Page 2333 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another very grubby assertion that Mr Kaine made in the course of his remarks - it was surprisingly grubby - was his assertion that the Government had somehow interfered with the independence of the DPP. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Kaine has deliberately tried to confuse the legitimate and legal aspect of the DPP's role, his prosecutorial role, with other matters. He has tried to link the present public service control of staffing of the DPP with interference in the legal role of the DPP. That is simply not true and it is not a valid assertion to make.
Madam Speaker, it is the case that the DPP today, prior to the passage of this Bill, is staffed under the Public Service Act, as Mr Kaine established it to be. To the extent that that imposes discipline and constraints upon any instrumentality, yes, the DPP's Office has been under that discipline and those constraints, as Mr Kaine set it up to be. But to assert, as Mr Kaine did, that that somehow involves the Government in interfering in the legal matters being dealt with by the DPP is quite false and very misleading, and that was the clear import of his assertion. Madam Speaker, I find it very disappointing that Mr Kaine made those points.
The fact of the matter is that when the DPP becomes an autonomous instrumentality there will be two main benefits. The first is that the DPP, himself or herself, will be able to operate as the Commissioner for Public Administration operates in relation to other departments. In other words, they have a very high level of control over their own staffing matters. That is an advantage that, quite clearly, the DPP seeks, if you read his letter. He will be in charge of hiring and firing. He will be able to classify positions as he sees fit. He has that authority as an autonomous instrumentality.
The other big advantage - I give the DPP the benefit of perhaps having had second thoughts about this - of the autonomous instrumentality route is for the non-legal staff of the DPP's Office, the general staff. Not only will they enjoy the conditions and rights of other public servants; they also will have full mobility in their career choices - something which you would deny them by removing them altogether from the jurisdiction of this Bill. I believe that that is an advantage that we should take seriously, and I believe, Madam Speaker, that it is not altogether unlikely that the DPP also has seen the merits of that proposition.
I want to address the remarks that Mrs Carnell made in moving her amendment. Mrs Carnell's amendment addresses a number of other organisations. The first one that she mentioned was ACTTAB. To clarify the situation for members, as it appears that at least one of them does need clarification, Madam Speaker, the intention of the Government is that ACTTAB will be brought under the jurisdiction of this Bill on 1 January 1995. Let us be perfectly clear about that - 1 January 1995. In fact, Part 8 of Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Management (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill establishes that. It is on page 17 of the Bill. There is no mystery about it. That is our intention.
It is also equally clear, Madam Speaker, that, as a result of the Pearce inquiry, and subsequent to the Pearce inquiry, there have been some disruptions in the TAB. It is the Government's view that that ought to be given a chance to settle. We are equally clear that the staff at the TAB need to be brought under this Bill so that they also can enjoy the benefits of being within the Territory single employer status. There will be greater
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .