Brown Peter: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18102] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I am intrigued by United Future members. They stand in this House and say that this bill should have been given higher priority than some of the social engineering bills the Government has pushed through. Well what are they doing about it? Why do they not use a bit of their clout and tell the Government that if it wants supply and confidence from United Future it should at least put some of these bills higher on the Order Paper? What have those members signed up for? When they leave this House in the next few months legislation on prostitution law reform on civil unions on a smoke-free environment—which they all voted against—and on gambling will have been passed. They voted for the Gambling Bill but they did not attend the select committee or read one submission on it. As a result of that bill being passed more and more people will be involved in gambling. That will be their testimony when they leave this House. When they leave the Government will have got through everything United Future does not want. They will have sat there waving their stake in the air. I cannot actually see United Future members from here but I suppose they are there somewhere! 
New Zealand First will support this bill. I am personally pleased to support it and I will tell the House why. My support centres principally on five clauses: clause 53 “Decision whether to open and conduct inquiry”; clause 54 “Duties of coroner who decides not to open inquiry”; clause 55 “Coroner may decide to open inquiry despite initial decision”—and I hope that is retrospective and can go back a few years; I will explain why in due course—clause 108 “Coroner may call for investigations or examinations or commission reports”; and clause 109 “Coroner may refer death to other investigating authorities”. 
I will illustrate my reason for wanting to speak about those clauses with an example. This is a very serious example. It moves away from the bill but I think it will illustrate my concerns very very vividly. It was 29 December 1996 on a calm night on a flat sea that the  
Sydney Express 
 left the harbour and ploughed into a fishing vessel the  
Maria Luisa 
. Five men died. The police held an inquiry the Marine Safety Authority of New Zealand held an inquiry and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission held an inquiry—all in theory independent. But the police told me—and were straight upfront—that they were heavily dependent on the Marine Safety Authority. They told me to my face: “Convince the Marine Safety Authority that we’ve got it wrong because the assertion of the family and the experts giving the family advice is that the findings of those inquiries were wrong.” 
The local coroner delegated the responsibility to the deputy and quite rightly so because of conflict of interest. The deputy coroner in this city of Wellington said no inquest would be held because there had been several inquiries—those of the Marine Safety Authority the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the police. His adviser was a qualified master mariner who had been a harbour pilot in Auckland but for many many years had been a senior executive—indeed the president—of the Merchant Service Guild which is the officers union. That is the scene. 
That evening personnel on the  
Sydney Express 
 the container vessel that left the port saw the  
Maria Luisa 
 in plenty of time—some several minutes before the collision. We believe that for a number of reasons the  
Maria Luisa 
 did not see the  
Sydney Express 
 not least because of the backdrop of lights when coming into the harbour. The  
Maria Luisa’s 
 radar was not working. 
On board the  
Sydney Express 
 was the captain a fully qualified master mariner and a third officer who was also a master mariner. They did not take a bearing of the  
Maria Luisa 
 to see whether it was on a collusion course. They did not even plot its course on the radar. They did not even look at it on the radar. They did not even lift the binoculars out of their case to see what kind of ship they were approaching and they did not use VHF or the beacon head. The  
Sydney Express 
 hit the  
Maria Luisa 
 and five men died. 
I have found out since that the investigations between the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Marine Safety Authority were not as independent as they should have been. We found out that the police admitted they did not hold an independent inquiry. We know that evidence given by the master and the third officer of the  
Sydney Express 
 to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission was passed to the Marine Safety Authority months before the authority made a ruling. That smells like collusion. 
I can see that you are signalling me to get back to this bill Mr Speaker but I am suggesting to you that these clauses will capture what I am trying to outline. We found out that there was a flow-on of evidence from the commission to the authority and the Ombudsman is at this moment in time—and has been for some months—trying to determine for me who passed that evidence. He has now told me he cannot determine that or how or what the evidence was. I have asked for a look at it. 
The clauses in this bill will I hope ensure that the family or any family in future in a predicament like this will get an inquest. I hope that clauses 108 and 109 will empower the coroner if he or she says there will not be an inquest because of an inquiry to determine for himself or herself that any inquiry was totally independent and above board and—when five men die—that it was open to public scrutiny. By that I mean that the witnesses will be subjected to cross-examination from in this case the family. I hope these clauses will do that. 
In my view they are not strong enough to achieve that and my one little hope is that the select committee will toughen them up. I know that my colleague on the committee will do his best in that endeavour. I hope that clause 55 “Coroner may decide to open inquiry despite initial decision” will be retrospective. I hope at the very least that when this bill passes a coroner in Wellington will listen to the concerns of the families and of the experts who have been helping them and determine that the matter should be inquired into. 
Five men died and those families have not had closure. Five men died and those families are still suffering. Members should think about how those families will be feeling on 29 December this year and on that date in future years. If we cannot do anything else for the people of New Zealand when death occurs in these sorts of circumstances we can at least ensure that they get justice that they get listened to and that we get to the bottom of the matter. In the issue I have raised the ex - harbour master and one of the senior pilots in the port concerned have been advising the families and they have advised me and the families that the inquiries held by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Marine Safety Authority got it wrong. That is not good enough and I hope this bill will help us fix it. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theJustice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee