Page 3078 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We were hopeful the government would commission a feasibility study into possible solutions, but, unfortunately, that has not occurred. For a budget billed as working smarter and delivering more, that is a real disappointment, because investment in community legal centres is a smart use of government funds—you really get tremendous impact from a relatively small investment.
I was disappointed in the Attorney when he said at estimates that, essentially, the community legal centres have brought this issue on themselves because they have not approached the federal government for assistance in the past. He thought it was inappropriate that only the ACT government be asked to provide office accommodation assistance. I must say that I think this was a “get out of jail” clause the Attorney attempted to use. It may be the case that the busy community legal centres have not approached the federal government, but I do not think this should have precluded the ACT government from a feasibility study at the very least where it could have approached the federal government and discussed the issue with them and perhaps even sought a joint response.
In a budget that spends $5.6 million on feasibility studies in 12 months, room could have been found to examine the options for the community legal centres. It is in everyone’s interests that investments like this be taken up by government because it is a smart use of public funds. We will certainly continue to lobby for action on that front, and I am pleased to see that recommendation 132 from the estimates committee sets out one way the government could work on this issue during the 2011-12 financial year. I certainly endorse that recommendation on behalf of the Greens.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): I remind members that that is unacceptable, and members will turn their mobile phones off or give their guns to the sheriff before they come into the chamber. Mr Rattenbury, you have the floor.
MR RATTENBURY: The Greens put a budget submission in for construction of a community legal centre hub to house our community legal centres. (Second speaking period taken.) Whilst we appreciate that this is a tight budget and that the up-front construction costs could not be found, nevertheless, we think the government has missed the opportunity to at least do a feasibility study which could have set us on the path even if this year’s budget was a tight one.
I commented last night that it is unclear to me exactly what the government’s position is on the provision of facilities and accommodation for community organisations in their many guises. I guess I do not see the clear difference between a group such as the Canberra Raiders and the community legal centres—they are both not-for-profit community organisations, and the Attorney spelt this out to some extent in estimates when I asked this question. I was actually given a raspberry in the estimates process for daring to question the funding for the Raiders, but that was not really my point. Whilst it is often the way in this place that, when someone gets uncomfortable, you get a bit of a verballing, there is a fair debate to be had about whether the government providing facilities for the Raiders is appropriate or not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video