Page 2217 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Despite the fact that we stand up very well in comparison with other State jurisdictions in terms of legal aid funding, the system remains under considerable pressure. It is essential that the Legal Aid Commission, with the responsibility of providing assistance to Canberra citizens, and to others, act in as efficient a way as possible. I say "and to others" because from time to time there is criticism when the Legal Aid Commission provides legal assistance to persons who come into conflict with the law in the ACT but are not Canberra residents or Canberra citizens.
It is sometimes suggested that government should impose directives that say that only a Canberra citizen should be entitled to ACT legal aid. That system would be in conflict with principles around Australia. If we were to say that somebody visiting Canberra who comes into conflict with the law is to be denied legal aid here, even if they are imprisoned here, we would also be saying that Canberra citizens or residents who travel interstate and come into conflict with the law are to be denied legal aid. So the principle of providing legal aid in the criminal context to persons who may not reside in Canberra but have come into conflict with the law here is an important one and must continue.
These reforms will allow the Legal Aid Commission to operate in a more efficient manner. We are reducing somewhat the size of the Legal Aid Commission, which will allow it to operate more effectively. The important power, which Mr Humphries referred to extensively, is that ability of the commission to secure contributions by a charge over property. Mr Humphries this afternoon suggested that that may need to be closely watched. We obviously would not want to see persons being taken advantage of by such a power. Theoretically, I suppose that that could happen, but I am confident that the commission would not operate in such a manner. At the conclusion of Mr Humphries's comments on that point I think he expressed a similar confidence, but we will obviously keep an eye on how that operates. Madam Speaker, there was an amendment foreshadowed. Is that to proceed?
Mr Humphries: Yes.
MR CONNOLLY: There is an amendment foreshadowed which I will refer to at this point.
Mr Humphries: I have not yet referred to it.
MR CONNOLLY: I will deal with the amendment when it comes up. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the Assembly as a way of strengthening the already very effective Legal Aid Office that we have in this Territory.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .