Coroners Bill

Part 3 deals with inquiries into causes and circumstances of death, and I particularly want to say something about clauses 61 to 63. As the commentary on the bill, written by the Justice and Electoral Committee, states, clause 61 places restrictions on the making public of details of self-inflicted deaths. The term “making public” will also include publishing on the Internet.

The bill continues the regime of the 1988 Act, which placed very tight restrictions on what the news media could report about self-inflicted deaths that occur in New Zealand. It is indeed a very wide provision. Clause 61(1) will prevent the media from exercising their judgment in reporting self-inflicted deaths, unless the coroner’s authority has been obtained. If the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted, the only details that may be made public are the name, address, and occupation of the deceased, and the fact that the coroner has found death to be self-inflicted. Other details, such as the manner in which death occurred, the circumstances of death, or the inquest, are not to be published without the coroner’s authority, and no further particulars will be permitted unless the making public of them is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety, as set out in subclause (3) of clause 61. Moreover, the coroner in determining whether the disclosure of particulars is unlikely to be detrimental, must have regard to the characteristics of the dead person, comply with practice notes issued by the chief coroner, and have regard to other matters the coroner considers relevant.

This is an extremely important subject. It certainly detained the select committee for some time, and in my opinion there were some very, very high-quality submissions on the topic. Out of deference to two of them, I want to read into the record some of the submissions that were made.

The first of those submissions was made by Paul Thompson, editor of the Christchurch Press. Mr Thompson submitted that the provisions in the bill make the reporting of self-inflicted deaths even more controlled than they are currently. He did not think that the restrictions were necessary, and he thought that they should not be extended in the way proposed by the bill. He also submitted that statutory restrictions of this kind are unusual in the Western World, if not unique, and saw no reason why New Zealanders should be any different in relation to this matter than Australians, Canadians, or Americans. I say that I have also checked the draft bill that the Lord Chancellor and Ms Harman propose to introduce into the UK Parliament, and it seems there is nothing there, either. Mr Thompson said that the restrictions suggested a paternalistic, patronising attitude towards New Zealanders that was outdated and unnecessary. He said that suicide cases may be many and complex, and that although they may be difficult to deal with, they are no longer a matter that is too shameful to mention. Discussing the issues, he said, in a sober and sensible way would hardly be consistent with glamorising suicide.

To similar effect were submissions made on behalf of the Commonwealth Press Union, which was most unhappy that section 29 of the 1988 Act is to be re-enacted and, indeed, expanded. The media freedom committee of the Commonwealth Press Union said that the restrictions placed on the New Zealand media exceed those of other jurisdictions, and suggested that clauses 61 and 62 of the bill should not be enacted, and that there should be a cooperative approach to the whole issue of suicide. Instead it was suggested that the media could subscribe to a code of conduct on how they report suicides, while at the same time being able fully and frankly to discuss the issue in New Zealand.

This was a very difficult issue, which, as I have said, has occupied our deliberations. I hope we have got it right; I am just not certain that we have. I would like to support the press on this issue. Indeed, following the committee process, I have made inquiries of those who have suffered suicides in their families. The preponderance of views—Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Christopher Finlayson. He wants to continue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can finish this topic, then I am sure the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, will make a contribution. The preponderance of views of those who have suffered suicide in their families seems to be that they would like to support the media on this issue, but have a real fear of tabloid journalism. Most people I have spoken to seem to believe that the best way to deal with this difficult topic is by speaking out about suicides rather than by concealing them and allowing half-truths and speculation.

There is a general trend towards open reporting and open discussion of difficult topics, and those values are based on the recognition that truth is valuable and that the community is healthier when it deals with difficult topics on the basis of truth rather than speculation. I add that those are not my words but those of counsel for the New Zealand Herald in a hearing held in the Coroner’s Court for North Canterbury in November 2004.

For myself, I am prepared to support the provisions to be enacted—and it is to be noted that National does not have a minority report on this part of the bill—but I think they ought to be kept under very careful review, and it could well be that we could review these provisions again in a couple of years’ time. There is no provision in the bill to deal with post-legislative review, but that certainly does not prevent another look being taken at this legislation in the near future.

