Page 3487 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is of course worth highlighting that since that decision an inquiry has been ordered into the conviction of Mr David Eastman. That will place further pressures on the Justice and Community Safety budget, in particular the Legal Aid Commission budget, and the budget of the DPP. The exact scope and circumstances of that inquiry are still being fully ascertained. Once they are fully ascertained, the government will be in a position to indicate what the financial impacts will be and how they will be managed.
The government continues to provide services to the very successful Street Law outreach program, providing legal services to homeless people in the ACT. There is also $700,000 over three years to support the relocation of the Women’s Legal Centre. I note criticism from both Mr Rattenbury and Mrs Dunne on this point but, again, I would simply reassert the government’s position on this matter.
The community legal centres have said their most important objective is more space so that they can accommodate pro bono services. The Assembly asked the government to commission an examination of options to provide additional accommodation to community legal centres. The most cost-efficient option was to relocate the Women’s Legal Centre from its existing accommodation in Havelock House to another site, freeing up, therefore, space in Havelock House for other community legal centres. The government is being criticised for pursuing the most cost-effective option that delivers the outcomes that community legal centres are looking for.
In a perfect world we like to have everything, but we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where there are constrained resources for legal services. I do not want to see large amounts of money unnecessarily spent on rent or on physical infrastructure that can otherwise be spent on providing legal aid and legal representation to those people who need it most. The government has identified the most cost-effective option. If other members in this place are going to criticise the government for identifying a cost-effective option, they need to justify why it is they believe less cost-effective options should be pursued in the alternative. We do not hear that from either the opposition or the Greens.
The government continues to make investments in the operations of our courts and tribunals. There is improved information for the judiciary in the ACT courts as a result of a $2.2 million investment of funds in a new sentencing database, fulfilling an election commitment to improve sentencing information and analysis for the courts, and at the same time providing clear data on sentencing laws and offence penalties for our judicial officers. Sentencing offenders is a complex task. This new funding will establish that database and help increase the efficiency of the courts by allowing judges to make more timely and accurate judgements based on clear precedent when it comes to the matter of sentencing.
The government has also, as members have noted, invested significantly in improving the efficiency and operation of our courts through the Supreme Court blitz process. That work has been very successful. Whilst it has not been commented on to much degree at all, a just under $10 million investment in new ICT case management systems for our courts will provide the opportunity for a whole range of business
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video