Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to talk specifically to the amendment to clause 41 in my name which deletes clause 41. The point goes back to what David Clendon was saying about deaths in care or custody. I can understand the position of people who are saying that when you have somebody in custody who maybe has had cancer for a year or so or has a history of ill health and they pass away in custody it is really not important to go to the extent of having an inquest; rather an inquiry will do. I can sort of understand that except that what my amendment does—what section 80 in the Coroners Act 2006 did was it took out all the discretion. It said that a coroner must decide to hold an inquest for the purposes of the inquiry if the death appears to have been a death in official custody or care.The concern really is more around those people who are in State care such as children under Child Youth and Family (CYF) care who may have taken their own lives. There was an example that was brought up in the select committee process where the Justice and Electoral Committee was advised by an ex-coroner of a case involving a young person in CYF care who did commit suicide. The changes to the Act would lean towards an inquiry being held in this case but the coroner in question actually conducted an inquest which allowed as a result of the hearings that took place the coroner to identify a series of suicides in this whole community and the local district health board (DHB) was alerted; then the DHB was able to put in place strategies around the cluster of suicides. So I think it is important in particular for those who die in State care that an inquest must be held rather than just having the discretion that maybe an inquest might be held and just having the inquiry. As we know the inquiry is a paper-based look at the death rather than actually holding hearings and looking into the full circumstances around the death.That said the deaths in custody—I understand where others are coming from where other parties are coming from. I understand that this particular clause clause 41 has support from various organisations but I still think that deaths in custody do need to be looked at in depth and all the circumstances around those deaths in custody should be part of a full inquest just to be on the safe side.I know that we have a lot of respect for coroners and the work that they do. In fact a relation of mine is the coroner up in the north there. So it is not to say that coroners will try to take shortcuts in this instance. It is really just making sure that the whole system the whole circumstances around the death of a person in custody is looked at. If you take the suicide that I mentioned before about the young person in CYF care who committed suicide the DHB being alerted would never have happened if an inquiry had been chosen over an inquest.So we are also concerned by the loss of more critical examination of deaths in corrections facilities. We believe that there are a number of instances where people have passed away in corrections facilities where the circumstances around their deaths need to be looked at. This is just a short contribution to talk about my amendment which proposes that clause 41 should be removed and that section 80 as it is in the Coroners Act 2006 should be kept as it is. Thank you.