Penk Chris; Williams PotoCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to join others on both sides of the House in commending the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in this the third and final reading. We've heard from others with experience in the professional sphere and I acknowledge Harete Hipango; those with personal stories and I acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones who gave a couple of moving accounts from recent and past experiences in his whānau and connections that he has had; and also the procedural and I acknowledge the outline by Marama Davidson of the history of this bill coming to this place. My own perspective will be briefly historical and also with some thoughts about some philosophy about the relationship between the State and its citizens as reflected in this very helpful amendment to our statute book.The word coroner" literally means an officer of the Crown going back to the days when in the Anglo-Norman phase of English history the coroners as they became known were responsible for collecting local records of proceedings in which the Crown had jurisdiction; also collecting certain revenues and relevant to the modern function of course investigating suspicious deaths. It was in that latter as well as the other types of function that it was acknowledged then and perhaps more so now that the awesome power of the State over its citizens should be exercised in a way that reflects the seriousness of the role that they carry out but is also sensitive to the rights of subjects. Of course we are talking about a balance in this piece of legislation and more particularly in the amendment that's before us now in understanding that coroners have an important function both in medical terms and in legal terms but also needing of course to understand the sensitivities around the cultural considerations in particular that arise when circumstances of a person being dead do arise and need to be taken into account.I'll just pause briefly for a moment to note that in legal terms a dead person is not a person and of course by definition a person is a living person and has human rights on that basis. But that's something of a legal fiction because of course a recently deceased person—and indeed maybe a person throughout time immemorial according to the beliefs of some—will always be a person and not merely in that moment when they've recently deceased a collection of human tissue or merely cells and so forth. And so from a cultural perspective of course that person is indeed very much still a member of a family a whānau and so on. So it is important that notwithstanding that legal fiction about the status of the physical body in fact we do need to be sensitive to the dignity of that person and also of course the loved ones who are left behind. In particular in circumstances where a coronial investigation would be under way naturally there would be oftentimes circumstances to imagine that the stress and the grieving would be particularly heightened.So it's balancing these practical pragmatic considerations of the legal and medical aspects to learn the lessons but also perhaps to prepare in some cases sadly for a criminal context to understand the circumstances balanced against the human needs of that person themselves and their family and whānau that this piece of legislation seeks to achieve. And that balance I think is well reflected in the fact that we talk in what will be the new section 26(2)(ea) of ethnic origins social attitudes or customs or spiritual beliefs and so forth. That seems to me appropriate as does the giving of an example of the right of persons to view touch or remain with or near the body—for example the customary requirement under tikanga Māori. And that seems to me an appropriate example because it reflects as is the case in this country something of a first among equals status whereby we acknowledge that in many cases for whānau it will be particularly significant for this right for these considerations to be taken into account but also understanding that other ethnic and spiritual and religious and cultural considerations will mean that others too feel a particular need to be able to do these things and to grieve in a way that's appropriate to them.These are considerations that are to be taken into account now. That seems to me entirely appropriate. The coroner will be able to do what he or she needs to be able to do but taking into account this sensitivity understanding that the power of the State is to be exercised in that way seems entirely appropriate. So with no further hesitation I'm pleased to join others among the assembled contributors to this debate in the House in commending this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call."