range of areas in which a coroner had opted for an inquest over an inquiry and I found that very confusing.My understanding was that currently it is always going to be an inquest. Why was it that we had so many examples of coroners’ reports that were indeed inquiries for children who were in CYF’s care? The answer lies in Part 1 because in Part 1 clause 7(1B) states that “In section 9 replace the definition of death in official custody or care …” and then it has the definition and that states “a child or young person who has been placed in a residence within the meaning of section 2(1) or 364 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (whether or not the death occurred in the residence):”. Then it goes on to a description of “a child or young person who—(i) is in the custody or care of an iwi social service a cultural social service a residential disability care operator or the director of a child [youth] and family support service” and so on.So clearly the indication here seems to be a young person who is in a residential facility of some description whether or not that is operated directly by CYF or is contracted to operate by CYF. My question is: why does the definition simply not state “a child who is under the care of the chief executive”? Because that would then cover those who are in residential facilities via perhaps youth justice or those in foster care whānau care or kinship care or home—perhaps not Home for Life because they are not technically under the care of the chief executive. If we had had that broader definition within Part 1 simply stating “a child who is under the care of the chief executive” under the definition of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act we would have had greater consistency in the way that we treated those children and we would not then have had that discretion between coroners who were conducting inquests and inquiries.As it happens actually that is now slightly null and void because this bill is giving that discretion regardless of whether a child is in residence or kinship care or so on. Our hope would be that we treat all children in care the same. I would wager that it is in the public interest for an inquest to be held any time a child is harmed to the point of death when they technically come under the jurisdiction of Child Youth and Family regardless of whether they are in a residence or not—regardless of whether or not they meet that current definition. On Part 2 we will argue that we should not have that discretion around inquest and inquiry—if you are in custody it should be an inquest—but I still have that definitional issue on Part 1 around whether even then every child who is in the care of the chief executive is covered by those provisions. I would be interested to hear from the Minister if I have wrongly interpreted that definition.The reason that I extrapolated that was that in some of the departmental—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jacinda Ardern.JACINDA ARDERN: I will be brief.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): She will be brief. You will be next the Hon Amy Adams.JACINDA ARDERN: Sorry Minister but I will be very brief. I will add one more statement to the mix. The reason I raise that issue is that when we were having this debate the advice that we received from the department did point to the definition of official custody in care in the Coroner’s Act as the reason for those differences in the reports from the coroners that I was referring to in the first part of my contribution.My second very quick reference that I want to make really just highlights what is I think an unfortunate amendment that was made to the original bill as it was drafted by the Minister and it was touched on earlier: the role of pathologists. I found this a particularly compelling piece of evidence that was provided to the Justice and Electoral Committee and it relates to clause 18 which says: “Section 27 amended (Family may request pathologist’s report on post-mortem)”. What it really intended to do was narrow down the range of family members who can receive a pathologist’s report to immediate family but what we ended up having quite a substantive discussion in the select committee about was another section that was being inserted after section 27(1) and that was as originally drafted: “A pathologist may at the request of a member of the dead person’s immediate family contact the family to explain or answer questions in relation to the pathologist’s report.”We had those from the National Forensic Pathology Service strongly welcome the ability to be able to communicate with family members directly something that was informally happening within the system—pathologists came in and gave very compelling evidence that they were having those kinds of discussions with families but without a statutory footing. They pointed out countless examples where they literally had family members there waiting and how awkward it is for a pathologist to say they cannot speak to the family or cannot communicate. In practice that was happening anyway so they welcomed that change.However at the select committee we had the Chief Coroner submitting that the clause as drafted was allowing direct contact that they felt needed to be facilitated by the coroner. Their view was that they had immediate responsibility for the final outcome and therefore that it would raise difficulties for them if suddenly there was some statutory footing for the pathologists. The Chief Coroner submitted that clause 18 in its entirety should be deleted and that everything should be facilitated via the coroner.The midway point that the select committee eventually came to—although it is the view of Labour members that the original drafting was correct—was to insert clarification that essentially means that all that communication must still go through the coroner. So what we might have is what will seem like a farcical situation: a pathologist saying to a family member that they cannot relay any information to them until they are able to contact the coroner and then communicate. You can imagine in those stressful situations how difficult that would be for both the family and the pathologist. So I believe the original drafting was right. I believe it put the informal practice on a statutory footing and I thought the pathologists’ evidence was compelling. It is disappointing that that has been redrafted and I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that also.