Page 2954 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To return to the important question of legal aid in the ACT, the Canberra Times carried a story with Mr Ron Bannerman, the president of the commission, saying that the commission's plan to open a service in Belconnen was seriously at risk because of a lack of funds. We have heard about the service at Tuggeranong; but Belconnen, I gather, is still without a branch of the service. He also made the rather disturbing comment that restricted funds meant that "only people in the greatest need" could get legal aid, even though obviously there are many others who clearly fall within the guidelines and who, on the face of it, would deserve aid. They cannot obtain it, because the money is not enough.
That raises the critical question in this debate. Is not having enough money a good enough reason to say that we cannot provide aid? It is a vexing question which, I believe, has to be addressed by the Government. The report of the commission in 1990-91 was a bit more optimistic, I might point out.
It said:
The Commission is heartened by an improvement in the financial position since last year's report; we are no longer quite on a knife-edge.
Although funds are tight, the report went on to say, they believe that the judicial system could be fundamentally reformed to remove its costliness. That presumably is a matter which is now in front of the Assembly.
There are two main points of concern, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, which I want to refer to in respect of the question of the cost of justice. I think the Attorney, in his remarks, said that private sector lawyers are inherently more expensive, and that is true; but there is a very real question here about paying for what you get and paying more to get more. I am not in any way denigrating the people who work for the Legal Aid Commission, but they work under tremendous pressure. I would hate to be a lawyer in the Legal Aid Commission, because the amount of work being churned through by that office is enormous. It is not surprising that some people feel that by going to a private lawyer they can have more time spent on their problem, and perhaps they even feel that they would get a better result.
There are two problems with respect to the cost of justice question. One is that fees being paid to counsel by the commission at present are way below normal fees. There was a rule at one stage at least that 80 per cent of the amount normally being paid to counsel would be the amount that people doing work for Legal Aid would charge. I understand that that figure is just not relevant any longer; that it is frequently below that figure. I have to make the point that, if you expect lawyers who are getting much better money outside for other cases to work for 70 per cent or less, or whatever it might be, of what they get outside, there is a natural human assumption that you do not do the same amount of work if you are not getting the same amount of pay. There is also the concern that the staff members of the commission are being seriously underpaid, and the commission is relying very heavily on the dedication and loyalty of those staff simply to cover the ground that it needs to cover.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .