Wagner Nicky: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4870] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Coroners Bill in its third reading. We have heard an awful lot about this Coroners Bill over the last few months but it a very interesting and important bill. We know that it replaces the Coroners Act of 1988 and that it has been in need of updating for many years. In fact it has taken over 6 years to get to the stage we are at now. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee heard a large number of submissions and they came from a wide range of people. They came from professionals working in the industry from organisations and from families. They were mostly supportive although of course they all had their own issues and concerns. The two issues that really taxed the committee the most were the issues of suicide—particularly youth suicide—and how that is reported in the media and the disestablishment of the coronial service in terms of what is going to happen to those coroners who have given us long and faithful service. 
In looking at the purpose of the bill we understand the need to professionalise the coronial service. We heard lots of submissions that highlighted the fact that the actual work being done across New Zealand was often a little bit inconsistent and could have been a lot more effective. We also heard stories where families had perhaps not been treated as sensitively as they could have been and where perhaps there were clashes in cultures. We thought that it was really important that people had faith in our coronial system and that professionalisation of the system could support the public’s faith. 
In the past coroners have done a good job for New Zealanders but as we have noted most of them were part time. As part-time coroners they tended to do a small number of cases every year which meant they did not get the experience of repeated cases that a professional full-time coroner would have had. Of course coroners are only called in cases of sudden and unexpected deaths so most of their work is done under difficult circumstances and often in emergency situations. That makes the issue even worse and more difficult for the families who have to deal with those unexpected deaths. 
I would also like to comment on the JPs who often pick up the pieces after coroners and who stand in for them in difficult circumstances. As cases become more complex as scientific evidence is used more frequently and as cases become more detailed now is the time to professionalise this service with full-time legally qualified coroners. 
Another important part of this change is the appointment of a chief coroner. It is very important to have a chief coroner in terms of leadership and coordination of the coroners who work for the service. Twenty full-time coroners will have greater expertise and will work better and more consistently if there are protocols and practice notes created by the chief coroner. Another reason to have full-time coroners is that we expect that a full-time person focusing on only one job will have time to deal with more public education and will be able to work more effectively with other organisations involved in the service. 
When we go back to the submissions we see that a lot of them were based on unsatisfactory experience of the coronial service. Five main themes came through and we tried to deal with each of those themes in turn. One of the major issues that seemed to cause the most anguish to families was time delays. In that case we focused on timing and we asked coroners to do their work without undue delay. Other submissions were from people concerned about the lack of understanding of different cultural values at times of unexpected death. We worked hard and asked long questions to make sure that this legislation is more sensitive to all cultures. There have been restrictive practices in terms of access to bodies which is an important issue for most New Zealanders. We have been able to come up with new protocols that will make that an easier thing to deal with. There were also complaints that coroners often did not work closely enough with other authorities and that things could have been much smoother if there had been a better liaison between different departments. Finally there was another comment that perhaps coroners were not independent enough of the police and that they did not necessarily make all their own decisions without police interference. 
Death of course is a frightening unhappy and stressful time for any family. An unexpected death is even worse. So in this legislation we have tried to get a good balance between the family’s cultural and spiritual needs and the public’s need to be able to understand the causes of death and how we will deal with them. Several reforms in this bill really focus on the rights of families and different cultures. I have mentioned timing and that we have asked that coroners make sure their work is done without undue delay but we have also been concerned about the location of inquests. We have asked coroners to take into account where families are located to make it easier for families to attend inquests. 
We also thought it was important that we learnt from those unexpected deaths; therefore we have requested a register of coroners’ recommendations and comments. Very often coroners make insightful comments about those events and it is important that their comments are recorded and that the public can have access to the records so we can learn from them and manage situations better in the future. 
The whole issue of body parts and bodily samples was a very sensitive one. My colleague Ron Mark has mentioned the Green Lane Hospital incident. That made it even more emotive when we were talking about it in our select committee. We have tried to come up with a good balance between the need to return body parts and the need to maintain bodily samples or even parts under certain circumstances for research and future analysis. We felt it was really important that those little samples were maintained in cases where there was identification of genetic disorders which could be useful in the future and of course in cases of solving crime. But we have provided a mechanism for the return of body parts which will mean that people can feel secure that their bodies will be respected. 
We were concerned about the definition of family and we have widened the definition to mean family whanau or other culturally recognised family groups and to include those whose relationship to the dead person was spouse civil union partner or de facto partner of any sex. We heard submissions from people who were very distraught because they were not allowed to be part of the process with the coroner because their relationship was not recognised. We also made new easier ways to deal with viewing touching and remaining near the body—or tupapaku for Maori. That provision is extended to include people beyond the family who have spiritual or supportive roles and whom the family select. 
Finally I say that we support this bill. The only exception we are concerned about has been mentioned which is the disestablishment of coroners who were appointed by a warrant of the Governor-General. I would like to show our appreciation of those coroners and of the justices of the peace who have supported those coroners. They have worked long and hard for New Zealanders often in difficult and uncomfortable situations. We thank them.