Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3405 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

can be made to every point that the Chief Magistrate makes in his letter. Anybody who looks at the Chief Magistrate's concerns could make a reasonable response, not just an arguable case.

There are, for instance, issues that Ms Tucker did dwell on, such as those concerning the impact on witnesses. The Chief Magistrate is concerned about issues related to the undesirability of witnesses giving the evidence on separate occasions. It may be undesirable, but that does not mean that there is any other good reason, in the circumstances, not to do it. He simply says it is undesirable. That is not a reason to prevent it. Lots of things in an ideal world are undesirable.

He talks about the fact that the coronial process will have available to it a raft of information that would otherwise be unavailable. Now that is a statement that I simply do not understand. If there is information that is available and can be made available to the coroner, it can equally be made available to a commission of inquiry. There is absolutely no reason why that cannot happen.

There are other aspects of the Chief Magistrate's letter and position that I do not fully understand.

Mr Moore: It is a shame you did not ask about it yesterday.

MR STANHOPE: Well, I looked at the legislation. The Chief Magistrate believes that, under section 52(4) of the act, that the coroner has a duty to make wide-ranging inquiries in relation to systemic issues. Section 52(4) of the Coroners Act says no such thing. Section 52(4) of the Coroners Act says the coroner may comment on any matters connected with a death that relate to public health and safety. It does not say he must.

The Chief Magistrate has actually reproduced the provision in section 52(4) indicating that the coroner may comment on such matters in his letter. I quote the Chief Magistrate:

These provisions provide the coroner with the power and duty to make wide-ranging inquiries including coverage of systemic issues arising from deaths.

He quotes the Katie Bender inquest as an example in point.

But there are significant differences between the death of Katie Bender and the coronial inquiry into the hospital implosion, and the coronial inquiry into these deaths. The hospital implosion was by way of a major disaster. It was a completely different circumstance to the circumstance that we are addressing here. It was a major disaster, a monumental disaster, a disaster that potentially put at risk the lives of hundreds of people. And the coroner did hold a wide-ranging inquiry into systemic issues arising out of the hospital implosion. That is not what we are talking about here.

We are talking here about a situation in which there is no cogent argument to suggest that the coroner cannot go off and do his duty, and that this Assembly cannot initiate an inquiry into all those other issues that are vital in an assessment of the extent to which disability services are being appropriately delivered in this city, for the people of Canberra.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .