Swarbrick Chlöe; Dean JacquiCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I appreciate the contributions of the Minister just before particularly in addressing the Supplementary Order Paper as tabled by my colleague Nicole McKee. However I'm not quite sure if I align with the rationale and I'd like to challenge it somewhat as I'm sure others may interrogate in their contributions.So I'm just asking the Minister and his officials in this very brief time that we have to consider this legislation—and it's really important for those who are following along at home for all of those unfortunate individuals tuned into Parliament TV that what we're looking at here is a piece of legislation that increases the maximum amount of fulltime-equivalent (FTE) coroners that may be appointed. That is not a minimum and it is quite separate to the issue of budgeting for those coroners.The point that the Minister was making just before around the estimations that he's got are from the Ministry of Justice around how an extra four would bring caseloads into something that is considered manageable. Per the contributions of other members it would be really good to get a greater understanding of what manageable" actually means in terms of definition. I'd note that he gave the example of around 3000 cases being active as being considered sustainable; obviously a number of those cases come with different variables in terms complexity and other ways which the Minister himself alluded to.So my question becomes: when we're looking at amending the legislation in order to align with the Budget of that increase of FTEs here why is it the case that we did not settle on for example an amendment to the enabling legislation of raising the cap to for example a proportion of population so that we wouldn't in future need to look at again amending this legislation if it's the case that the Government next year or the year thereafter seeks to increase the funding the Budget which again is a separate piece of legislation to what we're currently considering in terms of the very literal coronial cap? And if it is the case as it is the case that we're here looking at a maximum of coroners why again was it set at two?I note that the Minister was again alluding to the fact that in current circumstances that brings workloads into what is considered by the ministry to be manageable. But again given that we're going to see population increasing and given that there are all of these other variables around the likes of complexity and otherwise why was it not four or five given that there is obviously in all Budgets typically planning for several years in advance and for future caseload to come online?So those are questions to the Minister—around particularly why in amending this legislation it wasn't considered that we for example looked at a proportion of the population being represented in the coronial cap or alternatively look perhaps at something like a minimum so that future Governments would actually need to bring these coroners and fund those coroners in the aligned Budget. Why is it—or rather could he please provide greater information into those words as just put on Hansard around the likes of what it means to manageable and what it means to be sustainable given those other variables around complexity of cases and not just caseload?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I should have said before I took the first call that the question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part."