While I am on my feet I want to say something very briefly about inquests, because the procedure for inquests is set out in clauses 70 to 81, and one can see from those clauses that an inquest is primarily inquisitorial, although there are also some adversarial aspects. For example, there is a power provided in the bill to allow parties or interested persons to cross-examine witnesses.

Two points are of note. The first is that the coroner who decides to hold an inquest must fix, among other things, a place where the inquest will be held, and subclause (1B) of clause 71 was inserted by the select committee because there was a concern that with fewer coroners, inquests may need to be held many miles from where a death has occurred. So in fixing the place of inquest, the coroner has to take into account certain matters—for example, where the members of the family of the deceased reside, where witnesses will be giving evidence, and so on.

Finally I refer to clause 73, which provides that specialist advisers may sit with and help coroners. I said in the select committee that I thought it was rather odd that a coroner should require a legal specialist adviser, especially where, under the new regime, coroners must have held a practising certificate as a barrister or solicitor for at least 5 years. And the same principle applies with regard to relief coroners appointed pursuant to clause 94, because they must have legal qualifications. I suppose there could be circumstances where questions of foreign law arose that would necessitate some legal assistance, although evidence of foreign law is a question of fact, not of law. So I cannot really understand the reference to legal specialist advisers in clause 73. But, again, it is hardly a matter that would justify National dividing the Committee.

That is all I wanted to say about Part 3. Thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me take the second call. The whole issue of the reporting of suicide is an extremely important one, and I hope we members of the Committee will be able to discuss it fully and openly tonight, because we have to get this one right.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Firstly, I reassure Mr Finlayson that the Justice and Electoral Committee has got this legislation right. I read with interest the submissions, such as that made by the Press Council. I draw his attention to what I think is the most important line in that submission: “The Press Council eschews debate on the issue of ‘contagion’ or ‘copycat suicide’, except to say that the evidence to support this is very unclear.” On the basis of eschewing the research, the Press Council opts for freedom of the press.

I did some cursory investigation myself, and found every piece of evidence to be very clear. It did not take much to research the information through the Internet. The first thing is that copycat suicide has been recorded over and over again. Every piece of research showed that when a high-profile suicide is attempted, others follow. We had the example in Hong Kong whereby a very unusual method was used for suicide. It had never been seen before, and by putting it in the public arena, in a very short period of time it became the third most common form of suicide in that area. Every other piece of research showed that when someone, particularly a young person, commits suicide, other suicides follow. The copycat and contagion effect is documented incredibly thoroughly. It is beyond doubt. So the Press Council is saying that it wants to have the ability, under the guise of freedom of speech, to report suicide, and that the public’s right to know is greater than the negatives that can befall the general public. I am very cynical about this.

I have another issue I want to raise before I carry on. I am sure Mr Finlayson would agree with me that any family that has suffered a suicide will say that that is a personal, family matter. It is about their family and their family issues. Everybody in a family will feel a sense of guilt about a suicide, because they will wonder, in their deep thoughts, what they could have done to prevent it, and what they did that made the person suddenly tip over the edge and decide they wanted to be somewhere else. Very often for the family there are suicide notes, an enormous amount of recrimination, an incredible amount of guilt, and a whole range of other issues. To have these matters discussed in public would be to defile that family. These are private family matters. To have the public trawl over them in some voyeuristic manner would add insult to the injury of that family. To have the media highlight some really unusual characteristic or some difficulties in the relationship would be to make those who already feel very tender and have a sense of guilt feel incredibly ashamed and guilty.

The Press Council has swept aside those issues and shown no interest in them at all, but of the many families I have spoken to about suicide, all have given me a very clear message: they do not want their private family affairs and these matters to be held up in public for all to see. They want them to remain private family matters—and the emphasis should be on that.

The second point I make to Mr Finlayson and all those who have any shadow of a doubt about this matter is that the research shows that copycat suicide and contagion is a very real factor. Anyone who has studied this issue will tell us that when someone commits suicide in an area, it sends a signal to others that suicide is an OK thing to do. That person is the permission-giver. We had a very good example of that recently in a small central North Island town, where a number of people took their lives, one after another. Despite Parliament’s prohibition on reporting that matter, a senior executive of a television programme said: “Despite what the law says, I believe that the public has a right to know.” Although there were legal consequences arising out of doing it, the programme went on to display all of the facts. That case demonstrates the responsibility taken by the media on this issue.

