Page 975 - Week 03 - Thursday, 23 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They provide legal assistance to people who would otherwise go without. Together, these services provided over 6000 pieces of advice and took on over 500 cases over the last 12 months.
Again, that is from Genevieve Bolton. I certainly accept there are calls from the community for funding, and that is understandable. They want as much money as they can to continue with the good work they do.
I welcome the fact that Mr Rattenbury has amended his own motion to remove the point about consultation. I have advice, as I said, from up on the hill about the number of meetings that have occurred between government members and people in community legal centres providing front-line legal assistance. I will not go to that other than to say, be careful of hypocrisy in this place. Was it Mr Gentleman or was it Mr Barr that ended the greyhound racing industry by Facebook? I do not recall much consultation happening before, from New Zealand, Mr Barr said, “Right. That is the end of greyhound racing in the ACT.” I do not think a lot of consultation occurred there.
I could go to similar issues: the front page of the Canberra Times and a subject of debate in this place this week—SHOUT. That has a significant number of member organisations. What consultation has this government had with Bosom Buddies, Motor Neurone Disease Association New South Wales, Friends of Brain Injured Children, the Canberra Region Kidney Support Group, People with Disabilities ACT, the Prostate Canberra Support Group? I could continue to list more than 40 members. Have they been consulted? Have they been consulted about the cuts to SHOUT? Before we start criticising others, I think we need to have the facts on the table.
We will always stand up for Canberra and we will always stand up for vulnerable people who need support—in this case, the support being provided by community legal centres. But in doing so we need to recognise the significant work that has been done and the additional funding that has been provided by the federal government: $200 million to support victims of family and domestic violence.
To that effect I will be moving the amendment that has been circulated. It does not now change anything about Mr Rattenbury’s motion; all it does is provide in the noting section two additional clauses which provide some information about additional finances that have been provided by the federal government more broadly across the nation and also to the ACT. That is based on advice I have through the federal minister’s office. I now move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “efficient and effective operation of our legal system; and”, substitute:
“(f) the Federal Government is providing an extra $45 million for frontline legal assistance services as part of its $200 million investment to reduce violence against women and children. $16.5 million is provided to community legal centres for new services, which exceeds the savings measures forecast to commence on 1 July 2017 for existing services; and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video