SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was remiss in my second reading speech as fast as it was to actually acknowledge the Minister and not only because I haven't actually had the chance Minister Tirikatene. It has a wonderful ring about it to actually acknowledge you in taking on the role and in this role here and to acknowledge too what my colleague Chris Penk had said about the speed—which is not a surprise actually—with which you've picked up and articulated the issues here tonight. So thank you for that.Look as far as I understand it we're all in support of this bill. I think we can all see the need; there's always the political element to this. We would on this side of the House rightly stress that we feel the court system in general is getting a bit out of control but I'm going to try and be ultra-nice. It's the—Vanushi Walters: Yes.SIMON O'CONNOR: I know—I shock myself occasionally. Actually there is pressure there and this is a good example of not only the Government but the Parliament stepping in to try and make things better. At the heart of it it was ultimately what the previous speaker Vanushi Walters just touched on which is actually a heartfelt passionate but articulate and rationale petition which has moved us to this situation—moved us both rationally and emotionally I would suggest. A big part of it is to create this new role of associate coroner.The long and short of it for the people at home: there are more individuals with at least five years - plus of legal—I think it's barrister or barrister sole. Look I'll leave that to the lawyers to someone who's got decent legal experience—as I look across to Emily Henderson at this moment. But it's someone with good legal experience who can kick in and assist in the coroner's role and that's a positive thing. A number of families certainly in my own family—and the Minister will know this through his own electorate work—not only struggle with the loss of a loved one which can be a shock; they struggle often with not fully understanding the how and why and they want a quick resolution and when it takes weeks months and sadly into years that becomes a major major issue. So this is a really positive step forward. I will say I would have liked to have seen that earlier Supplementary Order Paper brought in. I think it's always in the public interest. For reasons to be explained that I don't fully understand—I don't think it's anything to completely stop the bill by any means. But actually I think it is always in the public interest if only for the sake of statistics that we have a better understanding of why someone has passed even if it is let's say strictly an educated guess by the associate coroner. That is still better than simply saying the person is deceased but it's not in the public interest to say why and to illustrate it really really simply the length of time it requires an associate coroner to say it's not in the public interest is about the same time they could write down what they believe to be the understanding.Look I have to say even just from personal experience as odd as it sounds I helped an epidemiological team in Fiji when I was there go through the death records and work out reasons why people had passed or not. It could be a shock to some people that old age was noted by some people without coronial experience. An arthritic knee was also a reason for death which is also a bit of a surprise to me. The fact that a shark ate someone—that was not a surprise. I thought that was one of the coronial highlights in Fiji; not for the person involved of course but in terms of a coronial document in epidemiology. But on that I continue to be happy to commend the bill to the House.