Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 1861 ..

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (10.47): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and members. I appreciate the support. I was disappointed by Mr Berry's speech. Mr Speaker, I present the Director of Public Prosecutions (Amendment) Bill 1998, together with the explanatory memorandum.

Title read by Clerk.

MR MOORE: I move:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Mr Speaker, this Bill makes one simple amendment to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990. Under section 20 of the Act, the Attorney-General may make directions of a general nature to the Director of Public Prosecutions "with respect to matters relating to the performance and exercise by the Director of his or her functions or powers".

The effect of this is to have an impact on the laws which this Assembly has passed. Already we have had one situation where a directive was issued to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Act. Those members who were here at the end of the last Assembly may remember that Mr Humphries consulted widely and received agreement from all members to issue a directive to the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning passive euthanasia - the withdrawal of life support systems.

The history of that situation is that, when the Andrews Bill passed through the Federal Parliament, there was legal advice that one unintended impact of the Bill may have been to make the withdrawal of life support systems, passive euthanasia, rendered illegal in this Territory. As I recall, when the Prime Minister was approached by the Chief Minister about this concern, the Prime Minister's suggestion was that a directive be issued to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and indeed that is what followed.

But what that does, of course, is set out a precedent where the Director of Public Prosecutions can be given a directive. I think members will no doubt consider that is an appropriate method of dealing with the law under certain circumstances in the public interest. If that is the case, it should always be the prerogative of this Assembly to overturn the decision. When a matter is made a disallowable instrument, as in this legislation, it means that the instrument can be either disallowed or amended. Under that circumstance, the Assembly still has control over the laws and the way the laws are implemented in this Territory.

Members would also be aware that a director of public prosecutions has his or her own prerogative - his in our case - to make a decision on a prosecution. There are two grounds that are recognised internationally as to why a director of public prosecutions would decide not to proceed with a prosecution. The first is lack of evidence and the second is when it would not be in the public interest. That is a decision available to a director of public prosecutions, in addition to the ability of the Attorney-General to issue a directive.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .