Williams Poto: Coroners Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Coroners Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): This bill does go some way towards redefining or confirming the definitions of the role of the coroner but I guessin the public’s mind there are three areas of expectation that the public expects from the coroner in conducting an inquest.I want to concentrate my Part 1 contribution on the role that the coroner has in supporting the expectation of families. Families do have an expectation that a cause of death or the mechanism where a death has occurred whether it is as a result of crime or an accident or whatever is found so that families are then able to take the necessary steps that they need to take in order to then perform the rituals that they need to for their loved one. There is also an expectation I guess if that death is as a result of a crime or part of a criminal investigation that the coroner’s recommendations and report go some way to addressing the issues that might come up in that investigation. I guess the third area that the public really expects the coroner’s input into is really whether that death is preventable—whether the recommendations that the coroner makes could go some way to ensuring that deaths of that nature do not happen again in the future.In this regard I want to really just emphasise the expectations of families and loved ones in terms of the role of the coroner and in particular I want to talk about the very very sensitive topic of how we treat bodies and the body parts and tissues that may be used as part of the investigation to establish the cause of death. It is a highly sensitive topic but it is a role that the coroners undertake with due care regardless of whether that death is as a result of a crime or as a result of an accident or an incident that could have been prevented. There is no doubt that the treatment of bodies and then what happens in terms of the deceased person after the coroner has made their determination has huge cultural implications. My colleague referred to what would happen to tūpāpaku. Well in my culture we use the same term and there are specific ways that we would expect our loved ones to be treated through this process. But there are other cultures too that have other sensitivities in the matter of death and the matter of handling deceased persons which need to be taken into consideration.In this regard I refer to the submission that was made by the National Council of Women. It was a very interesting submission. In reference to the replaced section 50 in Part 1 subpart 2 clause 27 they make a statement about it being vital that processes for retaining or returning human tissue samples should be improved in the sense of being more sensitive to the needs of families and that there should be open discussions between the coroner and the immediate family so that there is clarity and understanding of the processes in place and this also gives the family time to ask questions about the concerns that they have with the processes.I see that when the amended bill was returned to the House there had been some consideration made to this—in that the coroner is required to notify the family of the retention of any parts of the body and inform them of the right to request or return parts and samples and it is very clear in this section that the coroner has a role to inform the family about how they intend to use any parts of the body or any tissue that might be retained once the body is released back to the family. So there is some clear definition but in terms of what was requested by the submitter and what the understanding is I guess of the general public it does not go far enough.Is there an opportunity here to actually be far more cognisant of the wishes of families over a wide spectrum of cultural backgrounds to actually be able to have a much more sensitive process? It is not just about the coroner explaining and saying what they intend to do but also about actually taking far more of a steer from the families about what their expectations are of how that body and the tissues will be handled. One of the discussions—and it is very sensitive—is that some of the tissue may be destroyed and might never be able to be returned to the body so the body may not be able to be disposed of completely and whole. For some cultures that is a significant issue when it comes to the appropriate conduct and the rituals and the rites of dealing with deceased persons and it is an important aspect that cannot actually be over expressed. The coroners and the coronial process have over time really taken full cognisance of particularly Māori tikanga when it comes to dealing with bodies and they have changed their practices over time. I think that here is an opportunity for us to look at other cultural implications.I also refer to the submission that was made by the Still family whose daughter was one of the victims of the tragic Wairarapa balloon crash. They talked about what happened for them—the anguish of having to wait and not be able to identify their daughter or be with her body at the time immediately after the death. So in this case the coroner did not actually make any recommendations on reforms for how the process could be improved but I think it actually suggests to me an opportunity for the family to take a much greater role in determining how we treat our deceased people in this case. It is a very very sensitive matter particularly when we are looking at possibly returning bodies to their families not in a complete state and at how that might actually impact on families being able to appropriately conduct the rights and rituals of the deceased. Thank you.