Page 2951 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have to say one thing at the outset and take some issue with Mr Moore's example that he gave at the opening of his remarks. It was a very emotive example. He said that there is a young unemployed person in Canberra who has been brought before the Supreme Court and is facing a major trial in coming weeks; that he had no choice in being there; that he has no legal aid; and that this is a terrible thing. I wish that Mr Moore had raised this particular instance with me bilaterally before raising it here. I said, "I will give you the real facts of that case". If he was assuming that I was going to give you chapter and verse, name and charges, I obviously would not do that. That would be sub judice and it would potentially prejudice the trial. Without identifying the person, without identifying the charge or how it arises, I must say this: That person has elected to go to the Supreme Court for a matter that is normally dealt with in the Magistrates Court. He has elected to go to a jury trial which may last three days.
When we looked at the DPP's annual report earlier this year we saw that only a fraction of the criminal charges in this Territory are dealt with by jury trial in the Supreme Court. If all citizens asserted their right to a jury trial every time, the system could not cope, let alone Legal Aid. We would need a legal aid budget, instead of in the $4m to $5m range, in the $100m range. We would not need four judges; we would need 40 judges. The system would collapse. When an individual chooses, and they have a right to choose, to go to the Supreme Court and to have a matter that could be dealt with in the Magistrates Court instead dealt with before a jury over a period of days, that is their choice; but it does not necessarily follow that that application for legal aid will be granted a priority, because all applications are assessed.
Our record on legal aid in this Territory, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, is a proud one. On the last national figures that are available, which are in a publication Legal Aid in Australia 1990-91 - Statistical Yearbook published by the Office of Legal Aid and Family Services in the Attorney-General's Department, compared with a national average of $12.99 per capita spent on legal aid, the ACT spends $14.85 per capita. We are exceeding the per capita national expenditure by some 14 per cent. Our figures on the number of persons who get access to legal aid again are well above the national average. We provide 20.1 free advices to citizens per 1,000 population, compared with a national figure of 12.1. We provide, statistically oddly, precisely 1.000 grants of legal aid per 1,000 head of population, compared with a national figure of 0.86. So, in all areas, our legal aid effort is greater than that of the States.
Needless to say, we could do more with more money. It would be better if we had a system where more legal aid could be granted. I am sure that Mr Moore, Mr Humphries and I would agree on that, but we do not have unlimited pockets in the ACT. We all know the ACT budgetary situation. I am proud that this Labor Government has continued a proud record of funding the ACT Legal Aid Office at a level well in excess of the national average. We have something like 14 per cent above the per capita national average.
One of the reasons why we are able to do as well as we do in providing services is that the Legal Aid Office, as Mr Staniforth explained to members of the Estimates Committee, is increasingly moving away from referring out matters to private practitioners, which is very expensive, and is using its in-house counsel. Again in the last year at which we had national comparison, 54 per cent of ACT legal aid
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .