Page 3085 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The reluctance of other parties in this place to accept structural reform remains a serious concern for me. I think only in time will other parties recognise that structural reform is required. With that said, important work continues to be done. I am very pleased that the Supreme Court, represented by Her Honour Justice Penfold and the director-general of my directorate, Ms Leigh, are currently finalising the review of listing practice in the Supreme Court. I hope it will identify new ways to manage listing and undertake listing practice in the court which can improve the efficiency of the court and deliver more timely access to justice as a result.
Turning to some of the critiques raised by other members in the debate tonight, in relation to community legal centres, the government is sympathetic to the circumstances of the community legal centres. That is why we have provided them with practical assistance in terms of the repair, upgrade and some modification to their existing premises to accommodate additional personnel and additional space at other locations such as north Lyneham.
We will continue to engage in this. But as I said in the estimates committee process, the choice I had as attorney when it came to the justice portfolio was a stark one: demand for additional legal aid services and the need to provide funding for that or demands for money to pay for rent and buildings. Quite simply, for me it is no contest. I am quite up-front about that. The delivery of additional resources for legal aid services must come first because that is direct practical assistance to people needing legal representation.
Whilst I understand that the accommodation pressures on the community legal centres are a real and legitimate concern to them, I cannot put money for buildings and rent ahead of money to provide additional support for legal aid services. That remains my position. We will continue to identify every possible avenue to assist the community legal centres but in the difficult context of prioritising funding in the budget process, I am confident that we have taken the right decision.
I turn to the issue of the Alexander Maconochie Centre. There is no doubt that the Alexander Maconochie Centre has faced a challenging period during its first year or so of operations. This was to be expected. But as the report by Mr Hamburger confirms, the government has managed the transition well. We have been able to deliver a world-class facility which, whilst not without its challenges and problems, has delivered a safe and secure operational environment and is delivering on many of the elements of the objectives to deliver rehabilitation and world-class human rights compliant capacity in the first 12 months of this centre’s operation.
Of course, additional funding is being provided to assist with identifying and rectifying a number of the issues raised by Mr Hamburger in his report. They include issues around enhancing security systems and the delivery of improved staffing arrangements. These areas are being funded in this budget. The government, as members would know, has agreed in principle to all of the recommendations made by Mr Hamburger.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video