Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2865] 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Coroners Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 2 May. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Coroners Bill which is an interesting and important bill. It replaces the Coroners Act of 1988 and updates that Act which is long overdue. The Justice and Electoral Committee heard a very large number of submissions. Most were very supportive of the tenor of this bill although we believe a couple of its areas still need further debate. 
The two most complex and difficult areas were the handling of the media interest in cases of self-inflicted death or suicide and the constitutional questions that arise from the disestablishment of the role of existing coroners. For the record I point out that a coroner is an independent judicial officer who is charged with inquiring into sudden or unexplained deaths and who establishes as far as possible the cause and circumstances of those deaths. The main purpose of this bill is to professionalise the coronial system so that it is more consistent more effective and more sensitive to family and cultural needs. 
It is important that the public have confidence in the coronial system. Past coroners have generally done a great job in the community. Most have been part-time coroners and have worked long and hard often in emergency situations and often under difficult circumstances. Many JPs have done a sterling community service when necessary by replacing coroners and working as temporary coroners. But as workloads have increased and as cases have become more complex there has been an increasing demand for professional full-time legally qualified coroners. 
There is also a need for a chief coroner who could provide leadership and coordination in the coronial system. There is strong support from existing coroners for full-time coroners and for a chief coroner which is seen as a good way to ensure there is an effective and efficient service. 
The select committee would like to thank the very many submitters who came to the select committee because of what they considered to be unsatisfactory experiences with the coronial system. There were some very distressing and sad stories and we really appreciate those who took the time and were prepared to talk about their experiences. So it is important that this bill as it seeks to create a framework will guarantee professionalism consistency and a user-friendly system that will work throughout the country for all families and for all people. 
A chief coroner will be appointed to head a nationwide team of approximately 20 full-time legally trained coroners. He or she will be responsible for providing support advice and practice notes to the team and for ensuring that all investigations are orderly and particularly timely. A chief coroner will be specially charged with maintaining that consistency of service throughout the country. He or she will also be required to streamline the system by encouraging cooperation and by avoiding unnecessary duplication between coroners and other investigating authorities and official bodies. 
Right now most coroners deal with only a small number of cases every year so moving to a system where coroners are full-time will allow them to develop greater expertise. It will also improve the timeliness of inquests and the release of coronial findings. Full-time coroners should also have more time to undertake public education and to develop closer relationships with other investigating authorities. 
I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Hon Tariana Turia about her experience of coronial work and her feeling that police often have too much influence in coroners’ decisions. It is hoped and expected that full-time legally qualified coroners supported by practice notes from the chief coroner will have better established processes and protocol and increased independence in their decision making. Any death in a family makes for a frightening unhappy and stressful time but an unexpected death especially one under special circumstances is even worse. Coroners therefore have the added responsibility to sensitively balance the family’s cultural and spiritual needs with the public need to understand the causes and the circumstances of unexplained deaths. There are several reforms in this bill that are designed to recognise the rights of families and to make the coronial process more user-friendly to all cultures. 
Timing is of special importance. Many submitters reported increased family distress and frustration due to long waits for inquests and the finalising of coroners’ reports so the select committee has recommended the insertion of clause 4A which states: “Every coroner must … perform or exercise his or her functions powers and duties without delay.” Coroners must also take into account the place where the family resides when fixing the location of an inquest. 
There was strong feeling that we as a community need to learn as much as possible from those unexplained deaths and to use that knowledge to help avoid future deaths. Families often mention that they want something good to come out of such wasteful deaths. To that end the chief coroner is charged with setting up and maintaining a register of coroners’ specified recommendations and comments in order to have a permanent record of information from coroners’ findings that can be used to prevent further fatalities. 
Some submitters were concerned about the return of body parts and bodily samples. That is a particularly sensitive area following the discovery of the holding of babies’ body parts at Green Lane Hospital. The bill requires coroners to maintain a proper balance between the rights of family members to request the return of body parts and samples and the retaining of those parts or samples for research or analysis. The retaining of microscopic samples for later analysis can benefit families through the identification of genetic disorders and samples can also be used to help solve crimes. The bill carefully defines bodily parts and samples and provides a mechanism for the immediate family to request the return of those parts and samples once they are no longer required. 
There are also changes in the definition of the term “immediate family”. The definition has been kept deliberately broad because the term “immediate family” is understood differently in different cultures and social groups. The bill’s definition is deliberately permissive enough to accommodate all relationships including civil unions. 
Viewing and touching the body or remaining with or near the body in the coroner’s custody were also issues raised particularly by the Maori community. The bill allows for the coroner to authorise members of the immediate family to view touch or remain in the vicinity of the deceased’s body or tupapaku. That right is also extended to the representatives of the immediate family or people chosen by that immediate family who are performing functions of religious or spiritual advice benefit and comfort. 
This bill is a timely update of the 1988 Act. I believe that it increases the professionalism of the coronial system and will under the guidance of the chief coroner ensure a more efficient effective culturally sensitive and user-friendly service. National supports this bill. We do however still have some concerns about both the recommendations around the media reporting on suicide and the disestablishment of the positions of existing coroners. We would also like to record our appreciation of the work of existing coroners. Some have been coroners for many years and all have contributed valuable work often in very many difficult circumstances. 
Amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.