Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to begin first by supporting everything that my colleague Phil Goff has said around why we feel so strongly about the amendment that he has tabled which essentially reverses the onus as it currently stands in regard to the coroner's involvement in deaths offshore. It was a significant debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee. But what I would like to focus my contribution on for this part of the debate around Part 2 are two elements of the Coroners Amendment Bill as they relate to what the coroner is able to make recommendations on and the follow-up response that other agencies are required to make to those recommendations which were two core debates that the select committee had. First I do want to acknowledge though that we do have a backlog of cases being faced by our coroners and much more importantly by the families affected by those coronial inquests and inquiries. We acknowledge the heartache that those delays cause. We do understand the ambition the goal behind this amendment bill but for us the test always had to be to what extent we are actually forgoing some important checks and balances that the coroner has a role in ensuring are in place in order to reduce that workload. We feel the bill has gone too far in that regard and simply needs to resource the coroner better. New section 57A inserted by clause 30 particularly highlighted that issue for us. The Chief Coroner did comment on this part of Part 2. This is the part that sets out what a coroner is able to make recommendations around and it states: (1) A responsible coroner may make recommendations or comments in the course of or as part of the findings of an inquiry into a death. (2) Recommendations or comments may be made only for the purpose of reducing the chances of further deaths occurring in circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred." It goes on to set out some of the criteria for making recommendations. The first which I think was actually the sticking point states in new section 57A: "(3) Recommendations or comments must—(a) be clearly linked to the factors that contributed to the death to which the inquiry relates;". It must be clearly linked to the factors that contributed to the death to which the inquiry relates. I have a couple of examples where I have concerns as to whether we are narrowing the ability of the coroner to do their job. An example I will use is a similar example to what was used at the select committee. If there is a finding by a coroner that the core cause of a road accident was the over-consumption of alcohol for instance the major factor that contributed to that death was clearly the consumption of alcohol then leading to impairment of the driver causing the accident. What if that accident also occurred on a bend of road where there had been several other accidents in a short space of time clearly indicating perhaps some danger around that particular piece of roading? It could be argued that that was not necessarily the direct cause of the accident given the role that alcohol would have played but it may have been a factor. A similar example was used from memory around a deliberate road accident but I think the point is the same. In fact we are drawing a fuzzy line here as to what a coroner can determine to be a direct factor a direct cause of death or not. We may be limiting their ability to draw to our attention additional factors that may be important in that case. I think you will find that coroners frequently find situations where there will be supplementary causes around the edges where it is difficult for them to distinguish whether or not it was a primary factor clearly linked to the death but it still might be relevant to the death. It may well be that the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith wants to clarify that that is not the intent of that new section but it was certainly in the interpretation from the coroners and surely that is what we should be concerned with. I want to come to my two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) because they are covered off in the next new section 57B in clause 30. This is something that I feel very very strongly about. They relate to the recommendations themselves that coroners are able to make. They are set out in new section 57B. Here it talks about the requirement for a coroner to consult certain persons or organisations on recommendations or comments that they are going to make. It is very explicit that if there is an organisation or person to whom a recommendation directly relates then the coroner must notify the person of the proposed recommendation or comment. Although there is an obligation on the coroner to notify those individuals there is no reciprocal requirement on those relevant organisations to respond to a recommendation. This has been the subject of a reasonable amount of debate particularly amongst the coroners—actually not "debate". They have a very clear view on this and the view that they presented to the select committee was that if a coroner makes a recommendation surely the least that we could ask for is a response from the relevant organisation—not a requirement that they adopt the recommendation because there will be recommendations that from time to time an organisation or an entity disagrees with. But surely the least that we could require is a response. Where is the harm in that? I really seek from the Minister a response to that question because to date I have seen nothing that sets out a reasonable argument as to why we would not want a response after all of that investment that time that energy and the submissions that were made. The work that goes into a coroner's report is substantial—and then we do not even require a response. We would not do the same for instance to a Law Commission report. We might be a bit pithy in our response but at least we give one. Why would we not require that here?There are some very very good reasons that I have set out in Supplementary Order Papers 146 and 145. Just to explain the difference between the two: Supplementary Order Paper 145 adds in clause 30 new section 57C "Persons or organisations must respond to coroner's recommendations". It is very explicit that it must be a written response it must describe the actions that they are going to take or plan to take but does not oblige them to take any actions and it must then present that response within 60 days—a reasonable amount of time—to the Chief Coroner and then that response is able to be made publicly available with a summary of responses reported back every 12 months. It is a very transparent way of collating what happens as a result of a coroner's report. The difference between SOP 145 and SOP 146 is simple: my assumption was that not everyone would necessarily want to require all organisations to respond because that could include private entities—although I would argue that they do need to be included particularly when we look at for instance the hot-air balloon company that was the subject of a coronial inquiry. It makes sense that we include adventure tourism. We heard a lot about agricultural aviation and the accidents that occur there and it makes sense for private entities to be subject to this requirement. But in case people are not comfortable with that SOP 146 is a backup as it were. It narrows the scope of the SOP and requires only Government agencies to respond to coroners' recommendations. But I want to leave the final word to the coroners themselves as to why a mandatory response—not mandatory implementation but a mandatory response—is so necessary. Judge Neil MacLean ex - Chief Coroner stated in an interview 4 years ago that "one step that I have cautiously pushed is to follow what the Brits do what some of the Australian jurisdictions now do and actually make it mandatory compulsory to respond to a coroner's recommendation. … at the moment our recommendations sort of can easily so to speak die in the ditch because they go out there they sit there they're never actioned." The report then went on to talk about the fact that recently before that interview a 12-year-old had died after inhaling butane with a group of friends in a Christchurch car-park and despite the coroners dealing with 28 butane deaths from 2007 to 2001 resulting in numerous recommendations it was their assessment that nothing had happened as a result. Again another example Rotorua coroner Wallace Bain had also reported that a Taupō jet ski accident that resulted in the death of a young person was then followed by another death just a short time later and that that person would be alive today if his recommendations had been implemented.I would like to hear the Minister's response to those SOPs. I believe strongly that the research by Otago University justifies them as does the Chief Coroner's view."