O'Rourke Denis: Coroners Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Coroners Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7408. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want first of all to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was a very good process with some excellent submissions and some good work also provided by the departmental officers and good input in addition by the Defence Force.It is not an easy bill because there is a need to balance public and private interests throughout it. First of all there is a need to balance between avoiding unnecessary inquests and the need to ensure full transparency. There is a need to balance freedom of the media to report deaths and their circumstances without sensationalising deaths or encouraging copycat suicides. And there is a need to balance the need to inquire into deaths in State custody with the need to avoid pointless inquiries where some discretion can safely be used to avoid them. There is a need to balance independent inquiry into deaths of defence personnel in all circumstances where the deceased was not in a hostile action situation and to allow a discretion to be exercised where the death was in a hostile action situation so that the need for independent inquiry can be balanced against the need for protection of the national interest. Some submitters do not always properly address the need for those balancing exercises to be done and we in New Zealand First have done so. Although not agreeing with every aspect of the bill we will continue to support it at this stage.I want to address some key issues: first of all coroners’ recommendations which are obviously at the very heart of the legislation. New section 57A in clause 30 applies a new subsection (2) which says: “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.” And new subsection (3) would impose further restrictions on recommendations or comments especially in paragraph (c) which requires an explanation of how the recommendations or comments may result in a reduction of deaths. I initially had some reservations as the Labour Party did about those provisions which did appear to be highly restrictive. However I have now considered those provisions in relation to section 57B which requires notification of those people who are affected and gives them time to respond and which I think provide a counterfoil to their restrictions in new section 57A so that the balance that I spoke of has really been achieved. So I am now satisfied that those provisions are appropriate.The remaining issue however on that subject is whether it should be mandatory for consulted agencies to respond. New Zealand First will support any amendment that may be sought during the Committee stage to make it mandatory because we think that coroners’ recommendations and comments are already far too often ignored and it is time to make them mandatory.Regarding deaths in hostile action the current Act gives coronial jurisdiction for deaths of defence personnel regardless of circumstances in addition to the court of inquiry process and that process also has a safeguard in that it is itself subject to an external legal review panel to be conducted by a Queen’s Counsel. But under this bill the coronial jurisdiction will continue where the death does not happen during hostile action. The select committee’s changes to the new section 59A(2) and (3) in clause 32 will operate to protect the national interest by preventing an inquiry where the coroner determines the death was caused exclusively by the hostilities during hostile action and not otherwise. But the section allows coronial inquiry into deaths during hostile action too but only if the Attorney-General decides to direct it.Phil Goff wanted instead for that section to always allow such an inquiry unless the Attorney-General prevented it. The difference is significant but I think not so great as to cause much practical difference in the end provided the Attorney-General acts professionally and not politically and we in New Zealand First expect and accept that that would be the case. So as I said I do not think the difference in practice would be very great. I would also point to new section 59A(4A) inserted by clause 32 which sets out the matters the Attorney-General must consider and I want to read them out because I think they are important. They say that those considerations are “(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 for those reasons New Zealand First is satisfied that the need for independent inquiry is properly balanced by national interest considerations.Turning to inquests into deaths while in official custody these understandably caused some disagreement in the select committee and also some interesting submissions. However new section 80 in clause 41 will mean that coroners must decide whether an inquest is needed rather than that being automatic and in doing so the committee has added a new requirement in section 80(2) which says—again something quite important—“(a) the death was a death in official custody or care and the death would not reasonably have been expected by a doctor who had access to the person’s health information (as defined in … the Health Act 1956): (b) an inquest would assist the inquiry into the death by providing an opportunity for persons who have not been involved in the inquiry to—(i) scrutinise evidence considered by the coroner as part of the inquiry; or (ii) offer new evidence in respect of the death.” So there is no need for all deaths in custody to be subject to an inquest. Most arise from natural causes there are proper balances in the legislation as proposed and in the end we do have to trust the coroner’s discretion and I agree with David Clendon about that.Another area of difficulty was the law concerning the reporting of suicides and that is an important area because it is all too possible for the media to sensationalise things. New section 71 in clause 38 is welcome and necessary. It says that a death that is self-inflicted cannot be reported and that no person may make public the method of the death or the place—if that is relevant to suggesting how the death occurred—or describe the death as a suicide. Those things are all important if we are going to try to suppress suicides and not encourage them in New Zealand. There are provisions for exemption that I think are also appropriate.Finally I note with approval new section 116A inserted by clause 52 which establishes a suicide and media panel to advise the Chief Coroner on applications for exemptions. Those are important matters and again I think the balance has been properly achieved. There are many other important changes made to the principal Act; there are far too many to go through in a few minutes on the second reading. However on balance we in New Zealand First think that the bill makes some significant improvements that it largely achieves the appropriate balances that I described and that it does deserve support so New Zealand First will continue to vote for it.