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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3096 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

I think this is an inquiry that should be done fairly expeditiously because there are a lot of answers that the community is waiting to receive. If the Minister has that information, we would certainly like to hear when the coroner proposes to move into further stages of that inquiry and when he is likely to report, if he has determined a date for that report.

It is worth pointing out that the Smethurst inquiry that the Government set up was all ready to go. It was all ready to take evidence. It was all organised. I do not think that there should be any particular reason why the coroner's inquiry is not able to move at the same pace as the Smethurst inquiry seemed to be able to. It is a question that we would like answered.

MR MOORE (11.20): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Coroners Bill and the Coroners (Consequential Provisions) Bill, and congratulate the Minister for tidying up the legislation. He claimed in his introductory speech that this will make the coronial procedure much more accessible. I do not think that the changes are of such a nature that it makes it that much more accessible to ordinary people in terms of reading the legislation, but I think it is a significant improvement.

I would like to talk about two or three of the advantages of this legislation. The first one, and I think the most interesting one, to come out of this legislation is that in some ways it will allow for the adoption of a European style of investigation. We know about the European magistrates' - the French in particular - investigative style. It strikes me that there is a possibility that this will allow a coroner to do that kind of investigation. Certainly, section 59 of the legislation, which allows the coroner to appoint an investigator to assist, will provide some of the way in which that would operate. Indeed, Mr Speaker, I imagine that that investigator will work in very much the way that counsel assisting currently works with inquiries.

It is interesting, when we look at inquiries that have taken place within our own jurisdiction in the last little while, to see how they have operated. In relation to the Royal Canberra Hospital, I think many people in Canberra are conscious of the time that it has taken for the inquiry by the coroner to get under way and get moving. In contrast, with the disaster in Israel where the bridge collapsed, there was a report back within three or four weeks. I think that this legislation will help somewhat in this situation in the future because it allows interim findings. One way of dealing with issues quickly is for the coroner to make an interim finding while the investigation continues. I hope that that will assist in getting a more rapid response to some of the investigations that the coroner conducts.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, when I look at the legislation as a whole, and particularly at this notion of appointing an investigator, that there is a minor increase in power for the coroner. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? My response is that it is a good thing that we allow the coroner to get on and investigate and not to have that investigation interfered with. It does have protections in place. So, firstly, I think the inquisitorial approach is an improvement. It will be very interesting to see how the coroner uses that over the next few years. Secondly, the coroner can make an interim finding. I think that will help speed up issues of public interest and then allow a further investigation.

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