Page 1939 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the case that there are good questions about how the ACT should proceed with respect to services such as this. We have had the question of the Human Rights Office, we have had a number of agencies that have equivalent Commonwealth personalities or formations, and we have decided in certain cases to reproduce those in the ACT and in certain cases not to. I recall being part of the Alliance Cabinet that considered whether we should do the same thing here. We came to the view that there ought to be a separate ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, and the present Government is now building on that by making some amendments to the DPP Act to strengthen that position.
It is the case that presumably two governments have considered the question of how best to handle the function of the DPP, and it appears that both governments have decided that the DPP ought to be an ACT function and it ought to be conducted by an ACT officer rather than a Commonwealth officer. That raises the question whether that decision is absolutely irrevocable and beyond question. If the answer is yes, then clearly we should proceed with all the reforms that appear in this Bill. If, on the other hand, we take the view that perhaps this question is not finally settled, or there is some doubt about what the best arrangement would be for the ACT into the future, it may be better not to make some of the changes that are contained in this Bill.
This Bill goes through a number of sections in the present DPP Act and removes references to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. In other words, it removes the option for an ACT government to use the Commonwealth DPP as the ACT DPP. I wonder whether that is entirely wise. The Alliance Government - and I was part of that Government - made the decision at that time that there should be an ACT DPP. But we also accepted that there was some argument about the matter, and that perhaps in the course of time another decision might be appropriate.
I must say that I do not take the view that we should be rushing those changes to the law which effectively prevent an ACT government from going back to another arrangement. This does nothing to enhance the way in which the ACT DPP operates. It merely limits the capacity of a government in future to choose a different course of action. I think it is unwise to do that at this stage. I would rather see us retain those provisions that provide for ACT prosecutions by the Commonwealth DPP, in the event that in the future some government may see that as being appropriate.
There are other amendments in these provisions that are less open to that contention. There is the very sensible provision for the DPP to engage in outside employment without voiding his office. It is the case often that a DPP may wish to engage in certain functions that might legally be construed as taking paid employment from an outside source. The DPP may, for example, give advice to government departments or to others, even on a personal basis. In those circumstances, he would be aghast, as would we, I hope, at the thought that by doing so he might be deemed to have engaged in paid employment or practice as a legal practitioner and thereby remove himself from office, under the provisions of the Act. These amendments remove that possibility.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .