Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber today of Faith Tkalac. I acknowledge your pain, suffering and frustration, and your relentless advocacy out of love for Jari.
Just as we did in the House of Assembly, the Greens will be supporting this legislation. We recognise that it comes from a tragic, devastating situation; the struggle to have the coroner examine this matter; and advocacy from Jari’s family and from Faith to the former Attorney‑General, Elise Archer, who had the guts to bring this forward. When I say that, it is in the context of what was mentioned in the leader’s second reading comments, which are on the public record, particularly from Coroner Cooper. I will get to some of those shortly.
It takes a certain mettle to proceed down this path, which places stricter requirements on the coroner to investigate matters where family violence may have had a material role in the death of a person, and to proceed with this law reform when the coroner himself has said, ‘Be careful; proceed with great caution’. We should be cautious in examining this bill.
The bill that we have here requires the coroner to consider whether there was a reasonable suspicion that family violence was a material contribution to the death of a person. That would require the coroner to look at the history of personal circumstances, not just at the moment of a person’s death, as of course coroners do. It also means considering whether the violence that has been occurring may have contributed to the death.
Out of respect for Faith, I am not going to detail any of what I have read about that relationship, other than to acknowledge that what is on the public record tells us it was, at times, a very violent relationship. The person who in the coroner’s report is referred to as ‘M’ ultimately was charged with reckless and dangerous driving. The result of the coroner’s report after all that advocacy must have been so devastating for Jari’s family, but we have to respect the coroner who, on the evidence, made a finding. That finding, ultimately, was that:
The circumstances of Mr Wise’s death are not such as to require me to make any recommendations pursuant to section 28 of the Coroners Act 1995.
However, as I have already pointed out, a coroner is empowered to comment on any matter connected with the death, including the administration of justice. The coroner says:
This case calls for comment about the administration of justice in Tasmania so far as it is connected with Mr Wise’s death. I have already made comment regarding the particularly concerning aspects of the Attorney-General’s exercise of the power under section 24(1)(g) of the act. Ultimately the exercise of the power resulted in no positive outcome for the administration of justice by the holding of this inquest. Further, it had the effect of publicly undermining the role of the Supreme Court.
This is the coroner’s opinion. He goes on to say:
In exercising the power, the Attorney-General was obviously motivated by the strident advocacy of the senior next of kin, Ms Tkalac, who embarked upon a campaign to change the act so that coroners must hold inquests into every death where a coroner suspects that family violence contributed. The proposed amendment to the act, termed Jari’s Law, was recently passed by both Houses of parliament. I understand it is yet to be proclaimed.
Regrettably, it was not proclaimed because the government went to an election a year early for the second time in three years.
The coroner goes on to say:
Early estimates indicate that Tasmanian coroners will, as a result of the amendment, be required to hold at least double the number of public inquests. The effect of this upon an already strained coronial system will be to significantly delay all inquests, thereby increasing the grief and trauma of many families in our community.
We should pause here for a moment and see that statement in some ways, as we so often now hear from our statutory officers, as a cry for resources. The merits of this law need to be viewed separately from the resourcing issue in the Coroners Court. We have the same resourcing issues blighting the Ombudsman, the National Preventative Mechanism, the Integrity Commission, the Supreme Court, the Magistrates Court, and the list goes on. That has a compounding negative effect on the administration of justice, because justice delayed is justice denied. We have the coroner here saying that once parliament inevitably passes this law again, for the second time, there will be a substantial extra caseload on the office of the coroner. That is something that, as a parliament, we have a responsibility to be very mindful of, and to advocate to government and the Attorney-General to address this. It is one thing for government to say we recognise a deficit in the law that may not be providing justice to the families of bereaved people and therefore we will present a reform bill to the parliament, but then not to provide for that extra capacity in the coroner’s office almost 18 months after this bill was first developed is inexcusable, and I will leave it at that.
The coroner goes on to say:
It means that coroners will be required to hold public inquest into many deaths where no additional evidence is to be gained, and not appropriate for recommendations to improve the safety of members of the community, such as this case.
Further, in many cases, many families would not wish for a public inquest, which will necessarily result in prolonged processes and the ventilation of sensitive information about the deceased and their family members for no good reason at all.
Coroners in this state are well accustomed, by reason of training and experience, to determine when matters should or should not be the subject of an inquest. On a not infrequent basis, coroners determine that particular deaths involving family violence issues should be the subject of a public inquest.
In the cases where a coroner decides against the holding of an inquest, consideration is given to the wishes of the senior next of kin and other persons with a sufficient interest. In such cases, a right exists to have the coroner’s decision reviewed by the Supreme Court. As a matter of course, the senior next of kin is advised of their rights in this regard.
I urge the appropriate authorities to consider taking steps to reverse this most unfortunate exercise in law reform.
13 May 2024
Hobart
State of Tasmania.
Simon Cooper, Coroner.
I know the coroner’s concerns were referred to in the second reading speech, but they have not been specifically addressed. On reply to the second reading, it would be helpful to the Council to have a more detailed response from government to Coroner Cooper’s expressed concerns.
We need to have a discussion about the increased rates of domestic and family violence in this state. We have statistical evidence that not much is improving. We have more than 6,700 callouts responded to by Tasmania Police in the past year as I remember it, although I have put my stats somewhere else. The latest data from Safe Homes and Families and Communities Tasmania, which runs up to 2022, says that in 2021‑22 Tasmania Police attended 6,743 family violence incidents, and 2,500 occasions classified as family arguments or family information reports. When you have a look at the graph dating back to 2015‑16, you see how depressingly little has changed. The total rate of arguments and incidents is increasing, although that may be as a result of higher reporting.
Overwhelmingly, it is women and girls who are the victims of intimate partner violence, but somewhere between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of family violence cases involve men or non‑binary people. We need to be very mindful that while this is a scourge that disproportionately affects women and children, it is a scourge across our society and men suffer too.
We need to ask ourselves as a parliament, why is it we have robust processes in place? We had nation‑leading family violence legislation. The Safe at Home structure was set up a long time ago by an excellent attorney‑general, Judy Jackson. We have structures and connections within government, with police, and in the community sector, that should be helping to reduce the incidence of intimate partner violence. On the data, what we are doing is not working well enough. It is a challenge to us all.
I was asking myself last night – and I would love to have a chat to Faith about this – who was Jari? Who was Jari Wise? By all accounts, a beautiful young man. In Faith’s words:
My son Jari was a tall, quiet man who became the life of the party after just a beer or two. He was loved by everyone who met him. The attendance at his funeral of so many family, friends, work colleagues, old teachers and even strangers, made this incredibly clear.
It would make you so proud as a mum to know how loved your son is.
My son was involved with the woman I’ll call “M” for approximately 4 years. Prior to the two of them forming a relationship, Jari was a regular at our family home. If not a daily drop in for a feed or family gathering, he was always in contact.
Then the story goes on to detail the complexities and enormous stresses in that relationship and how that impacted on Jari’s wider family and his children, who, of course, will never see their father again.
We have a bill before us, which as I have said, has love at its centre, but it also has consequences in the operations of the Coroner’s Office. I know some members have received briefings from the community legal centres who talk about the structures that are put in place in other jurisdictions that are, in many cases, a collaborative first response and advisory structure that can examine incidents and trends, and make recommendations to government for legislative reform. I think it is a matter of regret that we do not have a similar situation, for example, to Victoria, which has a systemic review of family violence death units.
In New South Wales, the Domestic Violence Death Review Team was established in 2010 under the Coroner’s Act to review deaths occurring in the context of domestic violence in New South Wales – review, analyse data, make recommendations, establish and maintain a database about such deaths. In Queensland, the Queensland Government established the Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Unit. This is a very similar role and functions to that in other jurisdictions. In Western Australia, since 2012, parliament requires the Ombudsman to undertake regular family and domestic violence fatality reviews. South Australia established a Senior Research Officer and domestic violence position to support the Coroner’s Office on domestic violence cases, to collect data relevant to domestic violence deaths, and to conduct research projects to identify gaps and trends.
The CLC’s submission echoes the concerns expressed by the Coroner:
If the proposed amendment to the Coroners Act 1995 (Tas) is passed, it is likely to result in an increase in the workload of the Coroners Court. Research has found that just over half of all homicides carried out in Victoria between 2000-2010 involved an intimate partner or other family member, or otherwise occurred in a context of family violence.
Given that there are around 900 reportable deaths in Tasmania each year and in 2022‑23 25 inquests were held, the amendment is likely to result in an increased workload, even with the requirement that family violence must have materially contributed to the death of the deceased.
In the event the amendment is passed, it is clear the Tasmanian Coroners Court needs a significant increase in resources, as was recently highlighted by Coroner Webster in a decision relating to Mary Kathleen Stewart.
I have no doubt this bill will pass again, but I will be taking very careful note of the answer provided by the Leader of Government Business on the question of resourcing the Coroners Office. It is a very serious, outstanding question that once this law is proclaimed, should it pass, which I am sure it will again, that question must be answered by government in relation to responding to the resourcing needs of the Coroners Court.
I know that this Justice Miscellaneous Amendment Bill amends about five different acts and thank Christ it is repealing.
Mrs Hiscutt – Blasphemy. We have not passed the bill yet.
Ms Forrest – Parliamentary privilege, you are lucky.
Ms O’CONNOR – You do find in particularly narrow Criminal Code and other old bits of legislation, some very quaint crime.
Ms Forrest – I was hoping you are going to reflect on that. On the removal, I was hoping you were going to reflect on that.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will reflect on the removal of blasphemy. I just could not resist. First of all, I thank Faith and your family for fighting so hard for reform and to make the world a bit of a better place. It sounds matronising to say this, but it will not bring Jari back but it might just change something for a broken family in future.
I want to acknowledge the work of the former attorney‑general, Elise Archer, who operated with a really meticulous clarity about reforms that she understood were just and that she believed in and persisted. She is very tenacious. Thanks also to the officers from the department who have obviously put so much work into this legislation and made it as sensitive and sensible as it can be. So with those words I am happy to support the bill.
