Page 493 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: I think Mr Kaine is dead right - it would bring it all to a dead halt. There is a problem with Parkes Way from a planning point of view, I suppose, in that it does make access from the city area to the lake very difficult; but it was not this Government or this parliament that designed that. That was done many years ago by another body. I think any change to Parkes Way would have to be considered most seriously. The ACT Government certainly would not approve any process whereby there was traffic calming on Parkes Way. It is the major east-west access. It carries very considerable volumes of traffic and any proposal to put streets across there could not be supported.
Legal Aid Commission and Director of Public Prosecutions
MADAM SPEAKER: I call Mr Lamont.
Mrs Carnell: He has had one.
MR LAMONT: I did not have a supplementary question. Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Chief Minister. Will the Government reduce the independence of the Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions by including their staff in the new arrangements for the separate ACT public service?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I thank Mr Lamont for the question. I read an article to the effect that Mr Lamont has outlined in the Canberra Times this morning. I would like to start with a point of principle, and that is that there is agreement on all sides that the Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions need to be independent from the Government, and the Government has no intention of departing from that principle. I would like to deal with both of those organisations separately.
On the question of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is a fact that those staff have always been public servants, and they will remain public servants. In their case, as in the case of the majority of our employees, the only change will be that they will change from being Commonwealth public servants to being ACT public servants. There will be no substantial change, except that we will be increasing the independence of the DPP under the new service arrangements by conferring on the DPP the powers of a head of agency, a head of department. Currently, in relation to the DPP, those powers are vested in the Head of Administration, so it is an actual conferring of additional powers on that agency itself.
With the Legal Aid Commission, Madam Speaker, the inclusion of the legal aid staff in the new service does not either break new ground or interfere with the independence of the commission. It is a fact that in other States - in Tasmania, New South Wales and the Northern Territory - there are legal aid staff who are public servants. Some of the staff of the Queensland commission are public servants as well. So this can hardly be seen to be a groundbreaking step. The fact that the staff will be employed by the Territory will in no way interfere with the relationship between solicitor and client. I can say that with confidence because the legal aid Act guarantees it. I regret that the people who wrote that article this morning do not seem to have checked that basic bit of legislation. To suggest that the staff could be subject to direction by a Minister or the Government as to the handling of any case, in my view, is completely ridiculous. It is nonsense.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .