Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General confirm that the new Commonwealth community legal centre funding agreements include gag clauses?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that they do not. I do not know what you mean by the phrase 'gag clauses', but I take it that you mean clauses that prohibit the utterance of commentary or advocacy. The answer to your question is, 'No, they do not.' But we do not fund advocacy. If people want to engage in advocacy, that is entirely a matter for them.

At a time when the amount of money available for legal assistance is limited, what the government has done is prioritise it so that we put clients before causes. We put clients before causes and we ask those who the Commonwealth assists through the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services to prioritise work for clients. We do not fund them to engage in advocacy. We do not prohibit advocacy, but they are not funded for it.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Notwithstanding the Attorney-General's response, can the Attorney-General confirm that there are clauses within the funding agreements that would prevent community legal centres from using any resources provided by the Commonwealth to make submissions to royal commissions and governments on matters including family violence, Indigenous justice and child abuse?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are clauses that require those whom the Commonwealth funds through the national partnership agreement to spend all of that money on looking after and representing the needs of individual clients. There are clauses that say that the Commonwealth's funds are not to be used for advocacy. If those who work in the sector wish to engage in advocacy, that is entirely a matter for them. But we do stipulate as a condition of the Commonwealth's support for community legal centres that the Commonwealth's contribution is not be spent on advocacy because the demand from clients is great enough to exhaust the available resources anyway.

Senator Ketter, I know you take an interest in this area. I hope you will see the importance of prioritising so that we look after flesh and blood people and people in need before political causes. (Time expired)

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why does the Attorney-General believe that bigots have the right to free speech but not community legal centres?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am one of those people who believes that everybody has the right to free speech. I believe that people who work in community legal centres, of course, have a right to advocate any causes they like. I also believe that when the Commonwealth, through the national partnership agreement, is funding those community legal centres—or, as Senator Cormann rightly says, as the taxpayers are funding them—the money should be spent where it is needed most.

Senator Ketter, if you are as familiar with the community legal sector as I believe you to be, then you would understand that the resources of those community legal centres are most urgently needed to look after individual men and women—particularly women—in necessitous, urgent circumstances. That is where the money should be spent first. (Time expired)