Worth Richard: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2666] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 With my colleagues Chris Finlayson and Nicky Wagner I indicate that National supports the second reading of this bill but the bill is not without controversy. I hope that the aspirations the previous speaker expressed in respect of this legislation in the form that it has been modified by the Justice and Electoral Committee will truly come to pass. 
A coroner is either an officer of a special court—a medical officer—or an officer of law responsible for investigating deaths particularly those happening under unusual circumstances. Many jurisdictions have the office of coroner or its equivalent; “medical examiner” is a frequent alternative title in the United States as those who watch programmes such as  
CSI 
 will know. 
It is in the general interests of the community that any sudden unnatural or unexplained death should be investigated. To reflect this the role of coroner has adapted over almost eight centuries since the office was formally established in 1194. The role has changed of course from being a form of medieval tax-gatherer to being an independent judicial officer charged with the investigation of sudden violent or unnatural death. The duties of the early coroners were varied and they included the investigation of almost any aspect of medieval life that had the potential benefit of revenue for the Crown. So suicides about which the previous speaker made mention were investigated on the grounds that the goods and chattels of those found guilty of the crime of self-murder as it was called—or in the old Latin felo de se—would then be forfeited to the Crown as were wrecks of the sea or fires and any discovery of buried treasure in the community. Dealing with treasure trove remains one of the coroner’s duties in the United Kingdom today. 
Sudden death in the community has been considered important since the early days of the office and it was also investigated by coroners although for reasons far different from those of today as I have indicated. The coronial system continued to adapt over the centuries but in the 19th century major changes relating to the investigation of deaths in the community occurred. In 1836 the first births and deaths registration Act was passed. That legislation was prompted by public concern and panic caused by inaccurate parochial recording of the actual numbers of deaths arising from epidemics such as cholera. 
There was also a growing concern that given the easy and uncontrolled access to the numerous poisons and the inadequate medical investigations into the actual cause of death many homicides were going undetected. By then of course the fiscal responsibility of the coroners had diminished. The Coroners Act of 1887 made significant changes that repealed much of the earlier legislation and the focus changed so that coroners were more concerned with determining the circumstances and the actual medical causes of sudden violent and unnatural deaths. 
I would also like to say something about the events that led to this legislation. The current legislation is contained in the Coroners Act 1988. It is right to say that public dissatisfaction about the relationship between coroners and grieving families and the need for better recognition of cultural and spiritual values in the coronial process was a major impetus in the reforms proposed by the Law Commission. The issues raised by the Law Commission unsurprisingly occur in a range of cultures and religions. Those of us from Auckland who are members of Parliament would be very much aware of that issue. There is of course an inherent tension between on the one hand the family’s right to mourn and bury its deceased and on the other hand the State’s obligation to ascertain the cause of death. 
Conducting an internal post-mortem examination disturbs families and may well conflict with their cultural or religious practices. However the reality is that the cause of death can often not be established without conducting a post-mortem examination. What we see in this bill—and I think successfully—is the striking of an appropriate balance between the cultural and spiritual needs of families and the public good associated with understanding the causes and circumstances of death in an accurate and timely way. 
I do not plan to traverse the detail of the bill and its significant highlights. Other speakers who follow me will talk to some of the issues that give us pause to reflect such as the question of the reporting of suicides the need for those who are appointed coroners to be professional and of course the changes that have been made to the bill’s provisions relating to the taking and retention of bodily samples. 
But I would like to deal with one issue that was rather brushed aside by the Minister—unfortunately brushed aside I would say. The issue that concerns National members relates to clause 132 and schedule 3. Two clauses in schedule 3 are relevant. Clause 2 of schedule 3 provides that on the old legislation expiring “every former coroner vacates office”. So the existing coroners who have given good and faithful service to the people of New Zealand are to be removed from those positions. It is as harsh as that. Worse still clause 3 of that schedule states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office”. 
The previous speaker said that coroners are judicial officers. There might be an argument in that regard and he was most unwise in my view to make that admission because it is important to record that under the existing Coroners Act coroners are appointed by the Governor-General by warrant. They have tenure. They have an ability to continue until reaching the age of 68. That was certainly the position until it was later modified to give them further tenure until the age of 72. Until 2004 when a change was made to the legislation coroners had some very specific judicial rights and responsibilities. They had the powers privileges authorities and immunities of a District Court Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. 
So the Minister would say—and I am happy to agree with him on this particular point—that coroners were judicial officers and that they continued as judicial officers. We all know as a matter of elementary law that judges and judicial officers cannot simply be dumped from office. There are very clear provisions dealing with that issue in the Constitution Act. More significantly and reflecting the protection given to judicial officers coroners can be removed from office only for “inability or misbehaviour”. There is no suggestion in what the Minister has said that those coroners who have given good service are in some way unable or misbehaving. Instead the Government in clear breach of constitutional convention is riding roughshod over coroners’ rights by denying them the tenure that the statute has given them. 
The Ministry of Justice—wrongly National would say—has taken the view that cancelling coroners’ warrants by statute is not unconstitutional. But even if that view is correct real care needs to be taken to respect the constitutional provisions that have for their purpose the protection of the separation of powers doctrine. When I say that I am talking about the fact that there are three elements in a democracy constituting that power structure—the legislature the executive and the judiciary. What is happening here is that Parliament is being asked to break down the ramparts in respect of the judicial function. That is wholly wrong. I conclude by saying that we do not doubt that a number of coroners would have made commitments on the basis of their security of tenure. That is now to be threatened by this bill.