Page 2949 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, why does not the Legal Aid Commission organise some representation for these people? How can an organisation supposedly dedicated to the equity and access principles that the Labor Government continually refer to not provide hopelessly vulnerable people with assistance? The answers are twofold and, unfortunately, very familiar - resources and priorities. During the last financial year the Legal Aid Office suffered an 8 per cent decrease in grants of legal aid. I am sure that no-one in this house needs reminding that more and more people are joining the ranks of the unemployed, homeless and poverty stricken, with the result that more and more people in our community are in need of legal aid.
The Commonwealth's attitude to legal aid is scandalous. That is ironic, of course, because it was under the Gough Whitlam Labor Government that the concept of legal aid was introduced. Recent newspaper articles have shown that similar problems encountered by other legal aid commissions around Australia are leaving an increasing number of people to fend for themselves with no representation. The articles have revealed much backslapping and whitewashing by those in government in those States. Justice is about equity for all, or are we living in an Animal Farm? Is this just a case of "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others"?
The recent and welcome changes in domestic violence legislation had consequential ramifications on the law courts, but the Legal Aid Commission did not receive consequential funding to deal with the increased demand. In 1990-91, $50,000 was offered to Legal Aid in the ACT by the Commonwealth on the proviso that the ACT Government matched it. They did, and that was a significant help in what, clearly, were trying times. However, since then, in 1991-92, 15 per cent more people than in the previous year applied for legal aid, and 8 per cent fewer than in the previous year were actually granted legal aid. No additional funding was forthcoming.
Our sympathy and understanding, I think, belong with more than those who cannot get the legal aid. I am confident that the very overworked and committed staff members of this organisation share this concern regarding this issue. Lawyers who work for such organisations are very special people. They are dedicated. I am sure that it disturbs them a great deal that some in our community are being denied the most basic right of having an advocate in the court. We should understand just how stressful they find it to have to deny assistance to certain people, due to lack of funds.
If the Government claims that it simply cannot afford to fund this organisation at the level it requires to enable justice for all, not just the lucky and the well-off, it needs, I guess, to reassess its social justice priorities. How can we expect justice until the prosecution and defence budgets are the same? This is a principle which really should be considered by the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs.
In order for a more realistic approach to be taken to the whole system, maybe fees charged by members of the bar should be reassessed, to find a way to allow all members of the community access to the law. This, in itself, would decrease the cost of legal aid, as it would not need to raise such enormous funds to provide defence for so many. But, rather than put the onus fully on lawyers and the Law Society, I think it is appropriate to recognise their current contribution in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .