Worth Richard: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4677] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Christopher Finlayson who effortlessly sketched in this important argument has suggested that the mind of the Minister Rick Barker is closed. For my part I express the view that his mind may still be ajar and that in the course of this argument he will see there is real merit and no disbenefits in acceding to what I hope in the future will be called the Finlayson amendment. 
National supports this bill. We have made that clear throughout and we have sought to focus on the main issues. This amendment is a main issue. I invite the Minister to reflect very carefully before it is too late in the context of the parliamentary process whether there is merit in the amendment that is proposed. Of course what we are talking about what is the crunch issue here revolves around clause 132 and the transitional provisions. It focuses directly on schedule 3 and there are two clauses in schedule 3 that are relevant. First of all clause 2 provides that on the repeal of the Coroners Act every former coroner vacates office and the other provision that is critical is clause 3 which provides that no former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office. 
I do not want to repeat the arguments Mr Finlayson has put carefully before the Committee but I think it is important to record that under the existing Coroners Act coroners were appointed by the Governor-General by warrant and had tenure until reaching the age of 68 which was later modified to 72. Until 2004 when a change was made to the legislation coroners had: “ … the powers privileges authorities and immunities of a District Court Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.” It is very significant to record that reflecting the protection given to their judicial office they could be removed only for inability or misbehaviour. Those are not quite the words that are contained in statutory provisions relating to the appointment and removal of judges—not now—but nevertheless they indicate in a clear and unmistakable way that these coroners are to have tenure. 
It seems that the Ministry of Justice has taken the view that cancelling coroners’ warrants by statute is not unconstitutional. But even if that view is correct and I do not accept that it is particular care clearly needs to be taken to respect constitutional provisions that have as their purpose the protection of the separation of powers doctrine which is the separation between the legislature the executive and the judiciary. 
It is also very important to note that a lot of these coroners have given substantial service. For example those who have been lawyers have made a deliberate choice whether to continue in their legal careers in the full sense of that word or to make themselves available for the public service that is involved in being a coroner often at light remuneration rates. I am sure a number of those coroners would not have made the choice if they did not believe as they had good reason to believe they had security of tenure. Now the Government is going to take away that tenure right without compensation. 
In these circumstances I urge the Minister to consider the issue of compensation. We are not talking about big amounts of money. We should be constitutionally prepared to face our responsibilities. We should accept that the importance of the separation of powers doctrine is never to be underrated. That is why in the short amendment that Mr Finlayson has put before the Committee he is proposing that there be an ability to pay compensation. 
Lest the Minister thinks National members are on a flight of fancy I hasten to reassure him that that is not so and that there is a solid legal base for the argument that compensation should be paid.