Page 2323 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a key figure in the government of the day's circle, and then the DPP makes a quite appropriate decision not to proceed with such an action or not to entertain a suggestion that action should be commenced. If he does so, with a provision of the kind that the Government now proposes to insert in the Bill in place, whereby he is subject to direction by the Attorney-General, the question will arise as to whether he has made that decision because of the facts of the case, or whether he has made the decision because he is being leant on by the government of the day. I do not want to be in that position of that perception even arising. I think we are best advised to take the suggestion made by Mrs Carnell and put the DPP's position right outside the public service altogether.
MR MOORE (11.48): Madam Speaker, I think the real test of whether this is appropriate with reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions is whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is happy with it. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it very clear that he is able to express his opinion, and will express his opinion, even when it is contrary to the Government's. When I spoke to him yesterday, Madam Speaker, after his negotiations with the Government, I made it very clear to him that, if he so wished, I would continue to support the original version, or his most preferred position as he put it in his original letter to us and to the committee. I knew that Ms Szuty also would continue to support that position. In other words, he knew quite well that he had the choice of going to the position that the Government had presented and that he had negotiated or having greater independence. In the final analysis, the Director of Public Prosecutions is quite capable of making his own decision. Knowing that both options were available to him, he determined that the negotiations with the Government were satisfactory, and that is a satisfactory position.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I have been prepared to change my position since our round table discussion on Monday. The Director of Public Prosecutions made it quite clear to me that this is an acceptable position to him, and it does have considerable benefits for, particularly, the non-legal staff in his office. That is probably why he has accepted this position rather than going for a position similar to that of the Legal Aid Commission. So, Madam Speaker, I find this amendment appropriate under the circumstances.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (11.49): Madam Speaker, I have not intervened in this debate to date; but I think it is important that, as Attorney-General, I do so now, as we are coming to this core issue of the independence of legal agencies. I want to put to bed some myths that have been emerging with some fairly hysterical advertising that is going on around the Territory.
When the Public Sector Management Bill was in its early stages the Government had to make decisions about where to put the various legal agencies - whether we would have a statutory authority model or whether we would bring them under the core public service. In relation to the Legal Aid Commission, we had in effect a statutory authority model that had a separate basis of employment. We looked at the position in other States in Australia and there was a clear distinction there, with the smaller jurisdictions electing to start their Legal Aid Commission under the Public Service Act and the larger jurisdictions electing to go for a separate employment model. We have a small jurisdiction and it is a comparatively small office.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .