Page 3081 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Community Safety Directorate did say in this regard, “We were looking for efficiencies in things like stationery and the like but if we cannot find the efficiencies in stationery, then we will have to start finding it in front-line services.” It is interesting that you get one message from the ministers and the government saying the efficiency dividend should not affect front-line services, but in a way what more front-line service can you find than the parliamentary counsel’s office?
To ensure that our statute book is of the highest possible quality, to ensure that it all works, is an onerous and important job and all of us in this place and the people of the ACT depend upon them to get it right. But Mr Corbell washes his hands and says it is not really a problem for him; it is up to the agencies to find where they make the cuts. But I would submit that making cuts to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is not in the best interests of the people of the ACT.
I am concerned about some of the issues that are arising in the Office of Regulatory Services. We have had the back-door attempts to reform the security industry through an omnibus bill, with the no ticket, no start; you have to get the union’s tick-off before you can get a security industry licence.
I am also concerned whether the Office of Regulatory Services is well enough equipped to deal with the blue card arrangements in relation to proposed working with vulnerable people’s legislation. I am also concerned, because I am starting to sense that there is a proliferation of these schemes. While Minister Burch is struggling to get the working with vulnerable people’s legislation off the ground—and I will speak more about that when we get to Community Services—I did notice today that the minister for education is introducing amendments to the Teacher Quality Institute process, which is all about police checks.
I do start to wonder: if we are going to set up this agency within the Office of Regulatory Services, why don’t we have a unified approach to police checks, having one agency do it? And I am concerned that we have the duplication of services. I did note that the attorney, in the introduction to a bill this morning in relation to the security industry, was talking about the cost of implementing fingerprint scanning technology and some hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy fingerprint scanning technology, presumably for the Office of Regulatory Services. (Second speaking period taken.) If the police already have this technology, are we duplicating our effort?
Mr Rattenbury dwelt at length on the courts and the issues in relation to courts and tribunals and the backlog in the courts. This is an issue which shows that this Attorney-General just cannot get things done. He sort of takes the attitude, “I’m from the government and I can get things done.” But look at his record. Last budget we had the virtual district court, which was more than a virtual flop from the day that it arrived. There was nobody in this town, apart from Mr Corbell and his advisers—presumably his advisers think it is a good idea—who had a good word to say for the virtual district court. The Bar Association, the Law Society, individual lawyers lined up to take a shot at the virtual district court. The Greens, the Liberal Party, no-one had a good word to say for a flawed and ill-considered proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video