HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Coroners (Undetermined Natural Causes) Amendment Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:45): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction of a bill without notice forthwith and passage through all stages without delay.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): An absolute majority is needed and not present. Please ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Coroners Act 2003. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Coroners (Undetermined Natural Causes) Amendment Bill 2020. The bill amends the Coroners Act 2003 to allow the state Coroner to return a finding of 'undetermined natural causes' in appropriate cases. The bill is intended to ensure efficient use of state forensic resources and to spare families the stress of a coronial investigation where possible.

The role of the state Coroner is to investigate certain South Australian deaths to determine the cause of death. Section 29 of the Coroners Act requires that a cause of death be found for each and every death reported to the state Coroner. A reportable death is defined in section 2 of the Coroners Act and covers a wide range of circumstances, including deaths by unexpected, unnatural, unusual, violent or unknown causes; deaths that occur within 24 hours of being discharged from a hospital or having sought emergency treatment at a hospital; deaths of persons protected under guardianship or administration orders; and deaths in custody.

If a death is reportable, a person who becomes aware of the death must report it to the state Coroner or a police officer. In some cases, forensic pathologists or other medical practitioners can be confident that a death was due to natural and unsuspicious causes but a post-mortem examination is required to determine the precise cause of death; for example, whether the natural death was due to pulmonary embolism or ischaemic heart disease.

In these circumstances, the act requires that forensic testing on the deceased be performed regardless of the family's wishes and the public interest in performing such testing. The bill instead provides the state Coroner with a discretion to state that a death was due to undetermined natural causes and to discontinue the investigation. Under the bill, it is proposed that the state Coroner's discretion is subject to several safeguarding conditions.

First, the finding of an undetermined natural cause cannot be made if an inquest is required. Under the act, some deaths reported to the state Coroner are subject to a hearing by a Coroners Court, known as an inquest. The court hears evidence about the surrounding circumstances of the death to provide extra oversight and to ascertain whether and how the death could have been prevented. A full court inquest into the cause and circumstances of a death requires precise findings. An undetermined natural causes finding is not appropriate if the matter will be progressed to an inquest.

Secondly, to use the undetermined natural causes finding, the state Coroner must be satisfied, after obtaining relevant medical information or advice, that the death was due to natural causes. A natural cause death refers to a death due to an illness or internal malfunction of the body, rather than directly caused by external factors. To illustrate, naturally occurring diseases, degenerative ageing or congenital anomalies are natural causes of death. Accidents, animal attacks, suicide or homicide are not natural causes.

Thirdly, a senior next of kin of the deceased person must give their consent for the state Coroner to cease testing and return a finding of undetermined natural causes. New South Wales has a similar provision in their Coroners Act and, in their experience, the next of kin frequently support the decision to cease testing as the coronial process can be very stressful for families of the deceased. The state Coroner retains the ultimate discretion as to whether to use the undetermined natural causes finding. They will be able to continue investigation into any death by natural causes if they consider it is in the public interest, even if the senior next of kin would prefer that investigation cease.

It is expected that the bill will help to reduce the workload on Forensic Science SA, which performs the necessary forensic testing for coronial investigations. The pathologists at Forensic Science SA experience a heavy workload and the demands of their time are great. Several government measures are being implemented to assist with this workload, including this bill. Another effort is the government commitment to fund an on-site CT scanner at Forensic Science SA.

Work on this bill has been underway for some months and is part of the government's justice agenda that aims to ensure that policies and legislation reflect contemporary South Australian needs. However, reducing the burden on Forensic Science SA has become particularly critical due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the coming months, it is expected that all government services will experience strain due to staff illness and isolation. Forensic Science SA will face particular difficulties due to the nature of their work. Forensic testing on deceased persons cannot be postponed or done from home. Therefore, this bill, which will reduce the need for forensic testing by Forensic Science SA, is critical.

Members may well be aware that there has been some consultation undertaken, as this bill predates the COVID-19 pandemic. In that regard, the Law Society have reported—although in a rather abridged time frame, given the government's proposal to have this matter dealt with today—that in general terms they support the basis of the reforms. We gratefully appreciate the opposition's agreement to advance this in the circumstances. The Law Society suggest that a safeguard clause could be included, requiring the state Coroner to write a report setting out their reasonable grounds for considering that the death was due to natural causes.

