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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 55 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

I, last week, expressed my concern that we must always have in mind the people who come seeking legal aid. That is the end result - the people who need that aid. It may be that Mr Howard cares as little for them as he does for the ACT, but they could be left in the lurch. I have not seen much that Mr Howard has done in the year he has been in government which has shown much concern for the ACT or for the battler that he spuriously claims to represent. My concern is that, if Mr Humphries and other Attorneys do separate and establish their own bodies, there is no guarantee that Mr Howard's Government would then go their own way and fund their own bodies. I do not know that there is any guarantee that if this happened in the ACT there would be a body established to look after ACT people in Commonwealth-related legal aid matters. That is why I have a concern about the end result.

I was, therefore, pleased yesterday, after a meeting between the Federal and ACT Attorneys, that Mr Humphries has held off, because there is still some time to debate these issues. I was not, of course, at that meeting yesterday, but I have a pretty good idea of what happened. Mr Humphries might correct me if he wants to make it public when he speaks in this debate. The report on radio and in the print medium, which obviously had more space to provide, was very vague - and necessarily very vague - because I do not think Mr Humphries or Mr Williams said much at all. But I would expect at that meeting that Mr Humphries told Mr Williams where he was wrong in that Elizabeth Jackson interview last week on the ABC. I would think Mr Humphries, in addition to referring to his media releases, told Mr Williams exactly where he was wrong; where, like Mr Howard on a different matter, he misled those people who were listening. Mr Howard a week or so ago, you may recall, on television was misleading the community that was watching. Mr Humphries told Mr Williams where he was wrong. I am sure Mr Williams, as an intelligent person, resolved that in future he would read the letters that he signed, because clearly he had not read the letter that he signed off to Mr Humphries; or, if he had read that letter, he might take a course, as Mr Howard should, to improve his memory, because clearly when answering questions on the Elizabeth Jackson program he had forgotten what was in that letter.

As to the outcome of that meeting, I am sure Mr Williams made some conciliatory statements to Mr Humphries but then pointed out to Mr Humphries that he had two very significant constraints; the first one being that Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, had undercut him. There were suggestions that there might be some sort of reconsideration and that Mr Howard had perhaps, without any consideration or discussion, gone on television and said there would be no changes. That is a very severe constraint for the Commonwealth Attorney and maybe he has to go back and try to convince Mr Howard. The second constraint that no doubt he told Mr Humphries of was that if he takes some action here, notwithstanding that the ACT is particularly disadvantaged or likely to be particularly disadvantaged, he has to win a case with the States and Territories. That may be some of the sort of discussion that transpired yesterday. I do not know that I would be too far off the mark.

We now await the outcome of any discussion Mr Williams is able to have with the Prime Minister to see whether a measure of justice can be afforded to all people in Canberra who need legal aid services. It is going to be a very difficult task for Mr Williams to produce something of benefit for the ACT, but I wish him well. This MPI and the subsequent motion, if agreed to, are designed to reflect the interests and the desire of

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