Page 4625 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL: I acknowledge that Mrs Dunne did not say that, but it is well worth putting it on the record. I cannot commit the territory to expenditure in relation to the delivery of a particular outcome ahead of the budget process, nor can I give any guarantee that the budget process will deliver these things. At the end of the day, this is the problem that members have to understand. There are conflicting and competing requests for expenditure in the legal services area, particularly significant demands from Legal Aid as the main provider of legal support to the poor and disadvantaged of our community.
We face continually rising pressures for the delivery of legal aid services, predominantly for criminal matters. Protecting and giving legal services, legal advice and legal representation to the poor and disadvantaged who face criminal sanction and possible sentences of imprisonment are the first priority. It must be the first priority for the government, because those are the circumstances where people face the greatest disadvantage and the greatest impact on their lives if they do not get support. I make it very clear that, as attorney, if the choice is between money for rent or money for legal services, legal aid and legal representation so that people can argue and defend themselves when they are facing criminal charges, it will be the latter that will get my priority. That is the only responsible course of action to take.
There are lots of nice things that we would like to do. I am in full agreement that it would be nice and it would be desirable for community legal centres to have improved accommodation—you will find no disagreement from me on that matter—but this is about priority. This is about where scarce dollars go. Where do we make the best investment when it comes to money available for legal aid and community legal services? Where should that money best go?
The fact is that the territory has not fared well when it comes to the national arrangements for funding for legal aid services. As the attorney, I fought very hard to make sure that there was no net reduction in our funding from the commonwealth for legal aid services. I achieved that and managed to maintain the status quo. The alternative was, in real terms, a cut in the amount of funding the commonwealth would have otherwise provided under the national partnership agreement for legal aid services. We have held our ground; we have protected the Legal Aid Commission’s budget. But we have not been able to significantly increase this budget in terms of national funding under the national partnership arrangements. That is a real disappointment for me.
The fact is that the commonwealth’s national funding formula has meant that large jurisdictions have got more and small jurisdictions have got less. In the ACT I have managed to protect the Legal Aid Commission to ensure that there has been no cut in its funding, no reduction. But there has not been growth, and there is growth in the demand for legal aid and legal representation from the commission.
It is just worth making the point that that is the context in which we are operating. We are operating in a very tight fiscal environment for legal aid services. I will use my best endeavours to fulfil the requirements of this motion—I make that quite clear—but I cannot guarantee that there will be dollars at the end of this process, for the reasons that I have just outlined.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video