CORONERS (RECOMMENDATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In speaking to support this bill I remind members that during 2010 the Hon. Stephen Wade had progressed this bill through the Legislative Council. The proroguing of parliament meant that it fell from consideration of this house. Accordingly, I gave notice that I would seek to have it restored to the Notice Paper a couple of weeks ago and, consistent with that, I now move that the bill be read a second time.

In essence, as members would be aware, we have a Coroner's Court in South Australia. The Coroner is vested with responsibility for making findings and determinations, sometimes as the result of an inquest in which evidence is taken and sometimes on documentary material that is presented in relation to the deaths of persons who die in South Australia within certain categories.

During my time in parliament—and I think the member for Croydon was attorney-general at the time—the act which covers this has come up for our consideration (and more particularly then) to expand the circumstances of death under which a coronial inquiry or inquest could be heard. Historically, murders, children's deaths and people who die in or near the time of admission into a hospital or public institution all come within the remit of the Coroner to make an assessment about what happened.

The object of this is, firstly, for it to be a place not only for identification of deaths and of some relief for relatives and those who are left behind but also for public entities, including those responsible for our roads and the many road deaths that we have in this state. Deaths in areas of public responsibility or institutions, deaths that occur at the hand of another (murder or manslaughter, a criminal act) and deaths relating to children have all come within that remit from time to time.

What has been recognised in other jurisdictions but not here is the importance of the Coroner being able to make findings not only about the cause of death and the circumstances—which recommendations, if taken up, would ensure that future deaths could be prevented—but at a broader level. That has happened in other jurisdictions.

In the ACT, the Coroner can make recommendations to the Attorney-General on any matter connected with an inquest or inquiry, including matters relating to public health and safety or the administration of justice, and similarly in New South Wales. They look with some significance at where there is a connection to a death or a suspected death, a fire or an explosion, also taking into account public health and safety.

In the Northern Territory, again, public health and safety and the administration of justice are at the forefront of making further comment or recommendations, and similarly in Queensland. Tasmania, again, public health and safety and the administration of justice are key areas in which it is recognised that the Coroner can make a contribution, especially after they have examined a death or a fire closely. Victoria particularly addresses, again, public health and safety and the administration of justice, and Western Australia is almost identical.

This is a bill which would remedy that for South Australia and enable coroners to make a decision under the proposed amendment. Under section 25(2) of the Coroners Act 2003, the Coroner is able to:

...add to its findings any recommendation that might, in the opinion of the court, prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, a recurrence of an event similar to the event that was the subject of the inquest.

That, unfortunately, has not been identified as being broad enough to cover what is available in other jurisdictions. In fact, the Supreme Court in 2008 held that the Coroner's power to make recommendations:

...extends only to such matters as might prevent or reduce the likelihood of recurrence of a death in like circumstances to those of the case in hand, or to prevent death from the same or like causes to those in the case at hand.

In his annual report of 2007-08, the Coroner said:

In my opinion, it would be desirable to amend the Coroners Act 2003 to extend the power to make recommendations to include those relating to the administration of justice.

It is disappointing to note that the government and the current Attorney-General have not taken up this recommendation.

This bill would provide, we think, the opportunity to improve systems that would—if the recommendations were followed—help save lives, reduce injury and support and enhance parliamentary accountability, because the extra provision in this bill is to empower the Coroner to compel a minister to prepare a supplementary report addressing concerns raised in the Coroner's report. The supplementary report would be required to be tabled in both houses of parliament within three months. The compulsion is not for the government to act on the recommendations, but simply to respond to them.

To some degree I see this as analogous with the late Ted Mullighan's recommendation that, for children who are the victims of allegations of sexual abuse and who are under the guardianship of the minister, the minister is obliged now, in legislation that we have passed, unedited to report this to parliament specifically on those matters (they have no capacity to interfere with one of the appointed bodies for the protection of children). There is a precedent for this. The government must answer to the parliament how they propose to respond.

Members would know that all too often in the parliament we have an announcement by a minister in response to the recommendations of a coronial inquiry. The coronial investigation or inquest could be held years after the death or the tragedy which is being investigated. It can be so far removed, so remote, that some accountability on this is really quite shallow when it comes to offering some remedy to those who have been aggrieved, particularly the family of someone who has died.

Just this week we have had the publication of the coronial inquiry into the death of the 20-year old girl on Greenhill Road who was struck by a falling branch. Comment was made by the Coroner as to the responsibility of the Burnside council, in that instance, to ensure that they do properly monitor and deal with matters, especially in circumstances where it is known that a tree's health or age may place people or property at risk. In this instance, we had the tragedy of the death of a young woman.

Another one case, which is still pending, of course, is the inquiry into Shane Robinson's suicide. The member for Croydon would remember this occurring a number of years ago. We are awaiting the recommendations. We know now that, fortunately, the police do actually act on warrants that are issued by the parole board. They are now doing that, and they are very clear in telling us that, yes, they have learnt their lesson from that and that they will make sure that the warrants are followed up.

The Coroner has to deal with this death. We know that there are a number of circumstances surrounding the events leading up to Mr Robinson taking his own life, including the assault on a police officer and the detaining of and threats to an elderly person in outback South Australia. These are all events that come from the conduct of this person, and those circumstances all need to have recommendations available in the Coroner's jurisdiction for us to be able to hear about.

It may be that, having heard the evidence from the correctional services officer, there will need to be some refinement to ensure that, in future, Correctional Services report all incidents. In that instance, as I recall the published material on the evidence of the correctional services officer, advice was given—notification—that Mr Robinson had allegedly attempted to strangle his girlfriend. This is all information that needs to be taken into account to ensure that, in future, we do not precipitate a set of circumstances which would lead to, as in this instance, Mr Robinson's suicide.

Other jurisdictions have recognised the importance of that. One other short example that I will refer to, as members may recall, occurred a few years ago when there was something like 60 deaths of aged people in a very short period during the month of January or February, during the summer period. The question of safety of elderly people in areas which were not air conditioned or where they had no capacity to keep themselves cool was raised.

A number of questions were put to the Minister for Health on this and the requests were put in for the Coroner to consider not just the death of each of these persons but, if a pattern had been established, to conduct an inquiry into all of the circumstances as one and report to the minister (and to the parliament, ultimately) on what seemed to be a systemic failure—not in any particular institution, in this instance, as it was mostly elderly people who were presenting at emergency services with severe heat exhaustion and other inflammations of existing health conditions as a result of not being able to access or afford suitable cooling in their homes.

That is exactly the sort of thing that is important for the parliament to be aware of, to have the expert assessment of the Coroner's Court to examine and to provide advice so that we minimise death or damage or injury or, indeed, a reduction in the value of property under this type of legislation. I look forward to members supporting this bill and hope that it will have the support of government members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.