For those interested, the practice direction (which made these procedural changes) is here: https://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/2020.09.21%20-%20Practice%20Direction%20on%20Indigenous%20Deaths%20in%20Custody%20-%20FINAL.pdf https://twitter.com/callapilla/status/1308550782480912384

as others (incl @drcbond and @Robyn_Oxley) have noted, the problem with Coroners Courts and their role in reviewing blak deaths inside isn't that they don't have cultural competency (although that's also true) — it's the settler state impunity that they do.

that is, for a lot of reasons, a structural feature of a Coroners Court that does two things — 1) it relies on the evidence and epistemology of police investigators, and 2) it puts deaths in custody into a medical framework that presents them as inevitable.

acknowledging the work of mob like Troy Williamson who work to mitigate the impact of this for families (and allies like @CharandevSingh who are tireless in doing the same), it's hard to see how the changes address the core impunity problems.

it moves certain procedures forward in time, which is a welcome opportunity for mob to hold the early processes to account. but it also presents blak dissent as something that only comes from not knowing more about the process as it happens.

the State Coroner attending the scene (presumably to observe an investigation) doesn't change how police and other state bodies are a main source of the Coroner's and Counsel Assisting's evidence — and, for that matter, what everyone else has to contend with as well.

it also doesn't change how Coroners and police have a regulatory capture relationship. having relied on medical discourse & police briefs & the same procedure on inquests for so long, how could a Coroner think differently at the scene, like an independent blak investigator might?

and what can they do once they're there? can they do anything other than what's within their usual statutory powers? can they direct investigators? as a legal matter, that's not really clear (to me, at least). do they just attend, and that's the oversight?

moving the burden to VALS without sufficient funding is going to mean that surviving families' early position is formalised, but not resourced. which brings the whole transparency function of this down.

I don't want to speak over the cultural brief component of this, but I will say the way that it is framed in the Practice Direction as 'demonstrat[ing] to families that the process will be aimed at being culturally appropriate.'

it reminds me of remarks made by some Coroners after the acquittal of Hurley: that one purpose of an inquest is to make sure the community see that nothing untoward happened. without power in the process, only communication, how can families know that this process is appropriate?

at the same time, some blak deaths in custody (notably in WA) are not being mandatorily referred to Coroners, and in SA state actors are arguing novel privileges to not give any evidence at all. in that sense, this is going against the push towards denying families answers.

the mob in and between the Coroners Court are tasked with something that's nearly impossible. despite their position in a very hierarchical institutional setting, they do what's within their power for their community. but the problem is at the core of the court and the colony.

the move to make the processes that follow deaths in custody more culturally compatible and transparent is happening in other places where the power is more obvious. like, say, Corrective Services NSW providing for smoking ceremonies after a death. https://www.correctiveservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/aboriginal/ASPU%20-%20Aboriginal%20deaths%20in%20custody%20-%20v1.1%20-%2020052020.pdf

there's lots to this, these are just my early and pretty incoherent thoughts on twitter dot com. want to acknowledge the thinking, expertise and hard-fought advocacy in this space of @latoya_aroha, @LouiseApryl, @MerikiKO, @CharandevSingh and @DebKilroy (and many others!!)