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I will take a call on Part 1 of the Coroner’s Amendment Bill to run through the rationale behind the principal provisions in the part to talk to my own amendment on Part 1 and to respond to a number of the points that have been made in the discussion so far this evening.I think the one point that the Committee is in clear agreement on is that our coronial system is an incredibly important one and an incredibly well-respected one but also one that really works with people when they are at their most traumatised and at what is a very foreign time of their life no matter who they are. I have certainly been in the situation of dealing with the death of a loved one and finding you are caught up in this coroner’s process and for most of us it is something we have never dealt with before. If we deal with it it is all foreign to us and no matter how good caring and professional the people—and they absolutely are—I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the system operates in a way that is as clear and as time-efficient as possible.No one wants to be in that process any longer than they need to be and it has a very real impact on bereaved families and loved ones when the process of getting probate and attending to the resolution of the estate is held up in the coronial process. There is a very real need I believe to ensure not only that we have a coronial system that is well-respected and professional as it absolutely is but also that we have absolute clarity about the very important roles each of the professional parties play in the system that we reduce duplication and also that we provide a legislative framework that is cognisant of advances in medical technology.Part 1 of course begins by setting out the Chief Coroner’s role and it is very clear about that. The first major change is to be very clear about the types of deaths that need to be reported and I think these changes—and there are a few of them in this category—are critical. We do not need or have any benefit from our coronial system and the very high-quality pathologists and coronial staff that we have being caught up going through processes where the cause of death is plainly apparent.Under the bill natural-cause deaths in custody or care are not going to be required to have a mandatory inquest; it will be sufficient if an inquiry is held. To require families to go through that much longer process of a detailed inquest where it is very clear to the parties what the cause of death was is I think an unnecessary and very difficult requirement to put them through for no discernible benefit. Clearly the coroner will always have the ultimate ability to order an inquest should they think that it is necessary but to require it as a matter of course without any sort of flexibility there I think is absolutely unwarranted and this bill will change that.The bill also now provides in Part 1 the ability to provide for preliminary investigations to be directed by the coroner so that the pathologist can use medical imaging and new technologies to determine whether in fact a full post-mortem is required. We know that the act of post-mortem is a very invasive one and one that many cultures find quite troubling. If we can avoid the need for very invasive post-mortem processes because medical imaging equipment can give us the answers we need then again I think that is something that we should provide for once more within the control ultimately of the coroner.It is important that we have real clarity between the roles of the coroner and the New Zealand Police. The police obviously carry out the investigative work for the coroner. They are both statutorily independent roles and must maintain that independence. However we do need absolute clarity about the ability of coroners to get the investigative capacity that they require from the police but none the less not be able to control the police and ensure that they respect their ultimate independence. The test that we have landed on of “reasonable and necessary” I think is the right balance.It might be the right point to talk just briefly to my Supplementary Order Paper 174 which also goes just a little further in that space of clarifying very clearly the definition of roles between the police in the extraction of a body and the role of the transportation providers who are the mortuary services who are under contract to the ministry who obviously move the body to the mortuary for post-mortems. I mean it is a somewhat grisly topic but of course there are situations where the bodies are in difficult situations—often forensically there have to be tightly controlled scenes—and they are often in places of quite difficult access so we have to have real clarity around the control and responsibility for the movement of the body from those situations to a place where the transporter can easily get to them. Obviously if the body is for example on a roadside or in a public park those issues do not arise but none the less we do have situations where that becomes real and it is incumbent upon us to have real clarity of roles. My Supplementary Order Paper will do exactly that.Just carrying on Part 1 of the bill also does something else that I think is worthy of specific mention—I do not think I have heard it tonight in the debate—and that is to clearly provide for the role of forensic dentists in a post-mortem particularly in the situation of mass casualties. I do want to just take a moment to reflect on being at Burnham Military Camp in the days after the February 2011 earthquake watching the incredible unbelievable work of our coronial teams our pathologists and our forensic dentists who came from all over New Zealand at the drop of a hat—left their practices left their families—and did the most remarkable highly skilled highly emotional and yet incredibly necessary work of body identification. It made incredibly clear to me the critical role that they play and this legislation gives us a good opportunity to ensure that the role of forensic dentists is provided for in the legislation as I think this Committee would want it to be.I was going to turn to Jacinda Arden’s amendment but that is in Part 2 so I will return to that when we are debating that part of the bill. Thank you Mr Chairman.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): This bill does go some way towards redefining or confirming the definitions of the role of the coroner but I guessin the public’s mind there are three areas of expectation that the public expects from the coroner in conducting an inquest.I want to concentrate my Part 1 contribution on the role that the coroner has in supporting the expectation of families. Families do have an expectation that a cause of death or the mechanism where a death has occurred whether it is as a result of crime or an accident or whatever is found so that families are then able to take the necessary steps that they need to take in order to then perform the rituals that they need to for their loved one. There is also an expectation I guess if that death is as a result of a crime or part of a criminal investigation that the coroner’s recommendations and report go some way to addressing the issues that might come up in that investigation. I guess the third area that the public really expects the coroner’s input into is really whether that death is preventable—whether the recommendations that the coroner makes could go some way to ensuring that deaths of that nature do not happen again in the future.In this regard I want to really just emphasise the expectations of families and loved ones in terms of the role of the coroner and in particular I want to talk about the very very sensitive topic of how we treat bodies and the body parts and tissues that may be used as part of the investigation to establish the cause of death. It is a highly sensitive topic but it is a role that the coroners undertake with due care regardless of whether that death is as a result of a crime or as a result of an accident or an incident that could have been prevented. There is no doubt that the treatment of bodies and then what happens in terms of the deceased person after the coroner has made their determination has huge cultural implications. My colleague referred to what