Page 3256 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
… there is a valid argument for ensuring the DPP’s funding enables it to meet increasing prosecution service requirements to a high standard. The Committee particularly notes the increased workload for the DPP likely to arise from other associated investments in the criminal justice system.
In light of the DPP’s comments in committee hearings, and his comment in the 2015-16 DPP Annual Report that resources in his office have reached ‘critical level’, the Committee believes that efficiency dividends—
so the committee certainly identified efficiency dividends—
should not be applied to the office of the DPP.
The Committee recommends that Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions be excluded from the application of the efficiency dividend, and that all programs in this area be maintained or expanded as required to achieve the stated policy outcome.
I urge the Attorney-General to heed that tripartisan committee recommendation. Simply saying “noted” or “agreed to in principle” is just not good enough.
The Attorney-General was away when we asked this question. The response from the Chief Minister that no efficiency dividend was being applied was flippant and it was a really insulting approach. The reality is that JACS is being asked to provide $4.9 million in what is being called an “efficiency”. The DPP themselves called it an efficiency dividend. The committee report identified it as an efficiency dividend. It is variously referred to as an “efficiency measure” or just an “efficiency”.
With respect to saying that it is not being termed as an efficiency dividend, when you go to the technical definition of efficiency dividends, it is quite clear from the department of finance regulation that this is what is being applied, no matter what you want to call it. It is $4.9 million being applied on the JACS Directorate. As we know, $228,000 of it is being applied on the DPP.
It is important to address the issue, and the response that we got from the Chief Minister was not helpful to the debate. Let us accept that cutting funding is bad enough, but trying to play weasel words does not help the situation.
The DPP has made it clear in his submissions that one of the issues facing his office with the lack of funding is that it means he cannot attract senior prosecutors. He said the resources on offer would only provide for—and I quote:
… one grade 4 prosecutor … goes nowhere near meeting the needs of the office … in the context of continuing efficiency measures …
I repeat: “continuing efficiency measures”. That is in light, as I have discussed already, of the increased load being placed on his office, including the new courts, an additional judge, more police officers and additional jury rooms at the new court. All of those elements need additional resources, and all of those elements have additional resources, except for the DPP. What we know is that they are being cut.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video