Page 795 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In that context then, the link with the commonwealth could have provided a trigger for the ACT to similarly repeal the provision. Other Labor state governments have repealed or are in the process of repealing these certificate provisions. It will be a sad day if the ACT becomes the only jurisdiction in the country to retain these undemocratic provisions.
The proposed removal of section 62 is also of concern. I understand that the government has now agreed not to proceed with this amendment and I commend it for that. The revised explanatory statement claimed that the section is now redundant, but I think that we have established that that is not true. There are numerous matters which the Legal Aid Commission will not or effectively cannot fund, and housing is one of them. There is a housing matter before the tribunal at the moment that contains a number of highly relevant social and legal principles but, due to a lack of funding, these arguments may not even be heard. The existing legislation gives the minister power to grant funding with conditions, so it provides an ideal opportunity for the government to test its own laws and legal interpretations. It would not have been good enough for the Attorney-General to wash his hands of responsibility for deciding whether or not to fund an action by removing his power to do so.
Sometimes it is in the public or even the government’s interests to have things determined and clarified by a legal authority. Courts cannot give advisory opinions in our legal system, so sometimes test cases need to be run to determine where the law stands. For many people, funding a complex legal case is way beyond their means. In other cases, the legal point which needs clarifying is not central to an applicant’s case so it falls to the attorney to fund the presentation of that aspect of a case. The fact that section 62 has not been used effectively reflects poorly on the government and it is not a reason to repeal it. There have been numerous housing, planning and access to information cases where the public interest would have been served by allowing the applicant to access proper legal advice.
I would like to make a correction on this matter. It has been suggested to my office that applications to the Attorney-General for legal assistance under this provision of the AAT Act have not been made in the past and that it is for that reason that the application presently before the Attorney-General has not been able to be considered in a timely manner. Rather than looking at the application made on 3 March, JACS apparently has spent the last four weeks developing criteria which the applicant could address. His hearing in the AAT is tomorrow, and for the record I have since been advised that applications have been made to the Attorney-General in the past. They were assessed on the merit of their cases and in fact were not successful by that measure. It is not hard for me to understand why my constituents can think so poorly of ACT government agencies.
In their totality, with the notable exception of the amendments to the AAT Act, these amendments will result in a significant improvement to the quality of life of many people affected by them. To the people that they affect, many of these amendments will not seem to be merely minor or technical. I commend the government for these initiatives and I recommend that they congratulate themselves a bit more, on this occasion at least. I will be supporting the bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .