Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 54 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Mr Speaker, after this debate, I intend to seek leave to move this motion:

That the Assembly:

(1) condemns the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Federal Government for breaking an election promise and cutting funding for legal aid services;

(2) calls on Mr Howard to restore the funding that he promised and so ensure that justice and equity are available to all in the community.

I have read that out because I do not intend to redo the debate if the Assembly gives me leave to move that motion. This is, therefore, something in the nature of a cognate debate, certainly from my point of view.

Mr Speaker, I am sure we all acknowledge the necessity for legal aid. It is fundamental to ensuring equity in the delivery of justice in the ACT. I might make an aside that, of course, money can buy the very best legal advice, and money is a factor in that equation. Time and time again it is shown that the very best legal advice can get people out of difficult circumstances. The legal aid system provides necessary and vital aid to people who cannot afford it and who would not otherwise qualify for legal assistance. I acknowledge that there are some strains in the present delivery, in that there is never really enough money. The legal aid commissions constantly point out that the money is not available in sufficient amounts to do all that should be done.

It is important to note that progressively, over many years, the ACT, as have the States and other Territories, has reached a reasonably good legal aid structure. Let me emphasise that word "structure". I am not commenting here on the level of funds that may be provided. There is a high level of coordination and cooperation and there is a generally satisfactory process in place to overcome the overlapping legal boundaries that exist. Here, as in the States, the legal aid committees distribute funds provided by both Commonwealth and State or Territory governments. That sound structure is at risk. It is a very important structure and one that ought to be maintained if at all possible. State Attorneys, as has the ACT Attorney, have threatened to withdraw from the present scheme and establish their own legal aid commissions. We all understand the ramifications that would have, and it would be a very difficult situation for people seeking legal aid to have to deal, in some circumstances - perhaps in many circumstances - with two legal aid commissions.

Mr Humphries is right to complain bitterly because, once again, the ACT has been badly treated by this Federal Government. I think the ACT Attorney has been acting with a degree of brinkmanship on this matter, as States have been doing, too, by saying they would establish their own commissions. It is not a path, I am sure, anybody would want to take. The threat to the Federal Government is a very strong one - I would expect it should be - because the implication of separate bodies is to take us back many years to much less satisfactory situations. As Mr Humphries had displayed this brinkmanship,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .