Page 4969 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(3) (a) E00522, E00523 – Executive 1.2; E00524 – Executive 1.3; E00525, E00526 – employment agency representative (initial filling); E00526 – Executive 1.2 (subsequent filling)
(b) Chief Executive.
Cahill, Mr Ron—judicial review
(Question No 1185)
Mrs Dunne asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 September 2010:
(1) In relation to the aborted judicial review and the police investigation into, and the assessment by the Director of Public Prosecutions, of the alleged improper conduct of former Chief Magistrate Ron Cahill, which agencies of the ACT Government became engaged in the process at all stages during those activities.
(2) What was the financial cost to each agency referred to in part (1).
(3) What was the cost to each agency in full-time equivalent (FTE) staff time and other non-financial resources.
(4) Did any agency engage temporary staff, contract staff or other staff or consultants to undertake any work associated with those activities; if so, (a) which agencies engaged these staff, (b) how many did each agency engage, (c) in what work were these staff engaged, (d) what was the FTE hours spent by these staff for each agency and (e) what was the cost for each agency.
(5) Did any agency seek any form of legal or other expert advice from sources external to government; if so, (a) which agencies sought that advice, (b) what was the nature of the advice sought for each agency and (c) what was the cost for each agency.
(6) In relation to the judicial review commission, (a) who were the appointees, (b) when did their appointments start, (c) when did their appointments terminate, (d) what was the cost of any fees paid to them and (e) what costs were associated with (i) administrative support, (ii) travel, (iii) accommodation, (iv) meals and (v) other.
Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The agencies of the ACT Government involved in the “aborted” judicial commission and the police investigation into the alleged improper conduct of former Chief Magistrate Cahill were:
(a) ACT Government Solicitor (ACTGS); and
(b) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (who referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation).
(2) (a) The financial cost to ACTGS in relation to the judicial commission was $11,661.96. This figure includes disbursements ($1,359.46), fees paid to counsel and counsel assisting the Commission, and the fees paid to Commission members (which are detailed further below).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video