Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4866] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 On 25 July 2000 Justice Baragwanath the President of the Law Commission submitted the report on coroners to the then Minister of Justice Mr Goff and it has taken some 6 years to have the legislation reach this stage and I will say something about that in a minute. The Minister I think has quite adequately summarised the problems with the old coronial system which had been around as the Law Commission report said for many years. Indeed that is what some coroners themselves said. The coronial system seemed to be the poor relation in the justice system and there were many problems that appeared to be developing with the Coroners Act of 1988. It was described in the report as a haphazard regime. 
The Minister has outlined some of the problems with this regime—for example inadequate procedures for the appointment of coroners lack of uniformity of coronial practice throughout New Zealand which in the course of the select committee stage seemed to be a major problem a real need for the training of coroners to be improved and as the Minister commented a perception that in the coronial system as it was under the 1988 Act there was little or no regard taken of cultural values particularly Maori cultural values and beliefs. So there has been a move and this is what the Law Commission proposed toward a more professionalised approach to the appointment of coroners and particularly important the appointment of a chief coroner who would be in charge of the coordination of coronial services and the development of an effective coronial support system importantly including information systems. 
So that is what lay at the heart of the Law Commission’s report. As I said in July 2000 the Law Commission stated that an urgent overhaul of current systems and practices was required and interestingly it referred to the Ontario coroners’ motto which was “to speak for the dead in order to protect the living” and that was going to be a key objective of the coronial system in New Zealand. I am disappointed that it has taken so long for this report to give rise to the legislation which is now at the third reading stage. All too often it takes too long for the reports of the Law Commission to be acted on. The same could be said of the evidence reference which commenced I think as far back as 1989 and is now at the select committee stage. 
Tomorrow the Law Commission is celebrating its 20th anniversary and is having a seminar and one hopes that over the next 20 years of the Law Commission we will see more of its legislative proposals enacted. This report exemplifies that it does some very good work indeed. So I acknowledge the work of the Law Commission and in particular I acknowledge the work of the commissioner who was responsible for writing the report and who made a huge contribution Denese Henare. She was on the Law Commission until 30 June 2000 when she was forced off for political reasons. I think it is a great shame that her formidable law reform skills were lost to New Zealand. She was replaced by one of the Labour Party cronies which is the sort of thing we expect from this Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who is she married to? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What a sexist remark from the member for Waimakariri—to say that whether one is appointed to a particular position depends on whom one is married to. But that is the sort of thing one would expect from that poor soul. 
The passage of the legislation will mean an end to the involvement of JPs in the coronial process and I acknowledge the huge contribution of JPs in this area of the justice system over the years. In the Committee stage I referred to the experience of one JP in Wellington who had given very generously of her time with no compensation often at the most inconvenient times. That kind of contribution by JPs is replicated around the country and I thank them for their service to New Zealand. I also endorse what the Minister said about the large number of part-time coroners who have given of their time over the years. As he said some of them will be reappointed and some will not. Their contribution to the justice system also needs to be recognised. 
The Minister raised I think very fairly the key issues that were dealt with in the Committee stage and in other parts of the legislative process. At the end of the day National endorsed most of what was contained in the bill and indeed is very supportive of this move to a more professionalised coronial system. But there are two issues that concern us and I regret to say that they were not adequately dealt with or responded to by the Government members in the Committee stage. 
The first is the important issue that the Minister outlined which is dealt with in Part 3 about reporting of suicide in the media. As he fairly said it is a hugely important issue. National warily supports what is proposed although throughout the Committee stage I noted that what is proposed would probably be the most restrictive reporting regime in the world. It is interesting to observe that the English-Welsh coronial system is undergoing reform at the moment. Those countries have nothing like this and there is nothing like it in the Australian jurisdictions either. We support it based on the evidence heard before the Justice and Electoral Committee although as I said when we dealt with this issue in the Committee stage we should keep a very close eye on it. Although there is no formal mechanism in the bill for post-legislative review we should have another look at the legislation in a couple of years’ time. As the Minister said youth suicide in particular is a hugely important and tragic issue in this country and we need to make sure that what we have in the bill actually serves the public interest. 
The second issue of concern to National is in clause 3 of schedule 3. Schedule 3 deals with arrangements that are effective 12 months after assent. Clause 2 of schedule 3 provides: “On the repeal of the former Act every former coroner vacates office under that Act as a coroner or deputy coroner.” Clause 3 provides: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner …”. Those are the two issues that concern the National Party. Although we say that there is much that is good in the bill the restructuring of the coronial service being timely we remain concerned about schedule 3 and the arrangements that will be effective 12 months after assent. As I said in the Committee stage it is important to note that this provision was the subject of numerous submissions before the select committee. Essentially the Coroners Council expressed concerns about what was proposed. It obtained an opinion from Mary Scholtens QC a former Deputy Solicitor-General who said that what was proposed was unacceptable. The Crown Law Office had a different view. We tried to engage Labour members in debate on the issue but unfortunately they were not interested. The member for Waimakariri in particular just sat there like a stuffed dummy. 
The issue that is so very important in this case is that when we are abolishing and restructuring courts we have to make changes and politicians must have the right to redo the court structure. But Sir Anthony Mason observed in a very important article that he wrote some years ago on the appointment and removal of judges that the practice should be that the judge of the old court should be appointed to the new court created or to a court of the same status and that if such an appointment is not available the court should not be abolished until its judges cease to hold office. In the meantime the judges should be entitled to the emoluments and entitlements of the old office notwithstanding that the jurisdiction of the old court is transferred to the new court. 
The point National has been making is that although of course the Government is right to want to reform the coronial process in the way that has been set out it is extremely important that those who are not appointed should be entitled to compensation. The Minister said that many coroners work only part time but the reality of the matter is that the obligations of part-time coroners—often lawyers—around the country can be immense. They may have run down their practices in order to undertake coronial work and for many of them their practices will not come back readily. So this is a disappointment because it is an important issue. Those are the two issues that concern the National Party but that having been said we support the bill. We think it will amount to a great improvement in the way the coronial system is operating.