Tanczos Nandor: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18098] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Coroners Bill replaces the Coroners Act of 1988 and seeks to reform the coronial system to increase the effectiveness of that system and to enhance public confidence in it. The Greens consider that to be a very welcome move indeed because there has been enormous inconsistency in the past in the quality of work done by coroners. It may be that that is a legacy of the history of the coronial system. It started off as a very non-professional service and it has evolved over time in various ways. I think this bill indicates that this Parliament is finally giving some real respect and status to coroners which is something that is most welcome. 
Most of the work done by coroners has been extremely good valuable and important and we welcome that work. However I think it is fair to say that in this country we have seen some coroners view their position as a platform for airing their personal views on political matters that are entirely unconnected to the case before them outside their area of competence and unsupported by evidence. They are matters that are entirely outside their area of expertise or their jurisdiction. 
In particular I think back to some of the comments made by Coroner Mate Frankovich in Auckland. He made a number of bizarre statements over time and was never able to be effectively held to account for them. In May of 2000 he was investigating the death of Jamie Langridge of Whangarei following the taking of Ecstasy by that young man at a dance party. If I remember correctly the death was related to his water intake as a result of loss of heat control due to taking Ecstasy. At the time the coroner attacked what he called pro-cannabis politicians and challenged them to attend inquests to better understand the damage caused by it. I am sure he was referring to people like myself and other Green MPs who have a strong policy and position on cannabis law reform. He thought that somehow our attending inquests of people who had died of Ecstasy might dissuade us from our opinion. 
It was interesting at the time that Professor Sally Casswell of Auckland University one of the most pre-eminent researchers in this area said there was no evidence that cannabis had ever killed as Ecstasy has. That indicated that Mr Frankovich almost certainly had never presided over a cannabis-related death. She said that studies showed that most cannabis users did not go on to try Ecstasy that she did not know of any deaths directly caused by cannabis and that it was extremely unlikely that there had been any fatality directly related to its use. So cannabis use is a very different situation from the Ecstasy fatality that he was discussing in the Coroner’s Court. 
Really it is not the role of the coroner to use an inquest to vent personal views about unrelated policy matters. I consider that to be abuse of the coronial position so I hope this bill will help to steer coroners away from that kind of abuse. 
Stephen Franks 
: That’s what the bill has been about. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Well I think it is fair to say that coroners should stick to their job which is to determine the cause and circumstances of death and to make any recommendations about how such deaths could be avoided in the future. It is not the job of coroners to spout on about unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the case before them. I think it is entirely right that New Zealanders should expect that behaviour from coroners just as we expect other professionals to deal with the matters before them and not to use their position to make known their political views about other matters. 
So the role of the coroner is to determine the cause and circumstances of death and if appropriate to make recommendations about how deaths might be avoided in similar circumstances. I think it is likely that our having coroners who are legally qualified and well trained will help to enhance that role that having a Chief Coroner will help to enhance that role and that having a complaints process will also help to enhance that role. Coroners will now be subject to the Judicial Complaints Commission and I think that is right because coroners as with any other quasi-judicial office should be held to account and made to fulfil their function effectively competently and professionally. 
It is especially important because the role of coroners is increasingly important in this country. Workplace risk is increasing in some professions and it is important that we have people who are able effectively and competently to determine cause of death and recommend ways of avoiding it in the future. If anything one of my reservations would be to do with the enforceability of recommendations from a coroner. I have had meetings with a woman who came to see me in great distress because her husband had died in prison due to a lack of medical facilities in the prison. She told me that in the past coroners had made recommendations about essentially the same kinds of matters and there was no indication that the Department of Corrections had picked up on those recommendations and actioned them. We need to make sure there is a process so that the recommendations of coroners are taken seriously and are actioned particularly by Government departments when the investigations are of deaths in relation to functions of the State. 
This bill has taken on a number of issues raised by the Law Commission in its 2000 report on ways to improve the system. We hope that they will improve the operations of the coroners themselves and the processes by which they work. Much has been said about the new office of Chief Coroner which will provide leadership coordination and consistency. We welcome that. There is a move to a small number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners. We think that is a good thing. It is important that as I said what is an increasingly important role is actually done professionally by people who are appropriately qualified. There is a specific regime for retention and release of body parts and bodily samples and that is good. Inquiry and inquest processes are enhanced in a number of ways including regulations about who can attend inquests. 
A key thing which has been mentioned by members already in the debate is the relationship between families and coroners. It is not just a recent issue; it has actually been raised in the past a number of times by many different people in our community—Maori in particular perhaps but other people as well. I was really amazed to hear Judith Collins say that she had never heard of any of those complaints—that she had never heard any concerns raised about the way that coroners relate to families and practices around bodies and such. If that is true I think it probably says more about the member than it does about the issue because it is clear that a lot of concern has been raised about it over time. 
I think some members are being a little bit uncharitable when it comes to this issue. When we look at the clauses in relation to family members—those from clause 20 on—we see that most of these things are fairly straightforward. They are about facilitating effective liaison with the immediate family. The coroner may recognise only the smallest number of representatives necessary to represent fairly the interests of all the different members of the immediate family and that stands to reason. Families are not always united in their views and the different views should be represented but the coroner may recognise only the smallest number of representatives. That is all straightforward stuff. One would think it was fairly basic. I do not see why members object to it. Clause 21 “Coroner must give family representative immediate family and certain others notice of significant matters” is fairly straightforward. 
Some members referred to for example the right to object to a post-mortem which Mr Franks talked about. Clause 31 “Right in some cases to object to post-mortem” states: “(1) This section applies to a post-mortem of a body that a coroner proposes to direct under section 29 be performed unless the coroner proposes to direct that the post-mortem be performed immediately … because … any delay would or may limit the pathologist’s ability to determine the cause of death.” Well surely that is the crux of the matter. People can object but if the coroner considers that any delay may limit the ability to determine the cause of death then the post-mortem will go ahead. I do not quite understand what the member is objecting to in that case