Page 4620 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important to remember that community legal centres are private not-for-profit organisations. They are not government organisations. If the government spends a substantial amount of money, it is not just about goodwill, Mr Rattenbury—through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not just about goodwill; it is about cash. If the government spends a substantial amount of our budget on a large, new office complex for these centres, that money cannot be spent on providing legal services or, indeed, other services.
These centres exercise independence in choosing their accommodation. They have boards of management and they make their decisions about the services they provide and their accommodation requirements. However, the government is committed to providing assistance wherever possible to improve their current accommodation.
It is worth noting that the national legal needs survey, commissioned by National Legal Aid, has not yet been released but it is now expected early next year. When it is released, the government will further consider the best ways to continue to support CLCs in the ACT.
Additional funding for CLCs must be considered through the normal budget process. In the most recent budget framework the tight financial environment saw that it was not possible to provide substantial funding for accommodation purposes when there was significant pressure on the delivery of legally-aided services to the community. I took the view in the most recent budget that given all the funding pressures, the most appropriate and the most direct form of assistance the government could provide was further funding to Legal Aid to improve its delivery of legally-aided services.
Additional money for rent will not deliver any substantial improvement in the delivery of legally-aided services to the community. It may assist to a degree in allowing for more pro bono services to be available, but that difference will not be significant. The fact is that money spent on rent means money not spent on services for legal aid and legal advice to poor and disadvantaged people. That is my fundamental concern in a tight budget environment.
That said, the government is committed to continuing to work with CLCs to find long-term accommodation solutions to meet their growing needs. There is no contest, in my view, between providing funding for additional legal aid services and providing funding for paying for rent and buildings. It is clear to me that in a tight budget environment access to justice funding should be directed primarily at delivering additional resources for legal aid services. That is the practical assistance that people need. The government will continue to provide assistance to community legal services within the appropriate budgetary constraints, and the delivery of additional legal aid services and legal advice will always take priority over rent or buildings.
There are a couple of elements of Mr Rattenbury’s motion that the government has concern with. Obviously, it is clear from my foreshadowed discussions with Mrs Dunne and Mr Rattenbury that this motion will pass today. That said, the government will, of course, endeavour to work within the spirit and the letter of the motion. However, there are a couple of concerns.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video