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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4345 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there does exist an enormous need for the legal aid service. Unfortunately, the need is not decreasing. It has never been able to meet all of the potential demands made upon it, but it does an excellent job of providing for the most disadvantaged members of the community. During the 1996-97 financial year, 61.94 per cent of total approvals for grants of assistance from the ACT Legal Aid Commission were to social security recipients. Just over 73 per cent of total approvals were to Aboriginals. During the last financial year, nearly 8,000 people were assisted by the ACT commission. Clearly, this is a service worth fighting to preserve. The law must protect those in our community who are disadvantaged - those living in poverty, children, and groups who may be discriminated against or are otherwise vulnerable. There is no level playing field, unless disadvantaged groups are supported to have opportunity at least equal to that of those who are well off in our community.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (8.23), in reply: I thank members around the chamber for their support for this legislation. I note the comments about the reluctance of members to support some provisions of the legislation which are unusual. I have to say that I share their reluctance about these provisions. I would not put them before the chamber in respect of ACT operations or ACT matters of the Legal Aid Commission; but I recognise that we are only one of two players who fund the Legal Aid Commission. We all, I am sure, acknowledge that, whether it is right or wrong, the Commonwealth is entitled to hand over its money with some strings attached if it wishes. The unusual provisions referred to in this debate are the strings attached. Obviously, I would not be looking to constrain the commission in quite this way; but the legislation has been required of us, and I am grateful to members for facilitating the passage of the legislation.

It is worth remembering - and we could be mistaken for thinking otherwise in the context of this debate, where there has been lots of talk about injustice and lack of access to justice because of restrictions on funding - that, in fact, this legislation will consolidate the position whereby the ACT will receive a very significant increase in its funding of legal aid activities in the ACT, at least in respect of so-called ACT matters as opposed to Commonwealth matters - an increase over 1996-97 of $600,000. You can buy a lot of justice for $600,000, believe you me. I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this legislation will consolidate the position whereby we have a substantial increase in spending in the Legal Aid Commission, at least in respect of ACT matters. In respect of Commonwealth matters, of course, the amount spent has been more or less stabilised; but we believe that, overall, the position of the commission in the ACT is greatly enhanced by this legislation and by the agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the ACT.

Whoever is Attorney-General next year - Mr Wood, perhaps - will be bringing forward legislation which the Commonwealth requires us to consider and which addresses issues concerning the structure of the Legal Aid Commission itself. At that time, we will all have a much more difficult decision to face as to whether those sorts of changes are acceptable to the ACT. However, that is a matter which I will leave until that time. Perhaps, I will not be in the position of having to make the decision.

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