Blue Jackie: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4606] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I stand to support Part 2 “Deaths to be reported and post-mortems”. When I looked over the bill I realised that it is very important to have clarity in detailing exactly what types of deaths need to be reported. This bill serves that purpose. I support the bill which standardises practices. The types of deaths that are required to be reported are all very sudden and unexpected deaths and it is really imperative that no confusion whatsoever exist about which cases need to be referred to the coroner. The unexpected nature of these deaths means that families and practitioners will be shocked and that many questions will need to be answered. It is important that the process be managed in a sensitive and expedient way. This bill sets out the framework for that to occur. 
The bill lists the types of deaths that are to be reported and provides great clarity as to the situations that arise when deaths occur as a result of a medical or surgical procedure or an anaesthetic. Other situations listed are fairly standard and we are all aware of them. They include death without known cause suicide unnatural or violent death death for which no doctor’s certificate is given death that occurs while a woman is pregnant or while giving birth and death of a patient who has been treated for alcohol or drug addiction. An important inclusion is death that occurs through an army maritime or aircraft accident or incident. In such cases the clues to working out how such a dreadful accident or other event has occurred are very valuable and important to the families. 
Clause 12 deals with reporting of deaths to the police. This is quite an important clause. It is absolutely appropriate that the police be the proper authority to receive reports of sudden and unexpected deaths. I am sure no one would dispute that. This clause covers not only persons who discover a death but persons who learn about a death. The only time a person is not required to report a death to the police is when he or she believes that the death is already known to the police or will be reported to a member of the police. Clause 13 describes the reporting of a death to the coroner by police and of course applies to members of the police as such. 
There are some clauses in Part 2 that have been modified—I believe for the better. I would like in particular to comment on clause 23 which deals with the viewing touching or remaining with or near the body in a coroner’s custody. There have been changes to this clause which means there is provision for members or representatives of the immediate family or people who are performing religious or spiritual services or advice to be present. This indeed is a very compassionate clause. It has regard for the family’s need to grieve and be counselled and supported by a religious person or spiritual adviser. Those people will of course need the coroner’s permission to be present. I believe that these provisions are excellent additions to the bill. 
I would like to make some additional comments about clause 38 which has also been modified. The old clause 38 stated that a coroner may direct a doctor who attended a person before death to attend a post-mortem and/or give the coroner a written report relating to the person. That has now changed so that a doctor who attended a person before death can no longer be directed to attend a post-mortem. I doubt whether the original provision would ever have been enforced in recent years as doctors are busy people. Also autopsies are conducted by specialist pathologists and I do not consider that the attending doctor would be able to add any extra information. So I think it is quite right that this clause has been amended. 
Clause 40 has also been modified. It deals with the return or retention of bodies body parts and bodily samples as has been mentioned by my colleague Chris Finlayson. I would like to make a few comments about it as well. In particular clause 40C deals with the release of still-born children. This clause gives the coroner authorisation to release a still-born child if the coroner has directed the pathologist to perform a post-mortem and if the pathologist has concluded that the child was still-born. In the old bill there does not appear to be a specific reference to still-born children and this might have resulted in a variety of different practices. So it is good that this clause brings uniformity and standardisation of practice. Clause 42 is about the receipt removal and taking of parts and samples.