would happen to tūpāpaku. Well in my culture we use the same term and there are specific ways that we would expect our loved ones to be treated through this process. But there are other cultures too that have other sensitivities in the matter of death and the matter of handling deceased persons which need to be taken into consideration.In this regard I refer to the submission that was made by the National Council of Women. It was a very interesting submission. In reference to the replaced section 50 in Part 1 subpart 2 clause 27 they make a statement about it being vital that processes for retaining or returning human tissue samples should be improved in the sense of being more sensitive to the needs of families and that there should be open discussions between the coroner and the immediate family so that there is clarity and understanding of the processes in place and this also gives the family time to ask questions about the concerns that they have with the processes.I see that when the amended bill was returned to the House there had been some consideration made to this—in that the coroner is required to notify the family of the retention of any parts of the body and inform them of the right to request or return parts and samples and it is very clear in this section that the coroner has a role to inform the family about how they intend to use any parts of the body or any tissue that might be retained once the body is released back to the family. So there is some clear definition but in terms of what was requested by the submitter and what the understanding is I guess of the general public it does not go far enough.Is there an opportunity here to actually be far more cognisant of the wishes of families over a wide spectrum of cultural backgrounds to actually be able to have a much more sensitive process? It is not just about the coroner explaining and saying what they intend to do but also about actually taking far more of a steer from the families about what their expectations are of how that body and the tissues will be handled. One of the discussions—and it is very sensitive—is that some of the tissue may be destroyed and might never be able to be returned to the body so the body may not be able to be disposed of completely and whole. For some cultures that is a significant issue when it comes to the appropriate conduct and the rituals and the rites of dealing with deceased persons and it is an important aspect that cannot actually be over expressed. The coroners and the coronial process have over time really taken full cognisance of particularly Māori tikanga when it comes to dealing with bodies and they have changed their practices over time. I think that here is an opportunity for us to look at other cultural implications.I also refer to the submission that was made by the Still family whose daughter was one of the victims of the tragic Wairarapa balloon crash. They talked about what happened for them—the anguish of having to wait and not be able to identify their daughter or be with her body at the time immediately after the death. So in this case the coroner did not actually make any recommendations on reforms for how the process could be improved but I think it actually suggests to me an opportunity for the family to take a much greater role in determining how we treat our deceased people in this case. It is a very very sensitive matter particularly when we are looking at possibly returning bodies to their families not in a complete state and at how that might actually impact on families being able to appropriately conduct the rights and rituals of the deceased. Thank you.BRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams and the following amendment in her name to Part 1 be agreed to:replace in new section 7(2)(e) in clause 6 “1 July 2016” with “the commencement of the Coroners Amendment Act 2014”.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Parts 3 and 4Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I would like specifically to address clause 32 of this bill in so far as it makes a change relating to coroners’ inquiries into Defence Force personnel killed while on operational service as a result of hostile action. The status quo is that the coroner is able to report on deaths as a result of enemy action by New Zealand Defence Force personnel out on service in an area such as Afghanistan. What this bill does is it takes away the coroner’s right to provide independent scrutiny and to produce a report that is accessible to the public. Those are the critical points. What the coroner enables us to have as members of Parliament and enables members of the families of armed services personnel who are killed in action to have and allows the public to do is an independent person scrutinise the causes and circumstances of the deaths of those personnel and provide a report that the public has access to.The reason why this has been brought to the House in this bill is that the New Zealand Defence Force took umbrage at a report by coroner JP Ryan into an incident in 2012 where three members of the New Zealand Army were killed in an improvised explosive device incident in Bamiyan: Corporal Luke Tamatea Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker and Private Richard Harris.I have read the report by coroner JP Ryan and I have got to say it is an inoffensive report. It does not in any way intrude on issues of national security though that is the pretext in which this amendment is being made to the Act. The coroner’s report is available to all of us—any member of the House can look at it—and there is nothing concerning in that report I argue that could in any way be regarded as jeopardising New Zealand’s national security.The second argument by the New Zealand Defence Force is that these matters are non-justiciable—that is the coroner as a legal figure has no right to second-guess the decision that is made by a commanding officer on the battlefield. I do not believe that Ryan’s report does that either. What I do know is that unless you have the right to have a coroner’s report there is no mandatory requirement for an investigation into the death of a soldier on the battlefield. That point is made in the memo that I have briefing the Chief of the Defence Force.The coroner’s inquiry is the one mandatory requirement that the cause and the circumstances of the death of a soldier in action should be established. The Defence Force can of course hold a court of inquiry but that is not mandatory. Secondly when the Defence Force holds a court of inquiry its decisions and its reasoning are not available to you or me or most importantly to the families of the soldiers killed.One of the strongest points that I have read was made in fact by the partner of Corporal Luke Tamatea who herself is in the military. She makes the point very very strongly that she and her family took reassurance from the fact that an independent person—who was interested in finding the actual causes of the death and not interested in protecting the reputation of the Defence Force—had looked at this and had given information to the family. I say why should we as a House deny the members of the families of soldiers killed in action from receiving such a report?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Coroners Amendment Bill and no progress on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.Report adopted.