Senator HOGG (2:43 PM) —My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Minister, are you aware that a proposed prosecution in the ACT Supreme Court for fraud on the Commonwealth, worth $8.725 million, is reportedly at risk because of the inability of the ACT Legal Aid Office to fund the defence in the case? Is this what the Howard government's cuts to legal aid funding have come to—a likely stay of prosecution in a serious case of alleged fraud, flowing from the High Court's view of trials of unrepresented defendants? Doesn't the resulting inability to recover $8.725 million stolen from Commonwealth taxpayers make cuts to legal aid funding look like false economy?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Justice and Customs) —Senator, I provide you the answer on the basis that you are talking about Mr Muir's case, reported in the Canberra Times of 2 November. You might be interested to know that the Commonwealth has not received an application in respect of this matter. Nonetheless, legal aid commissions are independent statutory bodies established under state or territory legislation. The responsibility for assessing individual applications for legal assistance lies with offices of the state or territory legal aid commissions, and the Commonwealth does not intervene in that process. While the Commonwealth sets priorities and guidelines for the provision of legal aid for matters arising under Commonwealth law, it is the responsibility of legal aid commissioners to apply those guidelines to applications for legal aid, along with means and merits tests to determine whether to grant assistance.

The Commonwealth does not review decisions made by legal aid commissions about whether or not to grant legal aid. However, legal aid commissions do have mechanisms whereby an applicant who has been refused legal aid by a commission may appeal against the decision to refuse assistance. There is an expensive Commonwealth criminal cases fund that was established to assist legal aid commissions with cases that are likely to have a significant impact on the commission's resources and, as I indicated, we have not received an application to that fund in relation to this matter.

The issue of access to the funding for defence proceedings is being considered in the context of the government's consideration of the Law Reform Commission review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. I will be interested in what the Law Reform Commission has to say there. It is a very interesting argument as to whether you allow alleged criminals access to the proceeds of the alleged crime to defend themselves. I would be interested, as I assume you will, Senator, to see what the Law Reform Commission says.

Senator HOGG —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do understand that there is a contingency fund in the order of $9 million over four years for all the states and territories—and this gets to the issue at hand. In making these savage cuts to legal aid funding in 1996-97, why did the Howard government not provide other additional funding for contingencies such as this case, where serious fraud against the Commonwealth is alleged and involves $8.725 million of taxpayers' money? I understand that that is the nub of the problem. Isn't this particularly the case for the ACT Legal Aid Office because the ACT courts are often used to undertake lengthy and expensive trials with charges relating to the Commonwealth government which should not take the large amounts of legal aid funds designed for the residents of the ACT?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Justice and Customs) —Senator, what you refer to as cuts to legal aid was a commitment by the Commonwealth to fund Commonwealth matters and not to fund state matters. That has simply been described by your side of politics as cuts to legal aid, whereas what I would say is that it is a recognition that the states have been cost shifting in that area for too long. Senator, there will never be enough money for legal aid. There wasn't when you were in government—people wanted more money, and they want more money now. There is an endless stream of litigants who would be happy for other taxpayers to pay for their matters. There is, nonetheless, a fund. It is up to the individual states and territories to administer their fund. I have indicated to you, and you agree, that there is an additional fund for expensive Commonwealth criminal cases to assist legal aid commissions with these significant cases. The Commonwealth has not had an application in relation to this matter to that fund. (Time expired)