Page 3080 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
probably undermining the foundations of Havelock House as well. Some work was done on that because I made representations at the time, but it is still not fixed.
There are other areas where some tenants had to vacate part of the space because in the floor above them in Havelock House the showers were leaking and every time someone had a shower those on the floor below had a shower too. They have a very cramped, shared meeting space. Interns and people doing special projects have got tiny, little workstations around the edge so that if someone is having a meeting, then it is not possible for people to do their work at those work stations. It is an appalling situation.
I think that the approach of the Attorney-General, which is to say, as he said yesterday in question time, no other government in Australia does anything about accommodation for community legal services, implies, “So why should we?” We should be doing something about this because we should be valuing the services provided by community legal centres.
It is the case that one community legal centre is better off than the others. Street Law and the community services that they provide have been able to co-locate in the new office accommodation for the Legal Aid Commission because they sort of grew out of some work that was done in the Legal Aid Commission. They are fortunate but they are still disconnected from other community legal centres. It does not necessarily always work to their benefit, but they do have better office accommodation.
I think that this needs to become a priority for this Attorney-General. The message, it seems that I am hearing, is quite clear. Members of this Assembly would like to see this government start to get its act together on behalf of the community legal services. And there are recommendations, as Mr Rattenbury has said, in the estimates report that should be acted upon. There is not a requirement for the government to spend money, there is a requirement to undertake an option study and a feasibility study and report back to the Assembly. That is not beyond the wit of even this Attorney-General.
Other areas of concern that I have relate to the reduction in funding for what I would consider mainline organisations like the DPP and parliamentary counsel. We heard during estimates for instance that the DPP is going to lose $78,000 and the OPC $58,000. The attorney at one stage said, “It’s only $78,000, Mrs Dunne.” That $78,000 is a fair way along the way to a salary for another lawyer at the office of the DPP.
It defies logic in a way to consider that two budgets ago the government was crowing about putting more resources into the DPP’s office. “We’ve got a new DPP. We’ve put more resources in. We’re going to make sure that we improve the performance rate and the success rate of the office of the DPP by staffing it appropriately.” That lasted all of two years. Now we are cutting and, by the admission of the DPP, and probably to the discomfort of the Attorney-General, that will result in staff losses at the DPP.
In addition, we are seeing $58,000 by way of efficiency dividend coming out of the parliamentary counsel’s office. I notice that the executive director of the Justice and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video