Page 2352 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A number of amendments make procedural changes to improve the flow of coronial proceedings. In particular, the amendments address the concern that many matters are held up when criminal proceedings are commenced before an inquest or inquiry is complete. Other amendments aim to keep families better informed of the process and of the outcomes of coronial proceedings.
Much of the concern in the community about the coronial system relates to a lack of understanding of the purpose of coronial proceedings and the functions of the people who work within that system.
The amendments in this bill will be accompanied by a range of administrative changes, aimed at:
improving case management in the Coroner’s Court;
improving provision of information to families and friends of the deceased; and
improved services to those people.
I note that the paper I have tabled includes discussion of a proposal to establish a dedicated coroner for the ACT. This was a proposal discussed by the working group. The government has decided to pursue a case management approach at this stage and review this matter in two years time. The Chief Coroner has already implemented a new management approach, and I am pleased to see signs of improvement at this early stage.
Overall, I believe that the amendments proposed in the bill present the most pragmatic position for the ACT. The implementation of these reforms has been carefully considered in the context of the Human Rights Act and these amendments achieve the policy goals of the reforms whilst maintaining proportionality with protection of individuals’ human rights.
In particular, there was an examination of whether the proposed new section 68A of the Coroners Act, dealing with the provision of information to families, would intersect with the right to family under subsection 11(1) of the Human Rights Act. It was considered that, if the right focuses on interference with the family unit, it may not extend to communication with a member of the immediate family of a deceased person and that, even if the right is engaged, the limitation imposed is reasonable and proportionate having regard to the policy objective, particularly with the inclusion of a reasonableness standard.
I would like to thank all of those stakeholders, magistrates, Chief Magistrate and agency representatives who contributed considerable time and effort in preparing submissions and participating in discussions about these reforms. The review process demonstrated widespread, strong interest in improving the way the ACT’s coronial system functions.
The changes that I have discussed today will bring some important, timely improvements to our coronial system. As I have said, the government will keep the system under review, but I am confident that practitioners and the families of those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video