If I could for one instant believe that the rules that were agreed to would be honoured, I would be tempted to consider the matter, but I can not. The fact is that, contrary to what the media shows, the number of suicides in New Zealand is falling. That is the situation. The public perception is somewhat different. The second inaccuracy in the public perception is that youth suicide is the main problem, but that is not the case, either. The most common form of suicide in New Zealand is that of a person who is male and is aged 25 to 30 years old and older. Those statistics will come as a surprise to people. The third thing is that a disproportionately high number of Māori commit suicide. Again, that is contrary to the public perception, because the media have highlighted only those issues that they know will maximise their traction. If the media were able to highlight a particular youth suicide in an area, the shock and horror aspect of it would certainly sell newspapers, and a subsequent copycat suicide would sell even more newspapers—and we are told that that is the benefit of freedom of information. Well, I do not accept that. My view is that Parliament is entitled to have a view on these things. It has had a view on them, and it has been very successful. The rate of suicide in New Zealand is declining, and I think that Parliament is taking exactly the right stance on this issue.

Another point I would make, in the last few minutes I have, is that this is not so much a justice issue as a health issue. I am very pleased to see that Jim Anderton has put out a strategy on reducing suicide numbers. Many of these issues are covered in that strategy. I believe we should work through that strategy over time and measure it, and if at any point in the future those who are responsible for analysing the information on these issues—people primarily in the health sector and in social services—say that we are at the stage where we can maturely debate these things, and that that will not have flow-on consequences for us, then I am prepared to accept their advice and guidance on the matter. But when members of the newspaper association say they eschew research, that gives me no confidence in their opinion, at all. Had they put up an argument based on international research and considered opinion on the consequences of publicising suicides, I would have said their argument had some merit. But it does not. Contrary to what they have said, the research internationally is unequivocal and very clear.

So I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its decision. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that it has the argument right. I think the balance is exactly right, and I support the bill 100 percent. It is my own personal experience, and the experience of many other people I have spoken to on this subject, that this is a family matter and should remain a family matter.

The last point I will raise for the Committee is that I understand that Mr Finlayson has put on the Table an amendment to Part 4. I wish to invoke the 24-hour rule on this matter, because it has financial implications.

Thank you for allowing me to take the call on Part 3 of the Coroners Bill. I want to say that, at this stage, there are some issues about what the Minister has said that I will dispute, and that will become obvious during my address.

This part of the bill, as has been said, deals principally with inquiries into causes and circumstances of death and the conducting of inquests. Basically, the coroner has the control and the discretion whether to open inquiries, to conduct inquiries, to decide on making public any evidence, etc. We have heard that the provision that seems to cause the most debate in this part is clause 61 in relation to restrictions on making public the details of suicides. Under the bill nobody can make public the particulars of a self-inflicted death without the consent and authority of the coroner, although one can publish the name, address, and occupation of the person concerned, and the fact that the coroner found the death to be self-inflicted. So it is not a blanket prohibition on publishing any details of the person.

💬 Bob Clarkson: What about the dead ones over there?

Suicide is certainly not a joking matter, and it has been called New Zealand’s sad little secret.

Again, I would dispute what the Minister has said, because if we look at some of the research, we see that, according to the Dominion Post of 4 July 2006, each year about 500 New Zealanders commit suicide and the horrific number of 2,500 actually attempt it. In the words of the Dominion Post article: “It is time New Zealanders brought that secret into the open. It needs to be treated with at least the same degree of urgency and seriousness that is given to the road toll, which kills 100 fewer people each year. The most recent suicide figures available—for 2003, with the delay the result of the time it takes cases to make their way through the coronial court system—paint a grim picture. That year, 515 people died by suicide, compared with 465 people the year before.” To me, that indicates an increasing trend of suicide rather than—as the Minister has alluded—a decreasing trend.

The report further states: “Three times as many men as women kill themselves. Maori are more likely to kill themselves than non-Maori. Those living in the most deprived areas are more likely to kill themselves than those living in wealthy areas. For women, it is the young who are most likely to succeed in committing suicide, with 15 to 24-year-olds having the highest rate. For men, it is the 25 to 44-year-olds. Those figures”—ashamedly—“put New Zealand’s rate of suicide amongst the worst figures in the developed nations of the OECD.”

The issue surrounding clause 61 really does concern the safe reporting of suicide by the media. The bill does not preclude that; it merely requires the coroner to make that decision. The bill is not necessarily denying honest, open reporting of suicides, but it puts a brake on the possibility of glamorising or sensationalising suicide, and running the risk of copycat incidents. Again, I think we have to be careful about copycat incidents. If we read the Press Council reports—and I appreciate that the Press Council might have a somewhat vested interest—we see that they state that any blanket statements about copycat suicide fail to address two major unresolved issues.

The council says that blaming the messenger as the direct cause runs counter to the professional health view that suicide has many causes. The major presumption about the simplistic argument that suicide stories lead to suicide is the presumption that the tragic victims actually saw or read such a story, and this can hardly be tested. Having said that, I want to traverse some of the arguments of the media, for which I have some sympathy. But, then, I also have sympathy for the friends and family of the suicide victim, who will be always asking themselves whether there was anything they could have done to prevent the suicide.

Like my colleague Mr Finlayson, I would also like to quote from an editorial in the Press, whose editor, I believe, has put some considerable work into this issue. It states: “The justification for them”—the reports on suicides—“is thin and feeble. It is that open, honest reporting of suicides would somehow ‘glamorise’ or ‘sensationalise’ them (words that have been used by health professionals in this debate) and thus make it acceptable to impressionable vulnerable people who might be inclined to indulge in copycat practice. The evidence for this is tenuous at best. The effect of the restrictions is in fact to perpetuate antiquated attitudes towards suicide as something shameful, a matter to be kept darkly secret and one that New Zealanders can only handle when it is discussed in blandly general terms. These attitudes are not the case any longer in the wider community, it is just that the legislation has not yet caught up. An odd anomaly of the restrictions is that they apply only to suicides that occur in New Zealand. Those that occur in other countries can be reported on in the usual, straightforward way. No media outlet has any interest in ‘sensationalising’ suicide much less ‘glamorising’ it, inadvertently or otherwise. To suggest that candour on the subject would in some way encourage it or make it more acceptable is ludicrous.”—this is according to the Press—“That is not so in other countries—Australia, Canada, the United States, Britain—and would not be the case here.”

The issue is a vexed and complex one. It is important, and we are appreciative that such deaths—any deaths, in fact—are not swept under the carpet, that the families can find out what went wrong, and that there is absolute transparency so families can have some sort of closure to such tragedies. It is a time of much emotion, and the emotional needs of the families must be taken into account, as well as the need to ensure proper justice, proper transparency, and proper processes. I do not think we can highlight enough the importance of the Coroners Bill in this respect. I do not know whether the issue of the reporting of suicide cases will ever be a straightforward one. I do not know whether it will ever be resolved. It is complex; it is vexed. We now have the coroner—who, arguably, may be the best person to do so—decide whether it is in the best interests of the public and the family that the details of a suicide are published. The coroner does have that discretion, although the other argument is the freedom of the press. There may be no easy answer, but the Coroners Bill, which does put in place a comprehensive system of inquiry and inquest, is perhaps an improvement on the old system.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Coroners Bill. I believe that the amalgamation of coronial services will give some certainty and consistency across the investigation of sudden death. Also, it will provide for those most affected by such deaths—the families—some sort of certainty and consistency as to what they can expect from the public agencies involved in those inquiries.

Within my electorate four coroners are operating. They all operate as lawyers in general practice and have a responsibility for coronial matters within their patch. Three of those coroners would be ready within the next few years to stop practising and exercising their warrant as coroners, so they agree with this legislation. Within those various areas, though, it is amazing to see the difference in time delays for providing such things as pathologist reports, and so getting to inquests. In one area we can expect that after a sudden death an inquest will be held within 8 to 10 weeks. In other areas the wait can be as long as 9 months to a year. In one particular case the time delay was over 4 years. That does nothing to ease the pain of those people—the family—most closely associated with any of those deaths. In fact, all it does is rip the lid off the pain again, and everything is left to hurt.

In respect of suicide matters, I agree with the power of the coroner under the bill to decide whether information will be released to the public. I think that as far as death goes, we have a lot of big answers to find within our country. For some unusual reason we murder people more than in most other Western countries. I have never really been able to get a handle on why that happens, and I guess I could be profited somewhat if I could decide what that answer was. The other sad fact is that we kill ourselves more than people in a lot of other countries, as well.

One of the little duties I have been performing over the last few years is to officiate at funerals. Last year I officiated at 26 funerals in my small town, and two of those were suicides. There was huge public interest. Despite that, the circumstances of those deaths do not belong to the public; they belong to the families who are most closely involved.

One of the things that I think the amalgamation of coronial services will do in respect of suicide is to allow for some closer study to be done into the causes of suicide and the common links of suicides. These links amount to only anecdotal evidence at the moment. Maybe I will highlight just one example. During my career, I attended lots and lots of suicides. Suicides range, as the Minister said, from quite young people to very old people. In fact, it is surprising how many very old people commit suicide. It is surprisingly common in that age group. One trend that followed all the way through in a lot of youth suicides I attended was the suicide victim’s association with cannabis. Yet to try to get toxicology tests done on a body to establish the levels of cannabis in the system—or alcohol for that matter—was quite difficult to achieve, because they cost a lot of money. It cost about $1,200 per test on body tissue to find out the level of cannabis in the system. What happened, of course, was that none of the Government agencies was prepared to have that money come out of its bucket. So I look forward to a time when we can get some sort of consensus amongst coroners and those who investigate these sad deaths that those sorts of tests should be done and that it is in the public interest to explore the reasons in and around suicide.

I move, That the question be now put.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 3 of the Coroners Bill. I did not have the privilege of being on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which examined the evidence, but I have listened to the debate over the couple of months that it has been going on, and I must say I think this is a very important issue for our country.

National is sceptically supportive of the Government’s stance on Part 3, which deals with the reporting of suicide. I think this is an issue that needs to be looked at closely, and especially with regard to clause 61, “Restrictions on making public of details of self-inflicted deaths”. A point to make is that in no other jurisdiction in the Western World are the rules around the reporting of suicide as stringent as they are here in New Zealand. For that reason this is something we will have to keep under review.

Personally, from what I have heard and seen, I do not think it is clear-cut that it is in the public interest to restrict the reporting of suicides, but I accept that this bill will give coroners the discretion to do so. That is a very good thing, because there is no question that we have a suicide epidemic in this country. If members look at some of the things that have happened in the last year in New Zealand, they will see that in the town of Gore there was a spate of seven youth suicides over a period of a few months. There was a lot of speculation as to why that occurred, but no one really seemed to know. There was some speculation about the media. I would not like to say the media had a role, exactly, but some of the media coverage around those deaths perhaps contributed to some of the subsequent deaths.

Needless to say, the point is that suicide is an extremely important issue in this country. I know from my own experience that one of the things that made the greatest impression on me as a medical student was turning up to the autopsy laboratory early one Monday morning. In those days—I am sure it is still the same at medical schools—students had to attend a certain number of autopsies. I can still clearly remember seeing two young men of my own age, which was 22 at the time, lying on the autopsy slab. They had taken their own lives in the same manner, with a .22 rifle. I remember thinking that those two cases were completely unrelated, in that the men were from different areas of Auckland and did not know each other. But it clearly pointed to the fact that suicide is a major problem in our society. That was nearly 20 years ago, and the statistics really have not got a heck of a lot better since then.

Yesterday the latest suicide trends for this country were released. I am not sure how the Hon Jim Anderton, the Minister responsible for releasing the report, has reached these conclusions, but he has stated in his report that the number of self-inflicted deaths has increased from 465, 4 years ago, to 516 in 2003, which was 1 year later. That would seem to be an increase. However, the 3-yearly average is decreasing over time, so Mr Anderton feels that the long-term trend appears to be heading in the right direction. But I think the really interesting thing about the report and the statistics released yesterday is that the hospitalisation rate for parasuicide, or attempted suicide, is actually rising. It went from 66.6 hospitalisations per 100,000 of population 20 years ago to 82.5 hospitalisations per 100,000 of population for the period 2002-04.

