Page 1675 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
DPP is someone whose office I respect, and I respect the office-holder. He works very hard for the administration of justice in the ACT, and his role is very important.
I think it is very remiss of the Attorney-General that my request to be able to have a formal discussion with the DPP on this matter which he raised has gone unacknowledged, and that we are here today and the Assembly does not have the benefit of actually hearing at length the DPP’s views on this matter.
In anticipation of hopefully having that discussion, I went back to a range of people in the legal fraternity and asked them for their views on 21 days, as opposed to 42. The overwhelming view was that the matters that the DPP would elect to have dealt with summarily would be at the lower range for people who do not have an extensive criminal record and if there was any doubt the DPP probably would not be exercising an election and that these matters would be dealt with by the Supreme Court. On the basis of that, on the basis of the advice and the general belief that these would be straightforward matters and it would be clear to the DPP fairly early in the piece, I have elected to go with the 21 days rather than the 42.
I do note that the DPP is a very forthright officer who, because of his forthright views, always provides the most interesting annual report of any of the annual reports that one gets to read. I anticipate, as Mr Rattenbury does, that, if this matter presents a problem to him, he would report on that and he would bring it to the attention not only of the Attorney-General but of this place.
Through the officers of this place, I apologise to the Director of Public Prosecutions for not approaching him directly. I did ask for a briefing. I would have welcomed the discussion on this matter, and I think it is reprehensible that the attorney did not facilitate that.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services), by leave: I am not aware of any approach from Mrs Dunne in relation to this matter but I am happy to make inquiries as to whether or not that is indeed the case. But I am unaware of any such approach.
But I would like to place very clearly on the record what my approach is in relation to these matters. The DPP is an independent statutory officer, and it is a matter for him as to how he engages on these matters. He does so without direction from me, and it is entirely a matter for him how he chooses to do so.
I am aware that, generally speaking, the DPP chooses not to engage in policy debate because he considers that that is a matter properly for elected representatives in this place but he chooses, as I understand, when and how he seeks to inform that debate if he believes issues need to be brought to the attention either of the government or indeed of other members of this place.
But I can state very clearly that at no time do I or my office direct or require the DPP to engage or not to engage with other members of this place. That is a matter entirely for him, and it is matter that he and I have specifically discussed. The understanding
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video