Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 9. This is the debate on clauses 38 to 41, “Amendments to Coroners Act 2006”. The question is that Part 9 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister. I’ve been listening intently, understanding the exercise of this legislation, particularly as the Minister has already answered in terms of Part 6.

In terms of Part 9, I’m interested in clause 39, “Section 14 amended (Deaths that must be reported under section 13(2))”. What is helpful is that in that section—in the principal Act—it lists all the different reasons, and right at the end it describes and categorises different illnesses and why they must be reported, and I’m just curious, Minister, as to what advice you received from—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I just clarify please, member, which particular section you’re referring to?

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: Section 14—it’s clause 39, “Section 14 amended”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: What I’m interested in is that it lists deaths that must be reported. In terms of the list, I’m curious and what I want to understand—and the Minister’s explained a number of times that they’re minor technical amendments and they’re non-controversial, and there is cross-party support—is what was the advice to the Minister in terms of the amendment. Secondly, in terms of unnatural deaths, what I just read was that sometimes when medical staff have to give a clear reason as to the illness that leads to the death, they have to make a call in terms of describing how that person passed away. I just want to understand very quickly what advice has been given to the Minister in terms of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment that we’re making here is just correcting a missed consequential amendment. My understanding is that Labour put through a piece of legislation in 2018—I might be wrong there, but it’s effectively the definition of a doctor’s certificate in the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 was repealed by the Burial and Cremation Amendment Act 2016 and replaced with a new definition of “certificate of cause of death” in 2018. All we’re doing here is aligning the wording so that it matches and is consistent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just another short question for the Minister. For clause 41 amending section 132: this particular section 132(2)(a) I think currently—please correct me if I’m wrong—the reading is that it is an exclusive list and there are six items on that list. I want to check with the Minister on whether that should be more of an inclusive list, i.e., by framing it as “which may include the following items that will allow the chief coroner or associate coroner to have more flexibility.” Or does the Minister think that those particularly named six items—subparagraphs (i) to (vi), including the two that have just been added here—are actually sufficient and those are the limitations that we want in terms of practice notes?

I call the Minister, the Hon Dr—the Hon Nicole McKee. I’ve promoted you!

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around a more inclusive list, if we were to delve into that, we would move out of the minor, non-technical area there. Especially with the Coroners Act, it becomes quite subjective with two different people, so we’re not looking at that. We’re just making these minor amendments.

Within that amendment to section 132(2) in clause 41, the first amendment is clarifying that the Chief Coroner may issue practice notes to improve the consistency of decision making and conduct. Currently unclear in the current legislation is whether it is sufficient to enable the Chief Coroner to issue such practice notes.

We’re basically making it really clear that the Chief Coroner can help by issuing these practice notes, but in regard to those six items on the list that you’re talking about, that becomes more than minor, and hence we’re not even delving into that here.

Just a really quick question that follows on from my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question. So in clause 41(2) it actually repeals section 132(2)(b)(v). When I looked up section 132(2)(b)(v), it says that when a coroner issues practice notes, they may have regard to determining whether a person is appropriately regarded as an expert in a particular area. I just wondered if that is a direct repeal. Maybe it is a consequential and minor amendment, but it wouldn’t be unless that came up somewhere else earlier in the legislation or whether it’s duplicated somewhere. So I just wondered really whether this is a repeal because that’s no longer necessary or if, in fact, for some reason it’s drafted so it is included earlier in the legislation and so that is why it’s being repealed. So the question is why is that particular section being repealed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m advised that the changes we’re making, we’re making to clarify the law. We’re already having practice notes delivered by the coroners, so it’s already happening in practice, but it isn’t clear as it should be in legislation. The second amendment that is being made in clause 41—amending section 132, which authorises the issue of practice notes relating to expert evidence—to section 132(2)(a) is to correct a drafting error.

Part 9 agreed to.

Part 10 Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003