Page 4112 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A paper called Reform of the ACT coronial system informed the development of this bill. It appears that this paper and its proposals have come from extensive consultation processes, and I commend the minister for this. Indeed, the government and even the minister himself could learn from this example because it has resulted in legislation that is thoughtful, is measured and that has broad support. Many of the proposals articulated in the paper have been picked up in the bill.
One that was not picked up was to appoint a dedicated coroner rather than require the Chief Magistrate to carry out the role of the Chief Coroner. I note from the attorney’s presentation speech that, rather than make a dedicated appointment, the current structure will remain for now. In the meantime the coroner’s office will review and refine the case management system in order to make the system function more efficiently. The attorney has committed to a review of this structure in two years time.
These reforms are important because they engage families and the public more closely in the coronial process. They make the processes more open and accountable. They ensure that the process is inquisitorial rather than adversarial and they engage the government more closely in the reporting process. This means that the public will be better informed of matters that are important from a personal safety and security viewpoint. The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.53): The Greens will be supporting this bill today. The catalyst for the bill was the 2003 firestorm that burnt Canberra and the subsequent coronial report in 2006. The coroner issued an extensive report on the fire itself but also made recommendations for reform of the Coroners Act. Those recommendations led to a series of discussion papers with stakeholder groups, which in turn led to the bill we are debating today.
So the process has been a long one, stretching over a number of years. However, the Greens are pleased to be debating the bill, because it takes on board some important learnings from 2003. One of the fears that many people have about something like the 2003 event is that for the next couple of years after the event everyone is on high alert but then, as the memories fade over time, people become more relaxed or complacent and any lessons learnt are forgotten. This bill today ensures that some of those lessons learnt are enshrined in law, and that is certainly a good step.
It is important to note that not all recommendations raised during the consultation have been acted on by government. But where they have not been acted on, the government have been transparent as to the fact that they are not and the reasons for that decision. I welcome that approach that the government have taken there; it is a good and positive example.
One of the key recommendations that were not adopted is for a full-time dedicated Chief Coroner to be established. Instead of adopting that recommendation, the government has made a series of legislative and administrative changes designed to improve case management, which will improve the ability to progress and conclude matters. The government is of the view that these case management changes will achieve the same result as appointing a dedicated coroner. The Greens can see the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video