Page 1660 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having said that, if you insist on going ahead with that project, there was a very good scheme which, in the early years of this decade, was mooted under the previous government whereby you could build a building and, as long as you put in JACS, the DPP, rented out chambers to the bar, you would be saving about $2 million in 2001 dollars in terms of government expenditure for the DPP and JACS. That is probably a lot more now. Over about a 25-year period you might pay for your new building. If you could do something like that, it might be justified. If you cannot, it is just throwing good money after bad. But you do have some options there—perhaps build a building but also save money down the track in terms of what you are doing now in paying dead rent.
There are some minor money matters in terms of Supreme Court jury payments. That is a positive step. One thing I will applaud, attorney, is your commitment to the jury system. I think that is sensible. It recognises, I think, some of the real problems we have had with an overemphasis in the last 15 years on judge-alone trials and the misuse that is being made of them. Whilst it is a small amount of money, it is welcome.
In relation to your modern facilities for procedures involving deceased persons and a more appropriate environment for relatives needing to identify deceased persons in a new forensic medical centre, I take it that $4 million also enables additional forensic studies and work to be done in terms of assisting crime fighting. There was a lot of mirth on the opposition benches yesterday when you talked about the morgue and a lot of money going to the morgue. I trust it is more than that. But that is something that we would at least applaud in terms of a new forensic centre and improved forensic work being done.
I am concerned, even though you have $1.5 million over four years for the implementation of the work safety legislation, that there is nothing in the budget. Looking at budget paper 3, on page 85 you state:
This initiative provides for the retention of an independent Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner, after restructuring of the Office of Regulatory Services, and for the statutory work of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is responsible for promoting understanding … and reviewing ACT laws to ensure their consistency with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Clearly, what we have been hearing for some time now is that WorkCover is actually understaffed, that there are not many inspectors there and that there are some very real and significant problems in terms of the work of that authority. The inspectors are going out there, being proactive, finding problems that can be rectified, rather than simply reacting. We have had some horrendous near misses, near tragedies, in terms of accidents in the workplace. Among the most prominent recently was that great lump of concrete that fell on that car at the Cameron Offices.
Clearly, in terms of occupational health and safety, I would have liked to have seen an emphasis placed on getting a few more WorkCover inspectors out there. I am being proactive in terms of ensuring worker safety. I would agree very much with any unionist who says, “When you go to work you want to be able to be very confident
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .