Page 4113 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
rationale behind the government’s decision and understand that this is an issue the government will continue to monitor. That is an appropriate way to respond to the issue at this point in time. If the changes have not had the desired impact by the end of two years, we will need to revisit that decision.
The coronial process is potentially a very emotive one. It is a process that deals with death and disasters. Perhaps because of this, there is a divergence of views about what the precise role of the coroner should be. One perspective is that the role of the coroner is a narrow one, to focus on finding the manner and cause of death. Under this perspective there is no determining of guilt or innocence. The matter is purely a factual question of what caused the death or disaster in question. This role of the coroner is accepted by all stakeholders and is beyond dispute.
The alternative perspective is that the coroner should have an additional function, to look more broadly and make far-reaching recommendations about criminal charges that should be laid, compensation that should be paid, and reforms that should be made in order to prevent the situation arising again. This role of the coroner is disputed amongst stakeholders. Some argue strongly in favour and some are concerned that extending the role in such a way undermines the central role of the coroner to determine facts.
In the ACT the focus has always been on the first perspective, with the legislation requiring coroners to find the factual cause and manner of death. There has always been the ability for coroners to make recommendations about how the death could have been avoided, but the legislation has not been entirely clear about when and where those recommendations can or should be made.
One important amendment the bill proposes today is to require coroners to determine if recommendations for community safety should be considered in the inquiry. Where recommendations should be made, the amendment will require the coroner to publicly state what those recommendations are. Of course, you cannot dictate that the coroner must make recommendations, because there will simply be some deaths that nothing could have prevented.
The Greens believe that at least requiring the coroner to turn their mind to the issue is a positive step. It is a delicate balancing act to retain the accepted role for coroners to find facts and also to provide flexibility for broader public safety recommendations to be made if the circumstances of the case warrant it. This recommendation-making role for the coroner is important, and I believe that the general community would want our coroners to consider whether there is a public safety issue at play.
Coroners are in a unique position to look at deaths in the ACT. They are independent from the government of the day. Any findings they make have a certain weight and gravity that is undoubtedly unique. The amendment today strengthens that recommendation-making role for coroners in a way that is appropriately balanced.
There are a range of other important amendments made by the bill which the attorney has explained in some detail in his presentation speech. They can broadly be categorised as removing ambiguities in the existing act and empowering coroners to run inquiries and inquests in a smoother and more consistent manner.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video