We have considered that, of course. We value the advice given by the Law Society of South Australia, but this does not apply in New South Wales, where I indicated that there is already a procedure, a process, that allows for this. Most importantly, I report to members that I am advised that clearly under the current legislation there is no general legal requirement for the state Coroner to write a report on his reasons for making any particular cause of death finding—and of course he does that for thousands of cases a year.

The state Coroner is required to make the undetermined natural causes finding based on medical information or advice. The Coroner's Office will have records of medical and other information provided to the state Coroner on which he based the undetermined natural causes finding. I am advised that this may also include a hospital record or a report from Forensic Science SA. So whilst we have received the advice from the Law Society, we do not see it as necessary, and, as I say, it is not required for the findings that he makes in other regards.

The three safeguards that I have referred to are: first, it does not occur if there is an inquest; secondly, it is obviously reliant on other advice, that is, it is not the Coroner himself making an assessment about what the medical circumstances are; and thirdly, and I would suggest most importantly, that it would require the consent of a senior next of kin. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house and seek to provide a short explanation of clauses to be inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Coroners Act 2003

3—Amendment of section 29—Finding to be made as to cause of notified reportable death

This clause amends section 29 to allow the Coroner to make a finding that a death was due to undetermined natural causes if:

no inquest was required; and

after relevant medical advice, the Coroner has reasonable grounds to believe that the death was due to natural causes; and

a senior next of kin indicates consent to having no further investigation, inquiry or inquest conducted for the purpose of determining the precise cause of death.

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Operation of amendment

The amendment applies in relation to a reportable death regardless of whether the State Coroner was notified of the death before or after its commencement.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:58): I thank the Deputy Premier for her second reading contribution on the bill that she has introduced, namely, the Coroners (Undetermined Natural Causes) Amendment Bill 2020. From the outset, I can say that the opposition will be supporting this bill. My comments will be unusually brief, and I will have a small number of questions for the Attorney in the committee stage, which I expect she will most likely be able to deal with quite expediently.

I understand that this proposal was initiated late last year and not necessarily in sole reaction to the current COVID-19 pandemic. By and large, this amendment is not critical to the government's response to the current emergency, but it may, however, be useful in some circumstances going forward as we grapple with that emergency.

I am advised that the Coroners Act includes a requirement for inquests into various circumstances and that the bill will not change that. The act also requires that a wider range of deaths be reported to the Coroner for consideration. In all of these reportable deaths, a finding as to the cause of the death must be made. Where an inquest is required following a reportable death, this finding must be made by the Coroners Court. In other reportable deaths, this finding must be made by the Coroner.

I am advised that the bill provides greater flexibility in cases where the Coroner must make a finding about the cause of a reportable death. It proposes three thresholds that all must be met: that an inquest is not required; that the Coroner has reasonable grounds to believe that the death was due to natural causes; and that a senior next of kin requests that no further investigation, inquiry or inquest be conducted into the cause. Upon meeting these thresholds, the Coroner may make a finding that the death was due to undetermined natural causes.

Whilst the bill states that a senior next of kin may request this, it is not clear whether the Coroner may initiate this discussion. That will be one of the questions I will put to the Attorney in the coming brief committee stage. I think it is clear to all of us that our health system and the Coroner are likely to be under greater pressure in the coming months. This is one of the reasons for the opposition's support of the bill. Of course, we all hope that the Coroner has as little work to do as possible in the coming months, but I think we can be honest enough to expect that that might not necessarily be the case.

Despite this, it is hoped that the proposed amendment will provide greater flexibility to manage a potential increase in reportable deaths. In limited circumstances it may also reduce the time between the death of a loved one and when a family may undertake funeral and memorial arrangements, which is, of course, front of mind during these circumstances.

The opposition supports the bill, noting that amendments may be proposed in another place. I conclude my comments by saying that it is the opposition's understanding that the Attorney may verbally commit, if not amend the bill, to ensure that there is an appropriate review of the operation of the elements of the bill in due course.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:02): I rise to support the speedy passage of the bill through the house. I acknowledge and amplify the earlier remarks of the Attorney and also acknowledge that the bill will be supported by the opposition. I have listened carefully to the contribution made by the member for Lee outlining some of the mechanical aspects of the bill and how it would operate. As the member for Lee has noted, I also note that this work was underway and indeed well advanced late last year. It comes to the parliament now in circumstances of particular public health difficulty. I also recognise the observations of members in that regard.

I want to take a moment to again make some reference to the interoperation of two of the relevant sections of the Coroners Act 2003 insofar as they relate to these amended powers. Really, they are expanding the relevant discretion of the Coroner in circumstances of certain reportable deaths. The bill, as we see under clause 4, provides for the amendment of section 29 of the act so as to insert a new subsection (2) that provides for a discretion for the Coroner to make a finding that a death was due to undetermined natural causes and to do so in certain limited circumstances. The first of those is that the relevant reportable death—and I will address that in a moment—is not one where an inquest is required.

Section 21 of the act provides, in paragraphs (a) and (c), for circumstances in which an inquest is mandatory following a reportable death. The first of those is where the death was a death in custody—that is section 21(1)(a). The second is where the event is required by any other act. So where an inquest is mandatory, then these provisions will not apply. Section 21(1)(b) of the act, as it presently stands, provides for the discretion for the Coroner to conduct an inquest where the Coroner considers it necessary and desirable to do so.

Where that discretion applies, pursuant to section 21 as it stands, these amendments will be relevantly in action; that is, the inquest is not mandatory and then, as we have heard, the state Coroner has reasonable grounds to believe that the death was due to natural causes and, thirdly, and importantly, that a request is received in the form required by the next of kin that no further investigation is to be conducted. It is really an extension of the capacity of the state Coroner to exercise a discretion and, further, it is the bringing in of a provision for the Coroner to make a less specific finding in relation to a death that is, on reasonable grounds, believed to be a death due to natural causes, so that the finding may be made that those natural causes are undetermined.

Again, for the benefit of those who may be following this for understanding, a reportable death is one of a number of different circumstances of death. It is only reportable deaths that give rise to the question of whether or not an inquest is to be conducted. As I have addressed already, it is then some of those reportable deaths that enliven the discretion and, in turn, the operation of this bill. It may be useful to note—and I take this opportunity to do so—that reportable deaths include deaths in a whole variety of different circumstances and chief amongst these are deaths that occur unexpectedly, unusually or by violent, unnatural or unknown causes; deaths that occur on a flight or a voyage to this state; and deaths that occur in custody. As I have already said, section 21 provides that in those circumstances the holding of an inquest is mandatory.

It also includes deaths during, as the result or within a very short period of surgery or other invasive medical procedures; a death that occurs within a very short period of discharge from a hospital or emergency treatment having been sought from a hospital; in circumstances where a deceased person is a protected person; where the deceased was in custody or guardianship under the Children's Protection Act 1993; while the deceased was a patient in an approved treatment centre under the Mental Health Act 2009; while the deceased was a resident of a licensed supported residential facility under the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992; while the deceased was in a hospital or other facility and being treated for a drug addiction; during or as a result of medical treatment to which consent had been given under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993; and when in any event a cause of death is not certified by a doctor.

I have referred there to a number of pieces of relevant legislation. Where the operation of those acts applies to section 21(1)(c), there will be circumstances requiring an inquest and therefore not enlivening the discretion. So in terms of the amendment that is made by this bill, it really is the extension of the discretion that already is within the power of the Coroner necessarily to exercise in a very large number of categories of reportable deaths, however, not in all categories of reportable death. There are those categories to which I have referred in which an inquest is mandatory.

Of course, the other two aspects that apply in amended section 29—those being the requirement that the Coroner have the necessary reasonable grounds to believe that the death was due to natural causes and also that a request has been made by the next of kin for the deceased person—really mean that this capacity to exercise the discretion to go ahead and make a finding that the death was due to undetermined natural causes is one that really holds with the structure of both the act as it presently stands and its interrelation to those other relevant acts.

With those brief words of contribution in relation to the bill, I again note that this work was well underway some time ago. It is perhaps important to remind ourselves that in legislating here we are endeavouring at all times to do so with a view to improving the administration of public affairs, including the operation of the Coroner's important duties and the act. The fact that this work had been done in an orderly way, and now coincides with a particular period of trial for the state, speaks to the importance of ensuring that we do the work of government as best we can at all times so that we are as best prepared as we can be. With those words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:15): With no-one else showing a burning interest in this matter, I thank members who have made a contribution and thank in advance the opposition for their indication of support for the bill and its progress through the parliament.

I will place on record now the matter that the Hon. Kyam Maher, as the shadow attorney-general, raised with me which I indicate to the parliament I think is meritorious. This is a new model for South Australia that is being proposed to deal with circumstances in this category of natural cause deaths. On that basis, I indicated to him and I undertake to the parliament to make provision, at the expiration of 12 months from the commencement of the act, for a report to be prepared within 30 days, providing to the parliament the advice of the number of cases in which a determination of the Coroner is made under proposed section 29(2).

As I have very senior and able members of the department here today, they can make a note of that and we can then have that information to see if there are any further matters that we need to consider in relation to this proposal. But I wish to reassure members that this is replicating circumstances interstate. So, to the best of my knowledge, there have not been any identified concerns raised, and the Coroner has provided me with quite an extensive background to this in his submissions in correspondence commencing about September last year, so it is not a matter that is being brought without quite a considerable gestation period of consultation and consideration.

For the reasons that have been explained, and I appreciate the parliament's indulgence, it may be that we are pressed with further COVID-19 circumstances and, in that regard, we are advancing this bill so that we might clear the decks so to speak and make sure that we have extra room for that. I have just been handed a further letter from the Coroner. I will quickly scan that and indicate whether I will provide this extra information to the parliament, as it may be of extra assistance. Essentially, it seems to be—and I will make a copy of this available to the opposition—a response to the Law Society's comment.

If I jump to the critical aspect of it, he outlines probably more clearly than I have the matters I had indicated, namely the fact that the Coroner has to make determinations in relation to a whole lot of other circumstances and is not required to give a written report. He goes on to say:

In some cases, judicial review of an exercise of discretion may be available. The State Coroner's file is not publicly available, and is not available as of right for any interested person to view, but particular documents will often be released (particularly post-mortem reports) or made available to view. Where a finding of undetermined natural cause has been made, I would expect the reasonableness of the grounds for such finding to appear from documented information received from a reporting medical practitioner, investigating police, or from a medical practitioner at Forensic Science South Australia whose opinion has been sought, or a combination of those three sources of information. These, too, are documents which would usually be made available to next of kin to view.

I suggest it is not in the public interest, or the private interests of any person, that the State Coroner be required to write a report advocating the reasonableness of this or any other discretionary decision.

I thank the Coroner for indicating that and, as I say, I am happy to make available to the opposition a full copy of the letter because I think that makes it abundantly clear why we would not have a written record of this. I think we need to appreciate not only the matters that have already been raised but the sensitivity of this type of matter, should it be public, for the purposes of the surviving relatives and friends. I hope that covers matters that would allay any concerns of the parliament or, indeed, the opposition and, as I say, I thank the members for their contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When was this proposal first put forward and by whom?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was by the state Coroner and my recollection is that it was September last year, in that I have a copy of correspondence and I was only just refreshing my memory a little while ago about that, but I will just see if I can find it. I do not have it in this file in parliament today, but I had just recently refreshed my memory on a list of things that the Coroner brought to my attention in a long letter dated September last year relating a lot to the CAT scanner aspect, but then this was raised in his letter as an initiative that needed to be considered. I subsequently received briefings on it and a memorandum of advice and by February this year instructions to proceed with a draft and consultation developed through the usual process.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does either the Coroner or the Attorney have any estimate, rough or otherwise, about how many causes of deaths will be determined in this way?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No I do not, but I will just make an inquiry. I am not sure how I can do this easily, but I will just see if I can get that. I indicate that I am advised that it is not possible to predict the number of cases that might result in a finding of 'undetermined natural causes' as there are too many variables. It will depend on the agreement of both the Coroner and the senior next of kin and will also depend on whether an inquest is mandated.

Again, I think it is fair to say that we are aware, as I think I said in the second reading, of a significant number of cases where people die of natural causes. I cannot remember, but I think it is well over 10,000 people a year who die in South Australia, and obviously some of those are reportable deaths and so on. I do not have that data, but there is some very helpful material in the annual report of the Coroner, which gives us a lot of data in relation to deaths.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a useful segue into my next question, which is how will deaths subject to these determinations be reported on?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is an obligation under the Coroners Act itself for a report to be provided to parliament. That is an annual report. I do not know; perhaps I am one of the few quirky people in this parliament who actually read the annual reports. I always find them quite interesting, from public officers, and the Coroners Court report is always of considerable interest. There is an obligation under the act for the provision of that. It does not specify a breakdown of provisions that are being proposed under this model to be reported on but, as I have indicated, I think it is worthwhile us having a look at that data when it comes through.

It may be that there are 15 cases that would be eligible for consideration and that in only five of them next of kin is either identified or consent is obtained. We will need to have a look at that down the track when we look at the numbers, but I am proposing that that be made available within the time frame I have indicated, without waiting for an annual report.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Lee, I am happy to be reasonably flexible, but if you have fewer questions than required, can we move on to clause 2?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If the Attorney is happy to take subsequent questions at clause 2, yes, that is fine.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is there an expected cost or resource impact on the Coroner's Office as a result of this proposal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, no.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could the Attorney perhaps indicate to the house her expectations of when a review might be carried out into the operations of the act with the insertion of this measure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What I indicated was that at the expiration of 12 months from the commencement of the act, we will advise the parliament of the data within 30 days, and then from there, of course, whether there needs to be any further consideration of amendment or improvement of the model that we have proposed. That is what I have indicated I will attend to.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand the amendment to the act would require that a senior next of kin request the expedited process, if I can put it like that, in writing. My first question is will the Coroner's Office be able to initiate this discussion?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. If one looks at the proposed section 29(2)(c), it reads:

a senior next of kin for the deceased person indicates their consent—

I will not read what is in the brackets, but it continues:

—to no further investigation, inquiry or inquest being conducted for the purpose of determining the precise cause of death,

Only when those three matters, (a), (b) and (c)—not or (a) (b) and (c)—are circumstances that exist, can the process be initiated. The Coroner may identify for himself, firstly, that an inquest is not required, that it is not a mandatory obligation, and secondly, that he has all the relevant material for him.

I expect that in those circumstances, in the absence of receiving a request from a family member—before I get to the senior next of kin—he may well initiate that. He of course needs to identify a senior next of kin, which is set out in proposed subsection (3), which sets out a fairly long list of persons who, I think the member would agree, are in a fairly obvious transition from spouse or domestic partner down to children, etc., to activate that. Even if a person made the approach, the Coroner would need to be satisfied that either that person or, if not them, that he locates a person who satisfied the senior next of kin process to obtain that consent.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the Attorney detailing that information. In the bill, as the Attorney rightly points out, under subsection 3(2)(c), the senior next of kin must make a request, and subsection (3) then sets out how the request must be made (i.e. in writing) and so on. With regard to subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c), can the Attorney shed any light on what the period is likely to be in which that request must be made, and perhaps give some examples of what any of those other requirements of the Coroner might be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, can I just correct one matter, which is the suggestion that the senior next of kin must make the request: they do not. They have to indicate their consent, so it may well be a process that is initiated by the Coroner as making the prima facie determination that this may be a case that is suitable for consideration of this model. Before the Coroner is able to do so, he needs to have obtained that consent. That is the first thing I would like to make clear. Subparagraphs (3)(c) and (3)(d) provide:

(c) if the person did not have a spouse domestic partner or adult child or if they are not available—a parent of the person;

(d) if the person did not have a spouse, domestic partner, adult child or living parent or if they are not available—any adult brother or sister of the person;

Is that what you are referring to?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My apologies, I might be looking at a draft of the bill rather than the version that you are looking at. In the version that I have, clause 4(2)(3) states that a request under subsection (2)(c), which is the request from the next of kin, must be:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) be made to the State Coroner within the period…and

(c) comply with any other requirements…

That is what I was referring to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sorry to do this, but I am advised that what you are reading from is in fact a previous draft. Can I just make sure that you are given a correct copy straight away. I am satisfied, though, that the table has the correct bill. I think we are in order.

Let me place on the record, if I may, that the member for Lee has been provided with a copy of an early draft. I am not quite sure how that has occurred. The bill that has been tabled is the final bill and has only two clauses, clauses 2 and 3, in relation to proposed section 29. I see that the Government Whip is making available at a distance the correct copy. I am not sure what has happened there. In any event, there is no clause 4, but the definitions clause is clause 3. I think you may still have a question; is that right?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to leave it for the other place.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the house for its indulgence in relation to what appears to have been the tabling of an earlier draft of the bill. In an endeavour to remedy the passage of a bill that is not consistent with the government's proposal—that is, that we bring the bill in the form that the government intended it to be placed—I propose a number of amendments. To do so, I firstly seek to recommit clause 2, which you have already dealt with, because I need to propose to delete it.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Attorney, on advice, we are going to move clause 4 as printed, and then move schedule 1 and move the title.

Clause passed.

Schedule passed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: By leave, I move:

That clauses 2 and 4 be reconsidered.

Motion carried.

Clause 2—reconsidered.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I now propose that clause 2 be passed in the negative.

Clause negatived.

Clause 4—reconsidered.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, in clause 4(1) I move:

Delete the word 'subsection' where first appearing and substitute the word 'subject'.

In speaking to that, I indicate that the words 'subsectionx to subsection (2)' do not make any sense. It is to read 'then subject to subsection (2)'. The second proposed amendment to clause 4 relates to the proposed subclause (2)(b). I move:

After the words 'following the State Coroner' insert the words 'after obtaining relevant medical information or advice,'

The third amendment to this clause relates to the proposed section 29(2)(c). I move:

After the words 'a senior next of kin for the deceased person,' delete:

'request that' and 'no further investigation, inquiry or inquest be'

And insert:

indicates their consent (in writing and in accordance with any requirements of the State Coroner or prescribed by the regulations) to no further investigation, inquiry or inquest being

So that everyone is crystal clear about what we are doing, I indicate that we are making provision to the current clause 4 to correct, obviously, an error in relation to the word 'subject'; secondly, to add in, if you will, the qualification of the state Coroner having reasonable grounds by specifying that he must obtain relevant medical information or advice; and the paragraph (c) amendment which relates to the senior next of kin consenting to this procedure, providing for that consent to be in writing and for any further requirements that may be required by regulation.

So we are really strengthening, I suppose, that process which I advised the house in consultation was considered to be prudent and of which the government accepted. Again, I just want to apologise to the house for any delay in trying to remedy that, but I would ask the house to consider in committee now the approval of those amendments.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): We will run through the amendments made by the Attorney. The first is at line 5, to delete 'subsection' and insert 'subject'; at line 10, after 'State Coroner' insert 'after obtaining relevant medical information or advice'; at line 12, following 'a senior next of kin for the deceased person', delete 'requests' and insert 'indicates their consent (in writing and in accordance with any requirements of the State Coroner or prescribed by the regulations) to'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think that is correct. I think the latter one is to delete 'requests that no further investigation, inquiry or inquest be' and insert 'indicates their consent (in writing and in accordance with any requirements of the State Coroner or prescribed by the regulations) to no further investigation, inquiry or inquest being'.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): We will go over the amendments once more. Apologies to everyone watching at home with great interest, I am sure. At line 5 the Attorney is proposing to delete 'subsection' and insert 'subject'; at line 10, to delete 'following the State Coroner' and insert 'after obtaining relevant medical information or advice'; at line 12, after 'deceased person', to delete 'request that no further investigation, inquiry or inquest be' and insert 'indicates their consent (in writing and in accordance with any requirements of the State Coroner or prescribed by the regulations) to no further investigation, inquiry or inquest being'.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That concludes it. I just place on record my request, if it is necessary, for the renumbering of the clauses. Because we have removed the proposed clause 2, essentially we would be left with three clauses renumbered in the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I am reliably informed that is done automatically between the houses, Attorney.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Sitting extended beyond 13:00 on motion of Hon. V.A. Chapman.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is one other minor matter I need to deal with, which is to delete the request procedure under the previous bill, which is in clause 2. The other way is to deal with it in the Legislative Council. It is only the deletion of a clause, so can we deal with it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: By leave, I move:

That the bill be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4.

Motion carried.

Clause 4—reconsidered.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Delete subparagraph (3).

Mr Chairman, I bring your attention to the Coroners (Undetermined Natural Causes) Amendment Bill 2020 which we are considering, in particular what is currently clause 4(2) and the new proposed paragraph (3) for the new section 29. It is at about point 16 or 17 of page 2 of the bill. So I have moved that the whole of paragraph (3) which commences 'a request' and concludes 'State Coroner' be deleted.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (13:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Again, I thank the member for Heysen for his support and assistance in this committee stage. Also, of course, I thank the patience of the member for Lee.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 13:04 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT