Wilkinson Kate: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4398] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Coroners Bill I want to go back in history a wee bit to the old Halsbury’s  
Laws of England 
. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very interesting I say to the member. The office of the coroner is of great antiquity and no satisfactory account of its origin can be given. It is said to have existed at the time of the Anglo-Saxon kings. I find that interesting. The right to elect a coroner for London appears to have been granted to the citizens by Henry I in 1194. The justices in eyre were directed to see that in every county three knights and a clerk were chosen as custodians of the pleas of the Crown. The office may therefore be safely assumed to have existed at least as early as the beginning of the 13th century. 
Hon Member 
: Why is this member so interested in this? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is a history lesson I tell the member and one always learns from history. 
It is vital that the public has confidence in our coronial system and it is important in modern day to take into account the needs of families. It is important to understand the causes of certain deaths and this bill is overdue—according to the coroners it is well overdue. It is not a perfect bill as one has come to expect but it is here none the less. It is certainly important to ensure that deaths—and especially violent and sudden deaths—are dealt with with sensitivity with absolute professionalism and with consistency and timeliness and my colleague Mr Finlayson has referred to the duties of the coroner to act without delay. It is certainly arguable that that can be better achieved by having full-time coroners rather than the existing regime of some 60 part-time coroners although I note there is provision in the bill for relief coroners who can be appointed on a full-time or a part-time basis. 
I would also like to deal with the role of the coroner as dealt with in Part 1 which has already been alluded to. Again I think it is really interesting to go back in history. If members will bear with me they will see the similarities of the 21st century with the 13th century. In the 13th century the chief duties of a coroner were to inquire into the cause of death by holding an inquest or by ordering a post-mortem examination. That has not changed. Another duty was to hold inquests upon treasure troves. That has changed because—unfortunately—we do not seem to have the same number of treasure troves that existed in the 13th century. In fact we have lost a few of our treasure troves in just the last 7 years. Thirdly the coroner acted upon occasion in the place of the sheriff. Again unlike the 13th century we do not seem to have a sheriff any more. 
The coroner also had certain duties in respect of outlawry and it would be interesting to know whether the coroner in that case had some duties in terms of corruption especially in relation to the immigration field in New Zealand in the 21st century. In addition to that duty in the 13th century in the City of London the coroner’s duties extended to the holding of inquests on outbreaks of fires. So the duties and the role of the coroner in some respects have remained very similar and have not changed; in other respects they are very very different. The history is really quite interesting. In those days “a coroner [might] not take pleas of the Crown nor hold inquests of royal fish nor of wreck nor of felonies except felonies on inquisitions of death.” I am not quite sure why we would want to hold an inquest of royal fish to be perfectly honest and fish is not mentioned in this 21st century Coroners Bill. 
None the less the coroner’s role is fairly well pronounced in the bill. The coroner is to receive reports of deaths to decide whether post-mortems are required to authorise the release of bodies or parts thereof and to decide whether to hold open inquiries. I think there is a provision in this part of the bill that possibly requires some scrutiny because when we are dealing with death the last thing we want is for any family to have uncertainty about what is happening. There is enough uncertainty in dealing with the trauma and emotions relating to death— 
David Bennett 
: It’s to the Middle Ages now. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I will soon get to the Middle Ages. We need to eliminate uncertainty especially in times of death. We also need to pay particular scrutiny to the definition of “immediate family” which in relation to a dead person means “members of the dead person’s family whanau or other culturally recognised family group who—(i) were in a close relationship with the person; or (ii) had in accordance with customs or traditions of the community of which the person was part responsibility for or an interest in the person’s welfare and best interests;”. I believe there could be some uncertainty in the definition of “immediate family”. I would not like to see a family that is suffering from the trauma of the death of a loved one to have then to prove they are the immediate family for the purposes of the Coroners Act. I would certainly appreciate the Minister’s elaboration on “immediate family”. 
As I said it really is vital that there is no room for uncertainty and that the issues of perhaps competing interests of various family members can be dealt with professionally quickly and competently. I think some of that consistency will be achieved with the appointment now of full-time coroners although as Mr Finlayson pointed out there is no provision for any compensation. It would be interesting to see how that relates to the Employment Relations Act in terms of redundancy because there are few jobs—apart from those of members of Parliament of course—that can be terminated at will if you like without any form of redundancy payment or compensation. Many of our experienced part-time coroners have spent many many years in the field doing a lot of work for the good of the community but now they will be dumped without remorse without compensation and without redundancy. There is some sort of inequity I think in that system and I wonder whether that could be addressed. 
I think I will leave my call at that. I have other history lessons to talk to in relation to Part 2 and I would not like to be seen to be filibustering on this very important bill.