O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First has always supported this bill. We recognise that the Coroners Act has needed revision for quite a long time and we think that overall this bill makes a pretty good job of doing that. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee also which I think did a very good job in refining the bill and bringing it back to the House in the state that it is now in. In essence what the legislation needs to do is to balance some public and private interests especially to avoid unnecessary inquests on the one hand but to ensure full transparency on the other. That is really what the coronial system is all about. It needs to balance the freedom of the media to report deaths and their circumstances against sensationalising those sorts of circumstances because they can of course encourage other suicides. It is actually relatively easy to do that even though it may be unintended so there needs to be a balance there. There also needs to be a balance in terms of inquiry into deaths in State custody because that is a particularly important area for coronial jurisdiction because of the possibility of abuse of people in State custody. But on the other hand the balance needs to be against pointless inquiries where they are really not needed. So I do think it is appropriate that the Chief Coroner should have the discretion that they will now have to decide whether an inquiry is needed or not. The last area that I want to mention where I think this balance is particularly important is the need for a balance between an independent inquiry for deaths of defence personnel—especially where the deceased was killed in a hostile action—on the one hand and on the other the need for national security considerations to be taken into account and for national security to be protected. That is another very difficult area where the balance is needed. So I think that this bill actually does achieve—largely achieves—those balances and that is why New Zealand First is going to continue to support it. Nevertheless we are disappointed with a couple of things. There were two amendments that we feel should have been adopted and incorporated into the bill. I am a little bit sad that the Government has not done that and has not given good reasons for not doing so. The first related to a proposed new section 57C in clause 30 and the question of whether it should be mandatory for Government agencies to respond to coronial recommendations. There is not much point in having a system that spends a lot of money and effort in producing those recommendations if they can simply be ignored or brushed off by Government agencies. To be fair most of them do not do that but on the other hand it is perfectly clear that on some occasions that is exactly what happens. So the proposal had been to require a response and to make it mandatory within 60 days and we in New Zealand First feel that that would have been the right way to go. It is disappointing that that has not been adopted. I cannot see what the harm would have been in requiring that. It would have achieved something positive and worthwhile. The second proposed amendment concerned deaths in hostile action. The position currently is that coronial jurisdiction covers deaths for Defence Force personnel regardless of circumstances and that is in addition to court of inquiry processes. That process itself has a safeguard in that it is subject to external legal review panel considerations and that would be conducted by a Queen's Counsel. So that is the current situation. This bill would change that so that coronial jurisdiction will continue where death does not happen during hostile action and new section 59A(2) and (3) would instead operate to protect the national interest by preventing an inquiry where the coroner determines the death is caused exclusively by hostilities during a hostile action and not otherwise. The current section allows coronial inquiry into death during hostile action too but only if the Attorney-General directs it and that is stated the wrong way round. Instead the section should allow such an inquiry unless the Attorney-General takes action to prevent it. It may seem like a fine point but it is actually quite important in particular because new section 59A(4A) would still apply even if what is in the current legislation continues by putting coronial authority and transparency first and new section 59A(4A) provides for the criteria that the Attorney-General has to consider. I want to quote those criteria because I think they are important: (a) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to identify the cause and circumstances of the death; and (b) whether the investigation or inquiry could reveal information that may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand; and (c) whether the investigation or inquiry is likely to examine military tactics; and (d) whether a court of inquiry has been or will be assembled …" and so on. So those are the sorts of criteria that would have to be considered and therefore I feel that it would have been better for what is in the current legislation to continue or for the amendment that had been proposed by Phil Goff to be adopted because those considerations would apply. The amendment would have better reflected the balance I spoke of by putting the primary need for coronial inquiry as the primary consideration and to have the need for national security considerations to effectively be secondary because they can be taken into account only if those criteria that I listed were met. So that would have been the better way to proceed and it is a bit disappointing that the Government did not in fact adopt the proposal for amendment that had been put forward. It is a disappointment but it would not itself be enough for New Zealand First to vote against the bill. The only other thing I did want to mention was that other area of significant difficulties—and I have already mentioned them at the beginning of my speech—concerning the reporting of suicides. I do believe that new section 71 does achieve the right balance because it says that if a death is self-inflicted or if it may have been the method or the place where the death occurred—if that place suggested the method—or a description of the death as a suicide may not be published. But there is a balance there in that the Chief Coroner may grant an exemption if satisfied that in doing so it would not present an undue risk that other people would attempt copycat behaviour and that any risk that people would attempt copycat behaviour is outweighed by other considerations that make it desirable in the public interest to allow the publication. So I think there we have a good demonstration of the balance that I spoke of and so we in New Zealand First do think that in that very important area section 71 is appropriate. Finally overall we in New Zealand First do think that the bill is a significant improvement over the current Act that it does achieve the balances that I spoke of and that it will work better for a robust coronial system. So we will be voting in favour of it."