Page 3089 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have spoken with a number of ACAT users, both in the legal fraternity and outside, and, to a person—yes, it was actually to a person—they have told me of the frustration of dealing with the ACAT. This is indicative of the government’s abject incompetence and failure in dealing with and managing the transition from the old to the new and managing projects and events generally. We have seen this in many other areas, such as the AMC, which Mr Hanson I am sure will deal with, the gas-fired power station, the GDE, the 2003 bushfires and more recent projects.
Any organisation that manages a project or event, or the transition from old to new, will review that management process and the outcomes in order to learn from them and improve the processes the next time around. If this government actually reviews anything, it does not learn from that process, much less make improvements for the next time.
I am concerned because the estimates committee made recommendations that the Attorney-General commission an independent review of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal after 12 months of its operation, including the activities undertaken during the transition period, and the commitee recommended that accountability indicators be developed for the ACAT and be reported on in the Department of Justice and Community Safety’s annual report 2009-2010. Whilst it has agreed to formulate performance measures, I am concerned that it has only agreed in part, and it is a very poor part indeed, to the recommendations for a review. The government, in its response, agreed to this recommendation but limited it to a review of the registry resources to be conducted by the department after the first 12 months. This undertaking has nothing whatsoever to do with the committee’s initial recommendations and it seems that the government has utterly missed the point.
Turning now to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is very pleasing to see the boost in funding for the DPP in this year’s budget, and I have spoken about this in the past. For a considerable period the DPP has struggled to retain staff, get through its workload and maintain a positive internal culture. The problems facing the DPP were sufficient to move the Canberra Times to report that the office of the DPP was in crisis. And indeed it was; it was probably on the verge of collapse. So the additional funding is indeed welcome. My fear is that, again, we have a government acting too late, coming to this far too late. And I am concerned that the situation in the DPP has deteriorated to such an extent that it may be irrecoverable.
Of most concern is that the increased funding does not make the DPP more competitive with its counterparts in other jurisdictions. The draw of higher salaries in other offices will always create a significant challenge for the DPP. This challenge will be helped if it can develop a culture within its office that makes it the employer of choice despite its inability to compete financially with its interstate and federal counterparts. The role of the DPP is crucial and the problems ahead confronting the DPP are significant.
I will just speak very briefly on the issue that was raised in the estimates commitee in relation to judicial appointments. I note that the attorney said that there was no role for the committees of the Assembly, and I think that this may be something that we should be looking at in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .