Page 3088 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
replacement program. Please remember that the stimulus package is fantastic. With a bit of luck, it is going to knock our waiting list down by up to 25 per cent, but that is not all we do.
We already have a knock-down, rebuild, replace and buy spot program anyway. That turnover is around $60 million a year anyway. The application of green, environmentally friendly and sustainable urban design and all of that sort of stuff that we applied to that has been in place for some time in our own properties anyway.
What is new is the movement from five star to six star. We are aspiring to six star. In some cases we have been able to achieve it; in other cases we cannot. If we are spot-buying a property, we would say we are not buying it under four. That has been the case in the past, but we would aspire to five. Now we are not. If we build a place it has got to be six. If we are buying a place, we are only buying at five. That is where we are at. I will not go on with the prepared speech I have. I just wanted to address the issues that were raised by members.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.14—Department of Justice and Community Safety, $185,983,000 (net cost of outputs), $54,193,000 (capital injection) and $135,842,000 (payments on behalf of the territory), totalling $376,018,000.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10:23): The Justice and Community Safety portfolio is wide ranging, and I shall devote the time allotted to me to deal with some matters inside the Department of Justice and Community Safety in the legal area, particularly the ACAT, the DPP and judicial appointments. But, before I do, in talking on the women’s budget I spoke about the Women’s Legal Service and I note with some regret that recommendation 101 in relation to legal centres, that the government review the funding arrangements for all community legal centres prior to the ACT budget, was only noted. I am not quite sure what “noted” means but it does not sound like a very fulsome endorsement of a very sensible recommendation. If we had a proper review of community legal services we might come up with some more coherent funding for them and perhaps some more predictable funding.
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal started operation in February 2009. Its intended purpose is sound. It brings together under one roof a large number of tribunals and boards. It consolidates the extensive and significant legal expertise that formerly was scattered across all the boards and tribunals. It centralises and shares resources. It is designed to make the process less formal, less costly and more accessible for clients. It is intended that the procedures and forms should be consistent across all areas.
Unfortunately, those ideals were not met when the ACAT started operation, and some of them are still unmet. The premises were not ready and they will not be ready until, I think, September. The forms were not ready. The procedures were not ready. The staff were not properly prepared for the changeover. There was a lack of synergy between the processes of ACAT and those of the courts, and costs have increased for some users.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .