❓ Mr Sutherland asks about the adequacy of funding for the Coroner's Court. Mr Porter acknowledges the increased workload and historical underfunding, announcing emergency funding of $822,000 to address the backlog and increase staffing.
AnsweredQoN 646Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Firstly, let me acknowledge the students and teacher from Waroona District High School who have come from the electorate of Murray-Wellington. The Coroner’s Court provides an important service in the criminal justice system, not only by performing an investigative role, but also by helping those left behind in the grieving process. Will the Attorney General inform the house what view the government takes regarding the adequacy of the court’s funding? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The Coroner’s Court provides an important service in the criminal justice system, not only by performing an investigative role, but also by helping those left behind in the grieving process. Will the Attorney General inform the house what view the government takes regarding the adequacy of the court’s funding? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The Coroner’s Court provides an important service in the criminal justice system, not only by performing an investigative role, but also by helping those left behind in the grieving process. Will the Attorney General inform the house what view the government takes regarding the adequacy of the court’s funding? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
I thank the member for his question. Yes. Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr A.J. Carpenter : That was not a question. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, it was a question and one which the former government failed to answer over eight years. The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The State Coroner faced quite substantial increases in workloads. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The SPEAKER : Member for Willagee, there is no need for those remarks in this place. I formally call the member for Willagee for the second time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The Coroner’s Court was formally established in 1996. It has three basic functions—to ensure the state coronial system is administered and operates efficiently; to oversee and coordinate coronial services; and to ensure an inquest is held whenever there is a duty to do so under the act. All of us in Parliament benefit from the detailed and exceptional work of the coroner. My departments at the moment, for instance, are going through the recommendations that the coroner produced on the Ward matter, which was a very long, detailed and resource-intensive inquiry. We are all happy to benefit from the good work of the coroner to improve our justice systems. One side of the house has been willing to give back to the coroner to ensure that he can properly do his job. In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
In the 13 years since the Coroner’s Court was established as an independent court, the workload has increased by almost 20 per cent, yet the budget has remained effectively static until this time. That increase is due, first of all, to increases in our population, and also because we are providing people, generally, with a higher standard of service in filling their quite proper right to know what has occurred in a range of deaths. In 2003, 995 deaths were investigated; in 2007-08, 1 275 deaths were investigated, which is a 28 per cent increase in investigated deaths from a larger pool of deaths that the coroner has to deal with. What has happened, unfortunately, over the past eight years or so is that unfinalised cases—that is, cases not finalised after 26 weeks—increased from 232 files in 2003-04 to 507 in 2007-08. That increased workload and failure to meet basic key performance indicators, which is not the fault of the coroner, has been the fault of deficiencies in funding. The budget remains unchanged. It has been incredibly difficult for the coroner to do his good work. The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
The crisis point was perhaps reached last year when Mr Alastair Hope, the coroner of this state, took the extraordinary step of using his annual report to launch an attack on the previous government. In his annual report, he expressed regret that a significant shortfall in funding meant he would find it impossible to adequately perform his required functions. The State Coroner used that annual report to flag the real possibility that there would be a necessity either to cancel or to indefinitely postpone inquest hearings. That is because he was inadequately funded. By way of example, during the 2006-07 financial year, the coroner finalised 2 021 cases, but in that same year received a new 321 cases. He could not deal with the volume of work he was encountering. With regard to coronial counselling services, the coroner’s report stated that the court had only two counsellors to provide a 365-day-a-year service for the entire state of Western Australia. I recently requested of my good friend the Treasurer—he has agreed—that the Coroner’s Court be provided with a short-term emergency funding allocation of $822 000. This funding will assist with addressing the backlog and provide an extra six new staff, including two counsel assisting the coroner in his investigations and inquiries, a senior counsellor, two administrative staff and an additional medical adviser. From my personal conversations with Mr Hope, that will make an enormous difference in the way in which his office goes about its work. I hope also that when the Law Reform Commission presents it reports into the coroner’s office that we can stabilise the funding going into the future based on a new management model. I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
I will end my answer with a reference to The West Australian , in which I noted that my friend the shadow Attorney General, the member for Mindarie, thanked me for listening to his urgings on this matter. Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Thank you; I did. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am always attentive to urgings from the member for Mindarie, but I must say that it was very, very cheeky of the shadow Attorney General because he understands all very well that the reason the Treasurer and I took this action was because of a comprehensive and consistent failure to fund the Coroner’s Court by those on the other side of the house.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.