CORONERS (RECOMMENDATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 May 2012.)

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:23): The government opposes the Coroners (Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2012. I will certainly keep my remarks very brief for the very reasons that the government opposed the bill in the Legislative Council. I am advised that broadly the amendment bill seeks to do two things: first, extend the scope of powers of the Coroner to make recommendations; and, secondly, shorten ministerial reporting time frames.

The government retains its belief that the extended scope of powers remains too broad. While the government agrees that there should be some extension to the Coroner's powers to make recommendations, we feel that this bill goes too far. The government is also not convinced of the need to amend the reporting requirements under the act. The current time frame is appropriate to allow proper and thorough consideration of the recommendations. It should not be shortened; and, for those reasons, the government opposes the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:25): The honourable member has quite rightly pointed out the reason the government is opposing this. This is a bill about accountability, a bill about the Coroner, who has one of the most difficult jobs in this state in investigating, reporting on and providing recommendations when there have been deaths, murders, infant deaths, people who die when they leave hospitals—all these difficult situations where it is important that the public be aware that there is somebody in there checking on what is happening with these deaths and making sure they do not happen again.

Two things are missing: first, in most of the deaths there is no obligation on the Coroner to provide those recommendations to parliament and then bring back an answer as to what the government has done about it. Deaths in custody is a common issue that members would be aware of as, sadly, in prisons people take their own life. There is a legal obligation currently under the act which provides that the Coroner investigate the death, identify the circumstances in which it occurred and make recommendations which, if implemented, would impose obligations on the Minister for Correctional Services, for example, to ensure that there is no life-threatening capacity within prisons for people to take their own life.

Such recommendations might be the related to the design of a bed, access to areas for ropes to be hung—all sorts of things which have come to the parliament and which reports the parliament expects the minister or the Attorney-General to lay on the table, stating that they have considered those recommendations and outlining for each one of them what they have done, what they consider necessary to carry out that recommendation or, if they did not accept the recommendation, their explanation to the parliament (and therefore to the people of South Australia) as to why they have not done it. That is an important process of accountability.

I feel very sorry for the Coroner's office, which constantly undertakes inquests and inquiries and puts out sensible recommendations and nobody gives a toss about them. That is not acceptable to us. We say that, first, either the Attorney-General or the minister responsible needs to come back into the parliament within a reasonable time frame and say what they have done about it or, if it is still ongoing, what they are continuing to do and in what time frame they expect to have it concluded, or to give an explanation for failing to deal with it. That is all we are asking.

Certainly, we are asking them to come back and tell us what they are doing about these recommendations in three months rather than six months. We do not think that is unreasonable—three months to be able to go to their department and say, 'You've read that report; what are we doing about?' It does not have to be completed, but at least they need to be able to report back to the parliament to give, first, an answer to those who have lost someone in circumstances where they have left a hospital, a child has died, somebody has been in a road accident or someone has been murdered, but most importantly for the community to be reassured that the government is listening, the government is acting and the government is accountable. That is the purpose of this legislation.

I am very disappointed that the government would say, 'No, no, we're not interested in this; the time frame's too short.' If they are that worried about that, they could have come into this parliament and said, 'Look, we need four months,' or whatever. At this stage, it is totally inadequate. I refer to the types of areas referred to in the non-custodial deaths recommendations in 2009-10 on which we could have had some answers: the Department of Health, which recommendations came out of the Coroner's office in conjunction with the Medical Board of SA to investigate the level of knowledge, expertise and experience of overseas-trained medical practitioners in respect of a range of prescription drugs.

There were also recommendations that the current police orders governing high speed pursuit communications be reformed, and another where psychiatric patients who cannot be accommodated properly in the public health system be placed in private hospital arrangements at the expense of the government. These are all recommendations, sensible things that have been presented as a result of unnecessary deaths in this state, yet there is no accountability on the part of the government to come back in here and say, 'Tick, tick, cross, cross, adjourn,' or give all the answers about what they have done with respect to these.

It is unacceptable for the government to hide behind the shield of legislation that is sensible reform, and they should be willingly prepared to come into this house and, if they have actually acted, proudly place on the table what they have done, rather than be cowardly when they refuse to act.

Second reading negatived.