Page 2332 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MS FOLLETT: Mr Kaine asserted that the Government had "leant on" the Director of Public Prosecutions to accept the Government's position on the coverage of the DPP under this Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth, Madam Speaker. Had Mr Kaine not let his ill humour run away with him, it would have been perfectly obvious to him that the Government was, firstly, in no position to lean on anybody. We, quite clearly, did not have sufficient votes on the floor of this Assembly to have our view on this matter prevail.
Madam Speaker, it was very clear, from the beginning of the debate on this issue, that the majority of members of this Assembly wished to have the DPP treated differently from the way first proposed by the Government. We heard from Mr Moore that he had put to the Director of Public Prosecutions whether he wished to proceed with the autonomous instrumentality provisions or do something else. We heard from Mr Moore that the DPP wished to proceed with the autonomous instrumentality provisions. Clearly, Madam Speaker, Mr Kaine does not believe Mr Moore. I do. I do because, first of all, I have found Mr Moore to be an honourable man. I also have before me the correspondence between Ms Webb and Mr Crispin. This goes to another issue raised by Mr Kaine, of how happy Mr Crispin was. I can inform you, precisely, how happy Mr Crispin is about the new provisions, Madam Speaker. I will quote from this correspondence. Mr Crispin said to Ms Webb, on 21 June:
I have examined the proposals and am generally satisfied as to their adequacy.
He went on to raise two issues which he wished Ms Webb to clarify further. Those issues were, first of all, whether or not he could create a class of employee entitled Public Prosecutor remunerated at around the SES Band 1 level. The second issue Mr Crispin addressed was whether there was the power to impose conditions in relation to temporary employees under clause 108(4) or whether that needs amendment. Those were the only two issues raised by Mr Crispin. Ms Webb responded to Mr Crispin and said:
I am advised that Sections 80 and 108(4) contain powers that will be available to you as an autonomous instrumentality ...
Hence, the Bill does not need further amendment. Mr Crispin concluded his letter of the 21st with these words:
Subject to these matters -
that is, those two matters which we now know have been satisfactorily resolved -
and, of course, to the precise terms of the amendments proposed I am happy to agree to the Government's proposals.
Madam Speaker, I take him at his word.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .