❓ A parliamentary question seeks details about a review of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, including reasons for the review, identified deficiencies, Fiona Low's role, and related staffing and financial decisions. The answer provides context for the review, clarifies responsibilities, and explains staffing and payout details.
AnsweredQoN 672Legislative Council
Asked
21 September 2005
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney
General
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the response given by the Attorney General to question without notice 640 asked on Thursday, 15 September 2005. (1) Why did the Attorney General initiate a review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in January 2005? (2) As per the recommendations of the review, in what respects were the services of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said to be deficient; in particular, what underlay the “critical recommendation” concerning the “urgent need for some restructuring of the senior management of the office”? (3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(1) Why did the Attorney General initiate a review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in January 2005? (2) As per the recommendations of the review, in what respects were the services of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said to be deficient; in particular, what underlay the “critical recommendation” concerning the “urgent need for some restructuring of the senior management of the office”? (3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(2) As per the recommendations of the review, in what respects were the services of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said to be deficient; in particular, what underlay the “critical recommendation” concerning the “urgent need for some restructuring of the senior management of the office”? (3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(1) Why did the Attorney General initiate a review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in January 2005? (2) As per the recommendations of the review, in what respects were the services of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said to be deficient; in particular, what underlay the “critical recommendation” concerning the “urgent need for some restructuring of the senior management of the office”? (3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(2) As per the recommendations of the review, in what respects were the services of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said to be deficient; in particular, what underlay the “critical recommendation” concerning the “urgent need for some restructuring of the senior management of the office”? (3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(3) To what extent was Fiona Low responsible for those deficiencies? (4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(4) An internally initiated review of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2002 by the firm Deakin Consulting Pty Ltd recommended the creation of positions of Director of Legal Services, with responsibility for management of the legal practice, and Director of Corporate Services, with responsibility for management of corporate resources. In response to this recommendation, has a Director of Corporate Services been employed in the Office of the DPP since 2002; and, if not, why not? (5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(5) Given that Fiona Low prematurely resigned on her own initiative from her position within the Office of the DPP on Friday, 12 August 2005, was Ms Low provided with a financial payout; and, if so, how much was the payout and why was it provided. (6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(6) Given that Fiona Low’s resignation was due to the new structure within the Office of the DPP, has a Director of Corporate Services been appointed since 12 August 2005; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(1) It was apparent by the later part of 2004 that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to manage the performance of its functions within its budget; therefore, after discussion with the Under Treasurer and the DPP, the Attorney General felt it important to have a review of its operations so that requests for additional resources could be properly evaluated. (2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(2) Although the size and scope of the Office of the DPP’s legal practice has grown significantly, the review revealed that the administrative and corporate functions of the office had been held constant or cut. Treasury reported that there was a flawed senior executive structure with no senior executive position responsible for the management or control of the corporate and administrative functions. (3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(3) Ms Low was not responsible for the deficiencies. (4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(4) Despite extensive attempts to recruit a Director of Business Services, as recommended by Deakin Consulting, no appointment has been possible. After an extensive recruitment process in 2003, an appointee declined the position only days before he was due to commence. Attempts by the DPP and the recruitment agency failed to identify any other appropriate persons for appointment at the level for which funding was available. (5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(5) Ms Low was provided with the sum of $358 755.51, being her accrued entitlements and 12 months’ salary on the basis that no position exists for her in the new structure. (6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
(6) An acting appointment to the office of Director, Corporate Services was made on 18 July 2005 and the position has recently been advertised for a permanent appointment.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.