CORONERS (REPORTABLE DEATH) AMENDMENT BILL

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 March 2011.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (21:41): I rise to indicate my support for the Coroners (Reportable Death) Amendment Bill 2010. In doing so, I congratulate the member for Davenport for bringing this issue to the parliament's attention and for attracting government support for this bill. I struggle to recall another bill that originated in the other place by a non-government member that managed to find its way here to us. I had feared that the government had forgotten that it was possible to cooperate with crossbench and opposition members. Maybe there is hope for this parliament yet.

The bill before us seeks to amend the Coroners Act 2003 to allow the Coroner to recognise an authorisation for release or disposal of the remains of a South Australian who has died interstate and the associated report, whether this be following an inquest or not. Currently our Coroner must also prepare a report, creating unnecessary and inefficient duplication. This also results in unnecessary delays in the release of the deceased person and, as the South Australian Division of the Australian Funeral Directors Association has argued, this delay needlessly prolongs the grief of the deceased's family.

Following amendment in the other place, the Coroner will, however, retain the discretion of assuming jurisdiction if the Coroner chooses. It is my understanding that this bill will bring us into line with interstate jurisdictions that long ago recognised the unnecessary duplication. As has been raised, the delays experienced at the Coroner's Court have been steadily rising, and it is my hope that this bill will go towards addressing this. It has my full support.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:43): I rise as a member of the Greens, but not the portfolio holder on this issue, to express our support and again welcome that this has come about through the initiative of the member for Davenport in cooperation with the Attorney-General. We welcome that approach.

The reason I am rising to speak is that I have had the unfortunate experience of being one of the loved ones of someone who has been subject to this double-handling. When a good friend of mine committed suicide last year in Victoria not only did he have the processes in that state but of course they then had to be replicated here with undue delays. It created even greater anxiety, stress and tension for those closest to him; while they were mourning his loss they were also dealing with an enormous amount of bureaucracy around that.

It was most unhelpful to the families, in particular, as well as his friends. It certainly was not something we welcomed in terms of being able to get on with our grieving processes, let alone for the people who were trying to work out taking a day or a few hours off work, people arranging travel from interstate, finding accommodation and so on. When an issue such as this can so easily be remedied by the state government, I encourage members to raise these sorts of issues and to work cooperatively across the parties. With that, the Greens support this bill and commend it to the council.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (21:45): I rise briefly to put Family First's position on the record regarding this eminently sensible bill, but I would like to commence by congratulating the member for Davenport. This is obviously a sensible measure, and will mean less heartache for a lot of people, not to mention less expense for South Australian taxpayers. I would also like to commend the Attorney-General, who obviously has agreed to this measure, and I understand the government will support it. That is very encouraging to see.

I understand that governments do not want to support endless motions and bills from private members or opposition members, but, every now and then, I think one of the crossbenchers or one of the opposition members has a pretty good idea, and I am really encouraged to see the Attorney-General choosing to support that. I think it is commendable. It is easier to play politics—we probably all fall into that trap sometimes—but I am genuinely encouraged by that, and I give credit where credit is due, so full credit to him.

This bill prevents a doubling up of the Coroner's report in the event that a resident in South Australia dies interstate. I have put on the record that this bill originated as a private member's bill from the member for Davenport and was introduced by him in response to representations made by the Australian Funeral Directors Association, South Australian division. I note that the proposal received bipartisan support in the other place and, again, I am very much encouraged by that.

The Attorney-General in the other place noted that this amendment improves the Coroner's Act and deals with an obvious administrative shortcoming; that is, when residents of South Australia die interstate, we end up with a report on the death from interstate coroner, and when the body is returned to South Australia, the current law requires the South Australian Coroner to prepare a second report on the same death.

Obviously this second, unnecessary report comes at a substantial cost to taxpayers and resources to the Coroner, not to mention the hardship for the family involved. The requirement may, of course, delay funeral preparations, which is not good for the family. In short, there seems little benefit in requiring a second report.

Family First understands that, in every other Australian jurisdiction, this second report is not necessary. Indeed, it was noted by the Hon. Stephen Wade that currently only South Australia produces double reports, and that matches with our research on this issue. The bill has the support of the Coroner and the Australian Funeral Directors Association, and it also has the support of Family First.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (21:47): I rise to give the government's response to this bill, which it will support. It gives me great pleasure to support this bill, and it does show that, where a bill does have merit, the government is never shy in coming along and supporting it—we only oppose the silly ones.

This bill originated with the member for Davenport in the other place. There was consultation with the Coroner, the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the Hon. Mr Atkinson, the previous attorney-general from another place. They did work together, in cooperation, to make sure all the details were right.

The bill amends section 3 of the Coroner's Act to recognise the work of another state coroner in an Australian jurisdiction. This removes the case of double reporting and brings us into line with other states. It will also reduce delays for grieving families. As we have heard from the Hon. Ms Franks, it can be quite traumatic to have to go through it twice. It is with great pleasure that we support the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:49): I would also like to pause and reflect on the fact that this is an example of opposition and government cooperation. I acknowledge the diligence of the Hon. Iain Evans in raising and pursuing the issue, working with government members, and acknowledge that they were willing to positively engage.

As always, the Hon. Russell Wortley manages to diminish the government's standing in what was otherwise a good situation. The house is so positive because these sorts of cooperations are rare. To reflect on all the other ideas as bad ideas is not fair. The reality is that this a good example of a myriad of good opposition ideas—not just from the opposition, I meant opposition in the broad sense—crossbench and Liberal Party ideas.

I, too, express the hope that this government might let this be the starting of a thaw and that we might see more ideas promoted. This government, I admit, is media driven and will want to save the big ones for their press releases, but in between I think there is a lot of good, hard legislative work that all parties can work together on. This is a good example, and I join other honourable members in acknowledging the work of both the Hon. Iain Evans and the Attorney-General.

In closing, I would just like to thank the members who contributed to the debate: the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Russell Wortley. I look forward to the committee stages of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.