The interesting thing about that is that one cannot look at the suicide statistics alone; one actually has to break them down into their demographic. It is a well-known fact that men are more successful in committing suicide than women, principally because men tend to choose more violent modes that tend to be, unfortunately, more successful. So there are more female survivors of suicide attempts than male survivors. Those figures tell us that despite the overall rate, on a 3-year average, declining, because the parasuicide attempts and hospitalisations are increasing, the problem of suicide is probably growing in our society.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Coroners Bill, which deals with inquiries into causes and circumstances of deaths. I particularly want to confine my remarks to clause 73, which allows specialist advisers to sit with and help coroners. Clause 73(1) states: “If satisfied that it is desirable to do so the chief coroner may, on the recommendation of a coroner, appoint a cultural, legal, medical, or other specialist adviser to sit with and help the coroner at an inquest by giving advice.” I am particularly interested in this area because of the situation of perinatal and maternal mortality, but, as well as that, of course, it includes child and youth mortality.

My interest stems from the fact that during the 1990s the perinatal mortality committee ceased, and it took something like 6 to 7 years before the Labour Government managed to get an effective Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee working in this country again. This is particularly serious given the circumstances relating to perinatal deaths and of course, more recently, to infant deaths and deaths of young children, given the fact that we are, at present, confronting the tragedy of the Kāhui twins. I think most New Zealanders would want to know that when the coronial investigation into their deaths occurs, it takes place with the very best advice possible.

There is no doubt that clause 73, which allows specialist advisers to sit with and help coroners, is highly relevant. Professor Taylor from Dunedin, who is the chair of the Child and Youth Mortality Review Committee, was anxious that people are aware that this committee—which is a statutory committee set up under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 2001—reviews, and reports to the Ministers on, the deaths of people aged between 4 weeks and 24 years. This is with a view to reducing the number of deaths in this group, and to allowing continuous quality improvement through the ongoing promotion of quality assurance programmes. One would hope that if in the case, for instance, of the Kāhui twins there is expert advice on every aspect from their leaving the hospital to when the tragedy occurred, good data will be available from a medical and scientific viewpoint to ensure that the lessons that can be learnt are indeed well recorded and fed back to the various caregivers, whether they be health workers, social workers, or whoever they are. In this way, in the future when high-risk babies leave hospital, everything possible will be done to anticipate and to help prevent avoidable tragedies as happened in that particular case.

Professor Taylor certainly believes the committee would like to ensure that good epidemiological advice and data are collected on each occasion. We have come through almost two decades, since the late 1980s, of not having good data in this very crucial area, so it is pleasing indeed to see clause 73. Clause 73(2) states: “The coroner’s recommendation that a specialist adviser be appointed must be made after having regard to any relevant practice notes issued … by the chief coroner.”, and subclause (5) states: “Advice given by a specialist adviser may be given any weight the coroner thinks fit.”

What is so poignant at the present time is that we know that risk identification has become quite a clear, evidence-based practice, but we have this gap after people leave hospital, during their early years of life, when, at times, there is not good, continuous care and treatment. One of the problems that has come up recently is that district health boards are not allowed to give information, for instance, on births to Plunket. The lead maternity carers may know about a child being born, but Plunket is not aware unless it is told specifically. It seems, in many respects, that the information restrictions due to the privacy code have absolutely gone berserk. In this simple sort of area it is vital that the Government takes notice and ensures we have good information flow to all the relevant people—relevant in terms of the case before us of the Kāhui twins, and relevant in terms of coronial inquiries. We need to ensure that the data collection is as good as possible.

One of the other things that the Child and Youth Mortality Review Committee believes is important is a specific requirement for information collected for coroners by police or health-trained investigators to be directly passed to the mortality review committees. There is absolutely no doubt that this is one of the things the Minister, if he is interested in improving the situation, should ensure—although it is difficult to put in the legislation—is actually made mention of, and that is why I am doing so today.

Another point that Professor Taylor makes is that there needs to be a much closer link between coronial systems and relevant health investigation management, and that of course is patently clear in the tragedy we have seen recently.

His final point related to clause 61, where there is a potential restriction for researchers publishing on the topic of suicide. The view, again, is that this can be done anonymously, that data collection is extremely important if we are to learn from the mistakes. Once again, the underlying principle is actually there, if the coroner gives permission for researchers and other people like them who are interested in quality assurance and quality improvement to gather data. The important point is to make sure there are not unnecessary hurdles in the way, and that collecting good, scientific-based evidence will act synergistically with an improved coronial bill to ensure that where there are preventable problems, they indeed can be improved.

I move, That the question be now put.