Page 2953 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Legal Affairs Committee of this Assembly is currently conducting an inquiry into the question of the cost of justice, and we hope to report within the time prescribed in the terms of reference. On the other question - are we providing enough? - we have already heard from the Attorney, who has indicated that we would like to provide more if we possibly could. We do not have unlimited amounts of money.
I think the point that Mr Moore is raising in this debate is: How much is the minimum you need to provide a decent service? If you cannot provide enough, do you exclude people or do you cut out the quality of the service that you are providing? Is it tolerable to have people who miss out? That is a question which I think it is impossible for us to answer in a debate like the one today. Justice is, unfortunately, very expensive. There is little point in establishing a legal system to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done, if access to that system is restricted merely to the rich. Our legal aid system is based on the premise that those who cannot afford to obtain access to the legal system through their own resources should be able to turn to a system like the legal aid system to give them that access.
Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, the 1990-91 annual report of the Legal Aid Commission stated that there had been large increases in the demand for legal aid services. From 1989-90 to 1990-91 applications for legal aid increased by 11.7 per cent. Grants of legal aid rose by 13.8 per cent - that is, I assume, a total dollar figure; that is, there was a 13.8 per cent increase in the amount of aid actually granted in dollar terms - and people given duty lawyer assistance rose by 16.2 per cent. The total number of cases dealt with "in house" - that is, by employed lawyers on the staff of the Legal Aid Commission - rose from 1,240 to 1,361. The demand for services certainly appears to be increasing at a greater rate than is funding. The commission's report for 1989-90 warned that the continuation of a satisfactory service seemed to be at risk because the commission's functions were expanding but funding was not available to keep up with that expansion.
We have seen plenty of headlines in our time about the problems of legal aid, and I will not reiterate them here. I will mention, however, that in April this year the Canberra Times carried a story quoting the president of the ACT Legal Aid Commission - - -
Mr Kaine: I raise a point of order, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker. Could you ask the Labor Party to have its caucus somewhere else while we discuss this matter of public importance?
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Grassby): Thank you very much, Mr Kaine.
Ms Ellis: At least we are all here. You all disappeared before.
MR HUMPHRIES: At least we are mentally all here.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: That could be debatable.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am sure that the Chair would not deem to debate a question like that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .