Tirikatene RinoCORONERS AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon RINO TIRIKATENE (Minister for Courts): I present a legislative statement on the Coroners Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the Coroners Amendment Bill be now read a second time.I'm pleased to speak to this bill which has returned to the House after a constructive select committee process. I thank the Justice Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and I'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the previous Minister the Hon Aupito William Sio for his work on the bill to date.Coroners are struggling to keep pace with the number of cases being accepted into the coronial jurisdiction. This has resulted in an increase in active caseload and an increase in the average time taken to conclude coronial investigations. This bill aims to reduce the distress caused to grieving families and whānau from the increasing length of time they spend waiting to receive coronial findings while ensuring the public interest continues to be well served by the coronial system.To achieve this the bill will make some targeted amendments to the Coroners Act. These changes were discussed at length during the bill's first reading. Broadly they are intended to reduce the time it takes for certain cases to move through the coronial system and free up coroners' time to work on reducing the number of active coronial cases.The Justice Committee received around 2500 submissions on the bill and I acknowledge those people who took the time to make a submission particularly submitters who shared personal stories about their own experiences navigating the coronial system. It's important that these voices are heard and matters dealt with by the coronial jurisdiction are inherently sensitive and can be highly emotive—especially for families and whānau who have lost a loved one unexpectedly.The Justice Committee recommended several changes to this bill largely to clarify its policy intent and to ensure workability. I'll speak to some of these now in the time remaining. Clause 10 of the bill as introduced would enable a coroner to record the cause of death as unascertained natural causes" if the coroner considers that the death is likely to be from a natural cause and no further investigation is required. That is the coroner does not consider an inquiry needs to be opened so the case can be concluded.Despite being a minor change—minor in the sense that it is clarifying current practice—almost all submitters had some degree of concern with clause 10 as introduced. For instance submitters were concerned that the bill might enable less thorough investigation of deaths especially deaths that do require a coroner to investigate further—such as unexpected violent or suspicious deaths.To clarify the ability for a coroner to record a cause of death as "unascertained natural causes" has always been intended to be limited to a subcategory of cases where an inquiry is not opened because the evidence available to the coroner leads to a presumption of a natural-cause death and the coroner deciding that further investigation is not required to discharge their duties under the Coroners Act.The important point here is that the coroner's decision is informed by the evidence available to them. "Evidence" in this context means information provided to the coroner by others regarding the death. This includes—but is not limited to—information from the police the whānau GPs and pathologists. The establishment of the new clinical adviser role in the Ministry of Justice will further support coroners to make informed decisions.Where the evidence available suggests to the coroner that further investigation may be required—for example the GP has raised concerns police have unresolved suspicions or the death is of a type that may require further investigation such as a self-inflicted death—then it would be highly unlikely that a coroner could be satisfied that the death can be presumed to be from natural causes.If the coroner is not satisfied based on the available evidence that the death is from natural causes then the death would require further investigation. It's fair to say that the intent of clause 10 and particularly the circumstances in which it could apply were largely misunderstood by submitters. I'm pleased to see as I'm sure submitters are too that the Justice Committee has recommended changes to clarify this. This will provide families and whānau—and indeed coroners—assurance as to when clause 10 can be used appropriately and why.I should also acknowledge another recommended change to clause 10 namely replacing the phrase "unascertained natural causes" with "presumed natural causes without investigation". Many submitters felt that the phrase "unascertained natural causes" is inherently contradictory and confusing. Many asked how a cause of death can be both "unascertained" and "from natural causes". The new classification—"presumed natural causes without investigation"—will better reflect the policy intent especially when combined with the other changes recommended by the Justice Committee.The Justice Committee recommended several other minor changes to the bill particularly in relation to the associate coroner role. These included changing the title of the role from coronial associate to associate coroner clarifying that associate coroners have the same judicial immunities as coroners and ensuring that associate coroners are included in the Judicial Conduct Commissioner jurisdiction. These changes were suggested to better reflect the likeness between the role of a coroner and that of an associate coroner.Other minor changes included clarifying that any limitations placed on the role of an associate coroner by the Chief Coroner should be set out in coronial rules rather than binding practice notes and clarifying the process for transferring a case from an associate coroner to a coroner when an inquest might be required.Just to wrap up it's worth addressing the differing view of the National Party in the committee's commentary. I agree that it is important for coroners to investigate both the cause of death and the broader circumstances of the death—for example the events leading up to the death. The bill does not change this requirement. What the bill does do however is provide the coroner with discretion as to whether they include the broader circumstances in their written findings after their investigation. This discretion is based around whether the coroner considers there is a public interest in the broader circumstances. For example would publishing the details about the circumstances of the death help reduce the likelihood of similar deaths in future? If the coroner considers there is no public interest in the broader circumstances which necessarily requires the coroner to look into the circumstances to some extent then they will not be required to include these in their findings. Like all coronial decisions this assessment is informed by the evidence provided to the coroner. This change is essentially an administrative one to help streamline the process to write up and publish findings. It does not alter the requirement that a death be investigated to the extent required by the Act.This bill is part of a wider work programme currently under way to improve the coronial system. This includes appointing more permanent coroners appointing clinical advisers to assist coroners and better integrating tikanga Māori into coronial processes. The targeted amendments in this bill will facilitate better access to justice for families and whānau while ensuring the public interest continues to be well served by the coronial system.I am confident that taken together the changes recommended by the Justice Committee will further support the bill to achieve this. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."