Ardern Jacinda; Reti ShaneJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I just want to follow on from my colleague Kelvin Davis who was speaking to his amendment to clause 41 about deaths in custody because this was a substantial debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I take on board the points that were made by David Clendon around the good work that was done to narrow that provision around the circumstances under which an inquest would not be held but the reason that we still have concerns is threefold. The current clause as it is written is still heavily reliant on the medical records as they are written and made available to a doctor and on the doctor then making a decision based on those medical records as to whether or not the death would have otherwise occurred naturally. Medical records and the medical care of prisoners if we are speaking specifically of prisoners are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. They are corrections-controlled. There is no ability for external medical provision really unless someone is taken out of a facility. Our concern is that under the current regime that could raise questions for family members around whether or not those medical documents are always the best way for a doctor to make an independent decision. We have argued for some time that district health boards should be in control of the provision of medical care in correctional facilities rather than the Department of Corrections. That is one of our concerns. We absolutely accept that in our current environment we are having people die of natural causes—we are—and that actually it would make sense to find a way to filter out some of those inquests and inquiries in custodial care. But our concern is that under the current medical regime within correctional facilities with the amount of mismanagement that has gone on with the privatisation of those facilities we do not believe that we have a regime that family members will necessarily believe there is enough transparency around. Perhaps if we changed the way that medical treatment is provided within our corrections facilities then there would be a place for that clause and that clause would probably be on a much surer footing. We also need to remember that this amendment does not relate only to correctional facilities. We are also talking about deaths in custody in mental health institutions and deaths of children in care. I want to ask a question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith because there has been no contribution from the Minister so far in this debate and we have raised substantial issues—substantial issues—that we have requested a response to. I would seek from the Minister a response around these provisions around holding inquests versus inquiries. When it talks about deaths in custody does that relate to children under the care of the chief executive? In our minds there should be an inquest on every occasion that there is a death of a child who is under the care of the chief executive of Child Youth and Family because actually just saying a child in residence" is a very narrow group. There are 5000 children in care at any given time and do you know what? Under this clause they could presumably be determined to have died of what could be considered a natural cause. It could even determine my question as to whether or not Sudden Unexplained Death in Infancy (SUDI) would fall under that example. If a child who was under the care of the chief executive died of SUDI would that result only in an inquiry rather than in an inquest? I have read reports from the coroners where it is clear that the family will get much more closure from an open and transparent process. If it was their child in care I absolutely could understand why they would want an inquest rather than an inquiry in those circumstances. So I have two points. Is a child who is in foster care considered to be in custody or is the care of the chief executive considered to be something that would always have an inquest? My second question is: if they die of SUDI for instance would we then have an example where a doctor would say: "No need for a full inquest."? Actually I think that would be wrong and I think families would be deprived of the closure they need. Those are a couple of the reasons why we have this amendment. I understand the need for there to be greater efficiencies. We are just concerned that we have not got the checks and balances quite right. I want to come to suicide reporting. That has not been spoken of during this debate. It is incredibly important. I actually had a member of the public contact me and raise the fact that in terms of suicide reporting as it sets out in section 60 inserted by clause 33 inquiries must always be opened into a death where "(a) the death appears to have been self-inflicted;". But what is the proportion of inquiries versus inquests for self-inflicted deaths? The reason I ask that is I have had members of the public contact me and say that there are some circumstances where we would have done well to conduct a more robust inquiry into those self-inflicted deaths. A coroner in fact raised the fact that in his town had he not conducted an inquest he would never have been able to identify that there was actually a string of self-inflicted deaths in his community that had not been connected. Some conversation around where we are making those decisions and why and whether we are serving those families and communities well by drawing that line would be a useful discussion. But the issue that came up frequently in the debate was around the reporting of self-inflicted deaths because of course under the current legislation we have very tight criteria. Currently no one may make public any particular relating to a death suspected to have been self-inflicted until the coroner has completed his or her inquiry into the death. So no one is able to report on a self-inflicted death or give any of the circumstances or even imply that it was self-inflicted. The select committee was very clear that actually under the current environment and the way that these situations are often reported many many people are often in breach of this requirement. There are many many circumstances where the media may be compliant but everyone surrounding the media particularly in an engaged social-media world is then acting in an uncompliant way. That is causing a real discrepancy in what is happening in reality. We had a very robust debate at the select committee around these changes and I think that on balance even though it could be argued either way it probably got to a much better place than the current legislation at least. We now have a situation where unless an exemption is granted the requirement now is that if an incident is being made public a person may make public that death as a suspected suicide until the coroner's findings are released. There is able to be a discussion based on what is suspected to have happened but there are still limitations and those limitations are that the method and for example the place in which the death occurred if it suggests the method may not be publicly discussed. The reason for that is that we tried to look at the available evidence around what may act as triggers for copycats and the evidence seems to suggest that method plays an important part in those tragedies. Our responsibility is to try to act as responsibly as possible and find a balance between the reality of the conversations that happen in the public and what we should still try to restrict in an effort to try to ensure that we do not create flow-on effects from the reporting of suicides. I want to acknowledge though the contribution people made to that difficult debate that we had. The select committee tried to give it the fullest consideration. We were very mindful that we did not want to for instance have members of the public inadvertently falling foul of the law because the law did not make sense but at the same time we felt a responsibility to listen to that research and evidence base. That is the middle ground that has been reached: you can talk about suspected suicide but we must then still wait for a coroner's report and there are restrictions on the detail that is able to be provided. I think the select committee reached as good a place as it could but I am mindful that we will probably see movement in this space again in the future as there continues to be rapid development on reporting. But more important what must guide any future decisions will be the evidence and research presented to us. I do not want to be dictated to simply by what the media chooses to report relative to what other members of the public are able to put in a blog. I would rather be dictated to by what the evidence tells us is the safest way to report and with regard to the wider community and those families who are involved in those tragic situations.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am not going to accept the closure motion. I just want to make it clear to the Committee that to date the debate has been relevant and not repetitious. The legislation is not trivial legislation. It is substantive and there are some important amendments to it that are before the Committee including one from the Minister. I just want to repeat a previous ruling that I have made and that is that when proper questions are asked of a Minister and they are not addressed or not answered by the Minister that will tend to extend the debate. I think we are in that situation now."