Page 4628 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Those remarks made, let me say that the Greens will not be opposing these amendments, because it is clear that we do need the time extension because the work has not been done.
Amendments agreed to.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.42): I rise briefly to thank members for their support for the content of this motion today. As I have made my earlier remarks, let me say that I do think that we have a great opportunity to amplify the capacity, skills and unique strengths that the community legal centres bring to the justice system in the ACT. We do have some work to do here. I am hopeful that—I think this is a fair point that Mrs Dunne did make—we do not simply see a report next year that says that it is all too hard.
There is room for some innovative thinking. I do not think that the community legal centres are saying, “We need a palace.” They are not saying, “We need something specifically.” There is a range of opportunities that we should be open to. They may take a number of different forms. They may not be all about the government putting in a big bucket of money, but may be about thinking about whether there is vacant space somewhere or whether it is worth putting up the capital injection in the short term to create a long-term saving.
That is at the core of some of these discussions—the short-term thinking versus the long-term benefits. It may be that spending a slab of capital money now to create a suitable facility could avoid the need to pay a whole lot of rent in the future. It could also consider—they are harder to measure—avoided legal issues and avoided social problems that do not arise because we have put in place a preventative approach. That is where we need to break out of the immediate issue of there not being enough money in this budget. Of course, that is an issue, and I know that the cabinet faces a significant challenge in trying to get the budget to meet the constraints. But this false dichotomy being set up by the attorney is unhelpful to the conversation—this idea that it is either rent or services.
I do not think that dichotomy is a true one. As I have just touched on, it may be that if we spend some capital money now, the improved provision of services and the possible avoidance of future rent may, over a five-year time frame or a 10-year time frame, deliver the territory significant benefits that are directly measurable in economic terms, and some others that are harder to measure in terms of social and legal outcomes, so that people in 10 years time will be looking back and saying, “That was a great investment by the ACT government in 2012, to set us up so well for the next decade”—or the next 20 years, 30 years or whatever it turns out to be.
I thank members for their support of this motion. I look forward to seeing the report back next March to, hopefully, provide us with the next step to moving this issue forward to resolution of some useful form.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video