Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill

I thank my colleagues on the other side for raising that so that we can dispense with the bill as quickly as possible while also maintaining the ability to be able to respond to our colleagues’ questions.

Clause 1 is really simple—it’s the title clause. The title of the bill is the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill. The title reflects the purpose of the bill, to raise the statutory cap on the maximum number of coroners.

Clause 2 is the commencement clause. The amendment Act will come into force on the day after the date of Royal assent. This will enable the recruitment of additional coroners to commence as soon as possible. Clause 3 notes that the principal Act to be amended is the Coroners Act.

Clause 4 is the substantial clause here, and that contains the only substantive amendment in this bill. Clause 4(1) amends section 109(1) of the Coroners Act 2006 to increase the maximum number of coroners that can be appointed at any time, from 20 fulltime-equivalent coroners to 22 fulltime-equivalent coroners. Clause 4(2) makes a consequential amendment to section 109(2)(e) of the Coroners Act 2006 to change the example that illustrates how full-time equivalents are calculated. The number given in the example has been increased from 13.5 to 21.5 to reflect the new maximum number of coroners.

Just before I sit down, I do want to say, with the greatest respect to the ACT Party, that I’m not accepting the Supplementary Order Paper as provided. I’ve been advised that the Ministry of Justice modelling from November 2021 shows that the appointment of the additional four coroners should bring caseloads to within a manageable range. The ministry’s modelling works on the basis that 3,000 active cases represents a sustainable caseload for the coronial jurisdiction, and this is based on historical data when the coroner was closing the same number of coronial cases as were entering the coronial jurisdiction each month. The number of active cases will never decrease to zero, because there is a minimum length of time a case will take to resolve, regardless of the amount of coroner resource. The appointment of more coronial resource is only one component of a broader work programme to reduce the coronial caseload and maintain it at a sustainable level.

I’ve heard members of the House raise issues about moving these things with urgency. I acknowledge that, and it’s why this bill is specifically about these case numbers. But coronial inquiries, by their nature, can take time. For example, a coroner may put the inquiry on hold pending the outcome of another agencies’ investigation—for example, by the Police or Health. That is another piece of work that is not being debated here in this case.

I appreciate the contributions of the Minister, just before, particularly in addressing the Supplementary Order Paper as tabled by my colleague Nicole McKee. However, I’m not quite sure if I align with the rationale, and I’d like to challenge it somewhat, as I’m sure others may interrogate in their contributions.

So I’m just asking the Minister and his officials in this very brief time that we have to consider this legislation—and it’s really important for those who are following along at home, for all of those unfortunate individuals tuned into Parliament TV that what we’re looking at here is a piece of legislation that increases the maximum amount of fulltime-equivalent (FTE) coroners that may be appointed. That is not a minimum, and it is quite separate to the issue of budgeting for those coroners.

The point that the Minister was making just before around the estimations that he’s got are from the Ministry of Justice around how an extra four would bring caseloads into something that is considered manageable. Per the contributions of other members, it would be really good to get a greater understanding of what “manageable” actually means, in terms of definition. I’d note that he gave the example of around 3,000 cases being active as being considered sustainable; obviously a number of those cases come with different variables in terms complexity and other ways, which the Minister himself alluded to.

So my question becomes: when we’re looking at amending the legislation in order to align with the Budget of that increase of FTEs here, why is it the case that we did not settle on, for example, an amendment to the enabling legislation of raising the cap to, for example, a proportion of population so that we wouldn’t in future need to look at again amending this legislation if it’s the case that the Government next year or the year thereafter seeks to increase the funding the Budget, which again is a separate piece of legislation to what we’re currently considering in terms of the very literal coronial cap? And if it is the case, as it is the case that we’re here looking at a maximum of coroners, why, again, was it set at two?

I note that the Minister was, again, alluding to the fact that, in current circumstances, that brings workloads into what is considered by the ministry to be manageable. But again, given that we’re going to see population increasing and given that there are all of these other variables around the likes of complexity and otherwise, why was it not four or five, given that there is, obviously, in all Budgets, typically planning for several years in advance and for future caseload to come online?

So those are questions to the Minister—around particularly why, in amending this legislation, it wasn’t considered that we, for example, looked at a proportion of the population being represented in the coronial cap, or alternatively, look perhaps at something like a minimum so that future Governments would actually need to bring these coroners and fund those coroners in the aligned Budget. Why is it—or rather, could he please provide greater information into those words as just put on Hansard around the likes of what it means to be manageable and what it means to be sustainable, given those other variables around complexity of cases and not just caseload?

I should have said, before I took the first call, that the question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got a number of questions, some of which I’ve already flagged at an earlier stage of the afternoon’s debate in the spirit of helpfulness. I think I will start by acknowledging the point that the Minister made, which is a reasonable one. Of course there is a certain period of time that coronial cases will always be required to take. And, of course, for that reason we talk about average length of cases, and it’s not right to highlight individual cases without the context. It’s also not appropriate for MPs to talk about how individual cases are tracking to the extent that that might represent an intrusion on the work of the judiciary. So we do talk about averages and what we’re interested in is the extent to which the average time to dispose of a case is greater than what would be reasonable given, as the Minister says, there are not only complexities with the cases themselves, but also other Government agencies might conduct investigations and so on.

Chlöe Swarbrick has rightly asked what “manageable” looks like in terms of the range, and that was a question that I would have asked, but I would also like to supplement that by asking: at what point does the Minister anticipate that the manageable range will be reached? So a supplementary there, effectively, to ask not only what but also when.

I do want to acknowledge the discussion that’s taken place across the House in different approaches to the cap. Whereas I’ve said that National’s approach would be to try and understand if there’s any reason that there should be a cap at all, the Greens’ point was around possible indexation of that, and it sounds to me sensible, acknowledging Ms Swarbrick’s point that it might be a minimum rather than a maximum or a floor rather than a ceiling that is appropriate. And as the ACT member Nicole McKee has said in relation to the amendment in her name, there is the possibility of increasing beyond the increase that the Minister is already making, National is open to all of those and indeed actively supportive in the case of at least what Ms McKee has put on the Table.

Finally, my questions are around the analysis that’s been made. To some extent, the Minister has answered that. I do acknowledge at the start of the committee stage, he talked about that manageable range and, effectively, then it all does come down to the approach to reduce the backlog, whether that is an aggressive one to try and bring that down as soon as possible or really over a long period of time, which seems to me the approach if we’re only increasing the cap by two. So I’ll put those questions to the Minister and look forward to those and, no doubt, the rest of the committee does as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister, I hear your response in regard to lifting the cap, and I just have a few more comments on that. I wonder, in a question to you, Minister, when your advisers have suggested that the number of cases will be under control, whether or not there is, or will be, key performance indicators set to ensure that we do not continue to have a reduction in the number of inquiries and inquests because we have enough coroners to be able to go through that huge case backload.

I also wonder, Minister, why we are unable to lift the cap to 30 so that we are futureproofing the coroner’s courts for other Governments so that they do not have to bring urgent bills, but, rather, can get on with business.

And a final question for you, Minister. In your legislative statement, you said that there are seven fulltime-equivalent relief coroners and that they do not count as part of the cap. So I wonder, then, Minister, whether or not you can confirm whether you have, apart from the seven that you’ve already suggested as the coronial registrars, more relief coroners on board to help when it has been reported by the Chief Coroner that part of the reason why we have a large backload is because of an unprecedented number of deaths. So if we have a higher population and we have, with COVID, deaths occurring as well, we have an increase in unprecedented numbers—whether or not we would be able to manage that and whether or not we can guarantee that we won’t have inquiries and inquests not being held because of that backlog. Thank you.

I can confirm that currently we have 18 fulltime-equivalent coroners plus seven relief coroners who are not counted as part of the cap. So, at the moment, Budget funding has only been allowed for the four additional permanent coroners. I suppose that’s why, but I also want to say that the appointment of more coronial resources is only one component of a broader work programme.

With the greatest respect, I’d say to the House that we can debate this tool till midnight tonight. The problem is that it’s a political solution that often fails to achieve what we’re wanting to do. There is a comprehensive piece that’s not part of this legislation that we will debate at another time.

The question is that Nicole McKee’s tabled amendments to clause 4 to increase the coronial cap be agreed to.

The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading