Three years ago the Law Commission called for an urgent and sweeping review of the procedures covering the appointment and practices of coroners. The Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, has signalled that draft legislative proposals will be put to the Cabinet next month. It is welcome news. Coroners in this country work under a haphazard system that breeds inconsistency and leaves them feeling undervalued.
The proposals Ms Wilson outlined to the Australasian Coroners Conference will have given them considerable hope for a better future. A better future, at least, for those in their ranks with the qualification and inclination to accept fulltime appointments. In a noble if somewhat drawn-out gesture recognising past contributions, the current ranks of part-timers will have a three-to-five-year transition period "to consider their options". When that process in complete we will have the fully professional coronial service we need.
Central to its effectiveness will be the appointment of a chief coroner as recommended by the commission. That post will be charged with responsibilities including overseeing coronial inquiries, issuing guidelines to ensure consistency in decision-making, and dealing with complaints. All of which are designed to remove the haphazard elements of a system that at present has no titular head. Less encouraging is the Attorney-General's statement that a central coroners database - another key recommendation of the commission and one strongly supported by the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff - will not form part of the package. Ms Wilson says it does not require legislative authority and will be pursued as "a separate project". One hopes that is not code for "some time later".
Such a database is a vital tool, not only in ensuring consistency but in alerting the coroners service to any patterns or trends in the deaths that come to its notice. At present, only luck and vigilance alert a coroner at one end of the country to similar deaths at the other end. A commitment must be made to have a central database available to coroners when the new act comes into force, presumably in a year or so.
The Attorney-General devoted a considerable part of her speech to the relationship between coroners and the families of the deceased. The review will adopt many of the Law Commission's recommendations designed to ensure that, while a body is in a coroner's custody, family will be kept informed and their wishes taken into account. Those provisions, together with the right to appoint qualified observers at post-mortem examinations, will be welcomed and help to ease the impression of intrusion on grief.
Much more problematic, however, will be the proposals covering pathologists' use and retention of tissue and body parts. In what is quite clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the Greenlane "heart library" controversy, Ms Wilson has outlined a regime for all-encompassing disclosure and consent processes. Those measures have bureaucratic nightmare written all over them.
She told coroners that, until now, their legislation had been "largely silent as to how bodily parts, tissue and microscopic samples are to be dealt with in the context of inquests". The new law, she said, will give families a reasonable level of choice. Pathologists, meanwhile, will have to seek a coroner's permission to retain any remains, presumably no matter how microscopic, and give the reasons they want to retain them and for how long. There is a world of difference, surely, between the creation of a heart library and specimens on a slide. These are issues best dealt with through medical ethics, and a new Coroners Act should stick to creating a modernised, coherent and efficient branch of the judiciary.
<I>Editorial:</I> Professional era overdue for coroners
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.