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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2118 ..

MR

HARGREAVES (continuing):

I want to pick up on and concur with something the minister said. Mr Humphries said that as I did not make the comment during the course of the committee's inquiry he did not get a chance to respond. Firstly, I did raise it in the context of the committee deliberations. But I pay the point that you make-

Mr

Humphries: Not while I was there.

MR

HARGREAVES: No, when you were not there and you were not supposed to be there. I was exploring what was going to happen before making up my mind on the issue. But I do pay the point that the minister has made in respect of not being able to respond. I regret that and I will personally take it on board. The minister has made a fair point and it needs to be acknowledged.

As I understand it, the convention for the authorisation of items tabled in this place is that the manager of government business or the responsible minister moves a motion to authorise publication under standing order 212. In practice, many documents are released for publication or dispersement without such authorisation.

It is no wonder that the minister would not want the Justice and Community Safety Committee report on the draft budget released for publication. Coincidentally, he is also the manager of government business. The report contains embarrassing passages that no minister would want in the public arena. An example of this, which has been canvassed, is the treatment of the Women's Legal Centre and the government's response to the question of the funding reduction. The centre was told that it would have its budget reduced by nearly $40,000. This was a reduction of 83 per cent. The somewhat flimsy justification for reducing the allocation was that the centre had put in a request, supposedly unsubstantiated, for a significant increase. Well, so what?

The facts, as revealed by the estimates committee, are that the Women's Legal Service did have a budget of $8,000 in 1997-98. An amount of $40,812 was recommended by the Law Society for 1998-1999, of which only $8,144 was approved by the Attorney-General on 27 April 2000. But as of last month, or June this year, the actual amount for next year had still not been advised by the Attorney-General. I understand that later an increase was granted. But why the recommendation of the Law Society was rejected by the Attorney-General in 1998-1999 remains a mystery. Apparently there is no answer.

The government said that the centre undertakes a high proportion of family law work without apparently imposing a formal means test. What is this nonsense about the word "apparently"? Did the government not check the truth? If not, why not? How can you make decisions on such a significant amount of money when the word "apparently" is being used? This is the very thing the minister is accusing me of today.

Further, the government said that, in any case, family law matters were Commonwealth responsibilities. What a cop out! This is a real lesson in how to abandon victims of domestic violence who are marginalised socially and economically by our society!

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