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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 60 ..

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (4.32): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Attorney-General's remarks and, indeed, the remarks of Mr Wood and Ms Tucker. As a prosecutor and a defence lawyer who had a significant legal aid practice, both in Muswellbrook and here in Canberra, I have had a lot of personal experience of the criminal justice system. My experience tells me that legal aid is important, in that it provides a measure of equity in society and in the system. The criminal justice system is an adversarial one. This is not the time to debate the merits of that system, but it is the framework within which the justice system operates. Given this system, legal aid provides many advantages, in that it enables those brought before the courts on criminal charges to make a meaningful contribution to the trial process early enough to ensure that the valuable resources of the criminal justice system are not wasted. For example, with proper legal advice, a plea of guilty can be identified at an early stage and dealt with appropriately and trials can proceed expeditiously and fairly, thereby reducing the chances of the need for appeals.

Apart from just the trial situation, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the court of first instance, the Magistrates Court, defendants, with proper legal representation, will know whether they have a real chance of getting off or whether they in fact should plead guilty. I have had a number of experiences and seen a number of defendants who actually did have a case; they had a case which should have been defended. Because they did not get legal aid, they did not have access to a legal aid lawyer, or some form of legal advice, they just pleaded guilty and got it over and done with. That is all very well if you are guilty, but quite often I would see instances where people were in fact not guilty and would have been far better off exercising their right and pleading not guilty.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I, too, think the Commonwealth is biting its nose to spite its face here. I seem to recall reading in the paper - I think it might have been Mr Humphries saying it - that it would take about $4m for the Commonwealth to set up its own system in Canberra to look after the Federal matters for which it has a duty. That would be quite stupid. It would make far more sense for the Commonwealth to see the ACT's position and come to the party and give the ACT the extra $700,000 or $900,000 that is needed and that is in fact due to the ACT in terms of what the Commonwealth should be supplying us with.

I can recall, over the last probably five or six years, Madam Deputy Speaker, a number of cuts being made to the legal aid system in Canberra. I can recall, as a practitioner, in 1993 and 1994, certain cuts being made; certain avenues for legal aid not being available. I recall that legal aid used to be available on a reasonably regular basis for civil matters. That is another area where people who do not have the means cannot get access to legal advice. They really should have access to enable them to be a plaintiff in a civil matter as well. There have been a number of cuts before this one, but this one is an absolute doozey and runs the real risk of very badly affecting our system. Many people will be denied justice unless this action by the Commonwealth is reversed.

The Commonwealth cuts will have ramifications for the Territory's social fabric as a whole. In particular, violence and crime will impact on families; persons before the courts will run the risk of being convicted because they do not have legal representation

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