Page 1940 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is also a concern about the question of Commonwealth prosecutions. This Bill in the early provisions makes a number of amendments that expand the powers of the DPP to conduct a number of activities. On a simple level, they include attending meetings of the Parole Board of the ACT or representing or acting as agent for the Commonwealth director. We retain that Commonwealth link, I notice. There is also a very useful catch-all provision dealing with the doing of anything incidental or conducive to the performance of another function. That is also appropriate.
A provision has been included by the insertion of a new paragraph (fa) in section 6 of the principal Act which allows the director, in effect, to prosecute offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and to conduct those sorts of prosecutions where it is appropriate in his capacity as ACT DPP. It occurred to me that that might not go far enough, and I have circulated an amendment that I will move in the detail stage. There are two versions of this amendment; the latest one says "Revised" at the top and does not contain a second originally envisaged paragraph.
The amendment provides for the DPP to be able to have the power to conduct himself in relation to proceedings for contempt of a court or for an order requiring a person to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or be of good behaviour. There are good reasons why those sorts of functions need to be within the DPP's ambit, and I will come to that in the detail stage rather than now.
It concerns me that there appear to be very embryonic arrangements in place for dealing with the ACT DPP's capacity to act both as ACT DPP and as Commonwealth agent. For example, I am advised that where on occasions the ACT officer conducts Commonwealth prosecutions, that is, prosecutions for Commonwealth offences, there are no adjustments made in the Commonwealth relations with the ACT for that function. There is, in a sense, no mechanism for him to recover the cost of doing those prosecutions.
Mr Connolly: Knock for knock.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think the Attorney is telling me that there is some kind of knock-for-knock arrangement. It is assumed that the swing will counteract the roundabout and we will get there at the end of the day. That might not be the case in the future and, if it is not the case, then perhaps we should be a little more precise about the way in which we handle those questions of balancing the respective responsibilities of our ACT officer.
The point I am making is that it is clear that there will continue to be a merging of those two roles. There will continue to be some, in a sense, Commonwealth roles for the ACT officer and perhaps some ACT roles for the Commonwealth officer. Where that happens, it may be that we need to consider arrangements that are more flexible than those we have at the moment, and perhaps some of these option-closing-off provisions in this Bill should not be proceeded with at this time.
I think I have said enough about the substantive Bill. It will be appropriate to debate some of those provisions concerning the amendment I am proposing during the detail stage. There is a second amendment that I was going to proceed with, but I will not now do so. I understand that it is the proposal of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .