Page 3107 - Week 07 - Thursday, 1 July 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
raised with me by a number of practising lawyers and is also included in the joint submission from the Law Society and the Bar Association. It may be that allowing Supreme Court judges to rehear relatively straightforward bail applications and appeals is an inefficient use of our judicial resources that leads to court delays. It may be the case that magistrates are able to deal just as competently with bail hearings but more efficiently. I think reform in this area could be considered by government.
Another potential reform to consider is to increase the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court from $50,000 to $100,000. The government has incorporated this into its proposal but it could be a stand-alone reform before going the next step and creating a district court. Again, this could lead to a more efficient use of our existing judicial officers and to improvements in court waiting times. These are just two initiatives that could be implemented before going the extra step of creating a new court. There are others, and we will need to weigh up the question of whether they would be better first attempts at making cuts to the court waiting lists.
I would like to reflect on some of the outcomes from the estimates hearings for the district court proposal, because I was surprised to hear some of the comments made by the attorney. The attorney was unable to confirm that he would advertise for a replacement for the Supreme Court judge when Justice Gray retires next year. That was a surprising outcome that has caused many people who have an interest in this issue to reflect on the motivations behind the district court proposal. That is unfortunate, because it has begun to overshadow the proposal and perhaps even undermine it. It casts doubt over what the real motivations behind the proposal are. Whereas the Supreme Court has requested that a fifth Supreme Court justice be appointed to support the existing four judges, the question now appears whether there will be a move in the future to actually have three judges or justices. So, the underlying motivations behind this proposal have been muddied, and the Greens will be looking to clarify this and a number of other key issues, before making a decision on the impending legislation.
I would now like to come to the issue of community legal centres. This is an issue that we worked through in here yesterday in a motion that I brought forward, but I would like to make a few further comments in a budgetary context. Community legal centres represent an incredible investment opportunity for government, with every one dollar spent in a community legal centre saving $100 at later points in the justice system. Community legal centres act in a preventative way that educates people about their rights and reduces their reliance on the courts and lawyers to resolve disputes.
However, community legal centres are facing an accommodation problem that is forcing them to turn away offers of pro bono assistance and operate at reduced capacity. By “reduced capacity” I mean they are less able to offer legal advice to those people who are falling through the cracks, cannot afford a private lawyer and do not qualify for legal aid. Helping community legal centres with this problem is a very practical way the government can act to close the gap on unmet legal need.
The budget does not contain allocated funds for an accommodation solution for community legal centres. However, the Greens do not believe that this precludes action in this coming financial year. As I mentioned, yesterday I brought forward the motion in the Assembly which dealt with this issue. I would like to thank members for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video