ACT ATTORNEY-GENERAL Simon Corbell has rejected serious concerns raised by the ACT Law Society about his proposed Industrial Court.

Law Society president Noor Blumer criticised a draft version of legislation to establish the dedicated forum for workplace matters, only hours after Mr Corbell introduced it to the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday.

The Industrial Court is a key recommendation of the “Getting Home Safely” report into the high rate of deaths and injuries in the ACT construction industry.

Ms Blumer says the proposed arrangements for the court would be “counterproductive” to its aim, and that the consultation period for the draft Bill, which ends on May 26, is too short.

“The Society is willing to assist, but is concerned that the issue requires more time than that provided,” she says.

But Mr Corbell has rejected Ms Blumer’s key claim, that the new magistrate should focus on cases where employers are prosecuted following workplace incidents, and leave civil cases, where a person sues their employer for damages, to the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.

“First of all, [Ms Blumer] says [the draft] does not increase resources and that it loads [the court] up with new responsibilities, but that is not the case,” Mr Corbell says. “Already the Magistrates Court deals with most of these matters, the only difference will be that it will do that under a dedicated magistrate.”

The Attorney-General also rejected criticism of the proposed court hearing cases where a person sues their employer for more than $250,000 – currently dealt with in the Supreme Court.

“Secondly, only a very small number of matters are expected to come from the Supreme Court and in any event, the Industrial Court will be given the power to have those matters dealt with in the Supreme Court if they felt that was appropriate,” Mr Corbell said.

“And in relation to their claim that it’s difficult to understand extent of the court’s jurisdiction, it’s not difficult to understand. It’s very straightforward; I just think they don’t agree with it.”

Ms Blumer also warned that if the court heard two cases arising from the same incident – one a civil claim for damages and the other a prosecution for the same incident – both would be compromised.

But Mr Corbell says this is very unlikely and argues there are safeguards in the proposed law.

“This would be a really unusual event but to the extent that it could occur, the Chief Magistrate could allocate one of those matters to another magistrate or alternatively, the magistrate could refer that matter to the Supreme Court, so the Government has devised mechanisms in the Bill to deal with that scenario,” he says.

As of last night, Mr Corbell had not received a formal submission from the Law Society.

“We’re currently looking forward to more detailed and considered feedback … from the Law Society and others, and I look forward to receiving their submission and we’ll deal with that appropriately.”