CORONERS (RECOMMENDATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2009. Page 2507.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (23:09): I intend to make only a brief contribution this evening and then to seek leave to conclude my remarks. I understand that the other speakers do not intend to make a contribution tonight. This bill raises a number of issues about the extent of recommendations made by the Coroner and reporting requirements of ministers under section 25 of the act.

I am not sure whether you would describe this bill as the Hon. Mr Winderlich's bill or the Hon. Ms Kanck's bill; I suppose the Hon. Ms Kanck first moved it. The proposed amendments result from a number of cases over the years, in particular, from some of the issues arising out of the case of Saraf v Johns, before Justice Debelle, in the Supreme Court. A number of changes are therefore proposed to the act in relation to reporting and the extent of the Coroner's power to make recommendations.

The amendments proposed in this bill would reduce the time in which a minister's report on actions to be taken on recommendations about a death in custody must be prepared and tabled to within eight days of the expiration of three months after receiving the report, as opposed to the current time frame which is within eight sitting days of the expiration of six months after receiving the report.

Given that these sorts of coroner's reports are generally quite detailed, particularly those that are likely to give rise to a number of recommendations from the Coroner, the recommendations may require several changes to different pieces of legislation and involve a lot of different departments and agencies. In those circumstances, there is a concern that the proposed shortening of the time frame in which a minister's report must be tabled would make it difficult to allow proper and thoughtful consideration of the Coroner's recommendations; similarly, in relation to supplementary reports, with respect to the ability that this proposed bill gives for the Coroner to require supplementary reports if he so chooses.

The government is concerned that that would require the court to police its findings rather than, as is currently the case, inquire into events that are the subject of the act and, where appropriate, make recommendations. The minister's report is then tabled in parliament. The Coroner includes the responses to the court's recommendations in his annual report. That is already an open and transparent process that does not put the Coroner's Court in a position where it has to be the guardian of its own findings. It is also a concern in relation to the proposed amendments here.

The other major question, which is the subject of this proposed bill, is in relation to the Coroner's power to make recommendations and whether that ought to be extended. I think that is one of the major areas of concern that has prompted this bill. It is worth noting that the court is already empowered to make recommendations aimed at preventing or reducing the likelihood of similar deaths. Section 25(2) of the act provides:

The Court may 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.

This bill proposes to empower the Coroner to make recommendations on matters that are extraneous to the event which is the subject of an inquest. The difficulty with that, of course, is that it would significantly broaden the work of the Coroner's Court and act as an inducement to parties to seek to broaden the arguments and the matters being agitated before that court. This would add to the complexity of an inquest and the time and resources necessary to conduct it.

There are some very significant concerns about the changes proposed in this bill. If the mover insisted on bringing it to a vote in the near future, the government would oppose the bill. The government is examining the issues raised in the case of Saraf v Johns and the broader question of the power of the Coroner to make recommendations.

The government is consulting the Coroner on these matters, particularly on jurisdictional matters raised by Justice Debelle in the Saraf case and on whether the Coroner's power to make recommendations needs to be extended.

While that consultation is underway, the government would prefer to defer further consideration of the bill. As I said, if the honourable member decides that he wants it brought to a vote in the more immediate future, it would be the government's view to oppose the bill. I intend to address further the issues raised. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.