Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4031..
(Question No 296)
Mr Humphries asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 September 2002:
In 2002-03 Budget Paper No. 4, there is reference to a restructuring fund under the estimates for the Department of Treasury:
1. What is the purpose of this fund.
2. What is the basis for providing an amount of $10 million for this fund.
3. Will there be a requirement for this fund to continue beyond 2002-03.
Mr Quinlan: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(1) The restructuring fund will be used to meet costs of any restructuring that may be necessary as part of the program of savings incorporated into the 2002-03 Budget. The restructuring fund may be used to cover any voluntary redundancies that departments may be unable to absorb within their existing budget.
The Government may consider other uses for the fund on a case-by-case basis.
(2) The $10m was an estimate based on the average of the previous three years' expenditure on redundancies.
(3) Funding has been provided on a one-off basis in 2002-03 only.
(Question No 298)
Ms Dundas asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 November 2002:
In relation to the regulation of the fireworks industry and the Minister for Industrial Relations statements in his answer to Question on notice No 107(10), that "To date no figures in relation to charges and prosecutions have been compiled. The matters are still ongoing and the costs cannot be provided until matters are finalised". Can the Attorney-General provide any additional information in light of the public statements by the Commissioner and the DPI that many of the cases have been completed.
Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
The number of matters finalised as at 7 May 2002 was set out in answer to Question No 157. Since then three matters to which pleas of guilty had been entered were completed when fines were imposed. No further matters have been finalised.
A member of the fireworks industry challenged the validity of the Regulations made under the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 in Wylkian Pty Ltd v ACT. The defendants in the various criminal proceedings sought a deferment of the hearing of their matters until that challenge was completed. The prosecution did not oppose a deferment.