Page 3077 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have passed legislative changes to ensure that more minor matters that face a sentence of two years or less are heard in the Magistrates Court, and the Greens and the Liberals fought hard to ensure that this reform was human rights compliant and did not trample on the importance of jury trials.
Government data shows that the reform will reduce the number of trials being run through the Supreme Court by up to 26 per cent. This is an important step in assisting in the Supreme Court to work through its backlog. There have also been changes to the bail process to ensure more bail matters are heard appropriately in the Magistrates Court before being able to progress to the Supreme Court.
Recommendation number 131 of the estimates committee deals with the issue of the backlog and recommends that government publish their backlog target for both next year and the year after that and outline their strategy to meet those targets. I think the government could respond in one of two ways to this recommendation: they could either say that the district court was their strategy and the Greens and the Liberals blocked it, or they could seriously engage on this issue by outlining the measures that are already in place and if they intend to pursue any other further initiatives. I sincerely hope they adopt the latter option, because this is a serious issue and it is too important to simply drop the ball or run slogans on it because the government did not get their way on the district court.
We operate in an Assembly with a minority government, and the way to most effectively work with that is to recognise that we need to have ideas that can attain majority support. This fact cannot stand in the way of continuing work and dialogue on the problems at hand, and I look forward to the Attorney’s response to recommendation 131.
Another area of discussion last year was the need for a community legal centre hub and some improvement to the accommodation situation, and in this area this year’s budget is a disappointing missed opportunity. I discussed this a little last night in the debate on the Economic Development Directorate, but this is really the place to air the issue more thoroughly. It is a well-known problem around Australia that some people cannot get the legal representation they need. The ACT is certainly not immune from this problem. People fall through the gaps because they cannot afford a private lawyer but also do not qualify for legal aid. They are left to fend for themselves by appearing unrepresented in court or are forced to forgo altogether the advice that they need.
The Greens believe that part of the solution is to invest in community legal centres. For every dollar invested in a CLC, $100 is saved at later points in the justice system. That is because community legal centres take a preventative and educative approach to their legal work. They aim to minimise reliance on courts to resolve disputes. Community legal centres in the ACT are being held back from reaching their full potential because, quite simply, they do not have adequate office space to work from. They operate from very cramped conditions at Havelock House and, in fact, are forced to turn away offers of private lawyers who want to work a day a week pro bono, or free of charge, because they cannot offer them a desk.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video