Page 4946 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second point relates to what Mr Collaery said when he mentioned a particular case. Certainly, the Winchester inquiry was another case in point. Any large inquiry or trial, especially where someone is legally aided, causes a lot of money to be expended. Quite often, $100,000, $200,000, $400,000 or $500,000 might be expended by a small Territory like the ACT in terms of legally aided people involved in one particular matter. When you are looking at a budget of about $4.5m, it is a very big problem to make sure that the money actually goes around. Looking at what happened, for example, in the Winchester inquiry - and I have certainly seen it in some other major trials and major cases - where people receive legal aid, it certainly can rack up a quite considerable bill. That is something that I think any government has to be wary about.
It is difficult to see, when one wants to ensure that everyone has access to justice, exactly how we overcome that. But, certainly, a lot of money which perhaps was overspent by the Commonwealth in this area cannot be overspent by the Territory. In relation to the Winchester inquiry, for example, I do not think that the ACT should have had to pay even the $400,000. Colin Winchester was killed before we had self-government. He was head of the local part of the AFP, which is, legally, a Federal body. I really think that those inquiry costs should have been borne in toto by the Commonwealth.
I have no further comments to make in relation to the legal aid matters; but I think, certainly, there is some merit in Mr Collaery's comments when he alluded to a lot of money being spent in just one or two cases in this particular area. That is something that this small Territory will have to watch.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.13): Mr Collaery made the point in his remarks about the high cost of transcript. Being mindful of that, I will respond only briefly. It is a matter of pride to the Labor Government that, in a time of economic restraint when there has been severe pressure on the ACT budget across the board and cuts have had to be made in a number of areas, we have been able to maintain the legal aid vote in real terms and, indeed, increase it, marginally, in real terms.
The vote this year of $4.7m represents an increase of some $400,000-odd on last year's appropriation. Particularly given the difficult times the Government finds itself in economically, it is a mark of pride for a government committed to a social justice strategy that the important area of legal aid - acknowledged as important by both Mr Collaery and Mr Stefaniak - has been able to be not only maintained but marginally increased, in stark contrast with the approach of, say, the Greiner Liberal Government in New South Wales, which has slashed into the legal aid budget.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .