Page 1674 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are two points of detail I would like to make comment on. The first is the number of days in which the DPP must make the election. The amendment requires the DPP to make the election within 21 days. In the amendment I had drafted, I did not propose to create a time frame. However, in consultation with the legal profession, Mrs Dunne has imposed this legislative time frame. There was a suggestion made from those who will implement the framework that 42 days would be a better amount of time, and the attorney has made comment on that.
I believe there are arguments both ways, and I am satisfied that 21 days is an adequate time frame within which the DPP can make the election. If, after 12 months of operation, it is found to be too short, I expect that the Office of the DPP will make representations to the attorney. Alternatively, it is an issue that the two-year review can give further thought to, which brings me to the second point of detail I would like to make comment on.
As the scrutiny report has noted, the only way in which Mrs Dunne’s amendment will differ from my own materially is the two-year review created by the amendment. I think this is a useful amendment, as it is a chance for data to be gathered on how this framework is operating in the courts. I would hope that this data would have been collected in any event, but the legislative requirement is always a good guarantee that the work will be done and made publicly available for the benefit of members who come to look at this issue in the future.
To conclude on this amendment, the Greens support it. We believe it is a good framework to pass into law, and we look forward to seeing it operate in the courts and having the impact that we believe it will.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.59): I have just a few comments on some of the matters raised, principally the matter of whether 21 days is an appropriate period for election or not. The period of 21 days was one that was arrived at through discussion and consultation, which is something that the attorney is not very familiar with. I do note that about 10 days or a fortnight ago I was copied into some correspondence between the DPP and the Department of Justice and Community Safety, which I thought was somewhat unusual. It was quite clear to me that the DPP was sending me a message but it was not being done through conventional lines.
I have had a few problems over the years in actually being able to talk to the Director of Public Prosecutions on policy matters. My view, and the view of the Canberra Liberals, is that the DPP is an independent statutory office-holder, that he is not part of the Department of Justice and Community Safety and that members of this place should be able to have access to the DPP to discuss these matters.
I noted that I was being sent a message that said that the DPP had a different view and he had some reservations about the 21 days. So my office immediately approached the Attorney-General and asked the Attorney-General to facilitate a briefing and a discussion between my office and the Office of the DPP. And to this day, I have not received a response from the Attorney-General. I did take the view that I was open to having that discussion with the DPP. I think that 21 days is a reasonable time. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video