TASMANIA'S Parliament should tread carefully in moving to scrap lifetime appointments for the most powerful prosecutor in the state.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
There is always the chance it won't.
If the object of power is power itself, then whittling away the independence of rival institutions sometimes proves irresistible for politicians.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is an incredibly powerful figure, attracting a bigger salary than the premier and one equal to the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
The DPP's function is to undertake criminal court proceedings on behalf of the state against those accused of crimes.
Every indictment, whether it be for murder, fraud or arson, is signed by the DPP.
Lawyers for the DPP appear in court against defendants.
In serious enough cases, the DPPs themselves quite often take the matter on.
It's hardly surprising then that they are meant to be independent from executive government.
Imagine a DPP who wasn't and went about doing the bidding of politicians via criminal prosecutions.
To establish their independence, DPPs are given a tonne of cash and a lifetime appointment, terminating, like that of a judge, at the age of 72.
But that's about to change with the government to introduce time limits on how long a person can serve as the DPP.
The move was triggered by events that saw the state's last DPP, Tim Ellis, SC, brought up on a charge of death by negligent driving.
Launceston's Natalia Pearn was tragically killed in 2013 when Ellis's car moved on to the wrong side of the Midland Highway and collided with her hatchback.
Tasmania's second only DPP was found guilty after what felt like, especially for the Pearn family, an exhausting legal saga, and then sacked.
Undoubtedly the episode highlighted areas where the laws governing the role of the DPP need attention. But changing the length of tenure isn't one of them.
It's hard to imagine how a limited tenure would have changed anything about the Pearn case, let alone ease any of the community angst that arose during the ordeal.
Instead, the government should look at fixing the ambiguity surrounding how a DPP can be removed from office. Currently the test is "misbehaviour". I don't know what that means and obviously neither did the government when it took a month to work out if it could fire Ellis even after he was found guilty.
Another area is remuneration. Perhaps a DPP suspended until further notice should have their $450,000 salary downsized to something more commensurate with not actually working.
The government is apparently close to introducing the time-limited tenures.
If this is the case, where's the public consultation? After all, the DPP prosecutes on behalf of the people.
Supporters of a limited term for Tasmania's DPP point to New South Wales, which introduced a 10-year maximum for its top prosecutor in 2007.
What's not pointed out is the absolute fear and loathing the then NSW Labor government (yes that one) had for the fiercely independent DPP.
During his 16 years, Nicholas Cowdery, QC, was often an outspoken critic of the government's tough-on-crime policies and underfunding of the legal system.
The NSW government couldn't wait to get rid of him.
Supporters say introducing set terms is about bringing Tasmania "into line" with other states, but, as NSW showed, sometimes it's more about pulling the DPP into line.