Page 469 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: I suppose mention of the word "asbestos" brings concern and, when it is in a school, maybe parents worry. When tiles were broken at Kambah and Wanniassa high schools we discovered that they were asbestos in part. We removed them promptly, and conveniently it happened during the Easter holidays. All the proper processes were carried out, and during the removal and subsequently there was air monitoring which shows that there is no problem remaining. There is a new ceiling, and the children continue to work well in an area that is environmentally sound.
Court Witnesses
MR CORNWELL: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. About a month ago, I think it was, some 17 people - members and staff, ex-members and ex-staff - were required to give evidence in a committal hearing in the ACT Magistrates Court. While some of us were placed on standby here at our place of employment - we were given half-an-hour's notice, that is, that we would be called upon, and I might add that I am grateful for the DPP arranging that - many others were standing around the court, literally, for several days. My question is: Is there any way that we can improve these procedures and so reduce the time of witnesses - I include the police in this - having to stand around near the court, which is extremely wasteful, as you can imagine, and which also, I suggest, is possibly a disincentive for people to be involved in matters that come before the courts?
MR CONNOLLY: It is a good question from Mr Cornwell. The particular matters are of some sensitivity, and I must be very careful in my comment, for obvious reasons. The Director of Public Prosecutions has the carriage of calling witnesses, and he - I say "he" because it is a he - is an independent office holder and is not subject to directions from government. To some extent, the speed of the committal depends on the speed at which the prosecution puts its case or the defendant, or the defendant's solicitor, cross-examines. When you have a matter in which the defendant is taking a large amount of time doing one thing or another, or when proceedings are closed for some hours when there is a cross-appeal into the Supreme Court, or for whatever other reason the process slows down, it makes it very difficult for the DPP to be able to predict accurately when people are required. They certainly try to do that, and I understand that they tried to do it with all members and staff in relation to these present matters.
It raises a question generally about committal proceedings which is of some concern to me. I think we are at a point, particularly in this Territory but also in Australia generally, at which committal proceedings are going on for too long and at which there are some major commercial types of matters - white-collar crime, if you like - because committals have gone on for years but the matter is never brought before a jury. I think it is a challenge for law enforcement authorities and governments across Australia to speed the process up. It is frustrating, but it is part of the right of any accused to call a person for cross-examination. While what you say is right - it may be a disincentive for people to attend to give evidence - the accused has a right to subpoena you; so whether it is a disincentive or not is not the point. The defendant has a right to call a person to court to give evidence. It is part of the system, and we have to try to make the system work more smoothly. There is no easy solution.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .