Page 801 - Week 03 - Thursday, 25 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (11.15): I support the motion to extend the reporting date of the Legal Affairs Committee's inquiry into the accessibility of the justice system. However, I am disappointed that the request for this extension of time for this inquiry has been necessary. Members in this chamber, particularly Mr Moore, have commented on the work that the Legal Affairs Committee has done to date - three meetings since the commencement of this Assembly in March 1992. That is three meetings in almost 12 months. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the committee is not ready to report on its inquiry findings.
I am pleased to say, however, that the committee called for submissions in recent times and has scheduled public hearing dates for April. Mr Humphries, Mr Lamont and I are also bringing ourselves up to date with the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of February this year entitled "The Cost of Justice: Foundations for Reform", as mentioned by Mr Humphries. I anticipate that we will be busy with our work on the Legal Affairs Committee for some time in finalising this inquiry. I could spend some time speculating on the reason for the increased activity of this committee being due to my recent appearance on it, but I do not propose to dwell on the subject. I join with my fellow members of the Legal Affairs Committee in supporting the motion.
MR MOORE (11.16): I rise to support the motion and I use this opportunity to call on the committee to consider the possibility of something along the lines of the Medicare arrangement. Perhaps it could be called Legicare, or something along those lines. I think it would be worth while for the committee to consider that as an option because its responsibility is to ensure that there is wide access to the legal system, just as the Labor Party, in the Whitlam era, looked at how it could make health accessible to a full range of people. Their solution was Medicare which, by and large, most observers now consider to have worked extremely well. Of course, it is not without its warts; any system is going to require some modification and change.
In many ways it has been disappointing to me that this committee has not been able to work faster, but I must say that it is appropriate for the committee to consider what the Senate committee has brought down as part of its report on this matter. I hope that our committee will bring it down to a much tighter level, to how the cost of justice affects individuals. I look forward to the committee's report.
MR STEVENSON (11.18): I also support an extension of time for the committee. Mr Moore suggests that you could introduce a principle similar to Medicare. I think we would all agree that there needs to be a system that allows people to achieve justice. Some of us know that in the past newly graduated lawyers and people still in training would spend some of their time in helping people who needed help but could not afford the fees. I think that should be reintroduced.
Mr Moore: That way they get the most junior representation.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Moore mentions that in that way they get the most junior representation, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. A lot of the work that needs to be done does not involve appearing in court; it can be done by other people. One of the other benefits is that if the work is overlooked by more
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .