Page 3258 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In terms of the government’s response, which is why I brought this motion to the Assembly today, I feel that the response is inadequate. I note from the minister’s answers to questions in question time, and no doubt when he speaks, and looking at his amendment as well—I will go to that shortly—the government’s response is wishy-washy. It does not provide the clarity, the direction or, importantly, the resources that the DPP needs. We have heard it all before. We have argued in estimates reports, and in annual reports hearings and reports, for additional resources, for more support for the DPP, and we get weasel words from the government.
It is not good enough. We cannot simply be washing this away. We have a tri-party report telling the government to act, and they should. It is clearly needed, and it is clearly the will unanimously having regard to the report.
In response to those recommendations, with regard to the ability to make submissions directly, it was “agreed in principle”, and on the other two matters they were simply “noted”. God knows what that means: “noted”. It is not the sort of response that you would expect to these pleas from the DPP, because we know that they are not coming as a surprise.
In conclusion, I note that I have seen the amendment that will be moved by the Attorney-General. I will not be supporting that amendment because it does not go to the nub of the issues. It is just more weasel words. It just says, “Oh, we’re looking at it.” The government is saying that they are going to work closely with the DPP to consider its future funding. Well, they have been doing that for the past 15 or 16 years, haven’t they? They have been working closely with the DPP to consider their funding, and the result of that is: not enough. Basically, you are saying, “We’re going to continue to do what we’ve already been doing. And, by the way, we’re going to get back to the Assembly.”
We will know you have got back to the Assembly when you actually provide additional resources. So a response from the minister which says, “We’re just going to continue to work with the DPP,” when we know that that ongoing work has resulted in manifestly inadequate funding, is hardly a substantive or adequate response or a considered response from the government.
All I am asking is that the government take those three recommendations of a tri-party committee report, which I think are eminently reasonable, based on evidence that has been provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions over a period of years, and agree with those recommendations.
Rather than saying “noted”, or “agreed in principle”, you should say, “Yes, we will do it; we will act and we will restore balance to our justice system to make sure that the DPP, who is responsible in our justice system for bringing matters to prosecution, has the resources to do so.” Any other response from this government is weak and is not providing taxpayers’ resources where they are most urgently needed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video