Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Attorney-General Senator Brandis. Can the minister confirm that the new National Partnership agreement includes immediate funding cuts in some jurisdictions and a 30 per cent cut to CLC funding nationally from 2017-18? How many vulnerable Australians will be denied access to legal services as a result of these cuts?

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

Senator Lines, I can confirm to you that a new National Partnership agreement for legal assistance will commence on 1 July.

On 26 March the government announced that as part of the new National Partnership agreement we would be reinstating $25.5 million over the first two years of that program to reinstate cuts that had been announced in the 2013 MYEFO across three programs. That means that 61 community legal centres, which would have been impacted by that savings measure, will have their current Commonwealth funding levels guaranteed over the next two years.

There have been some adjustments across the states and territories, both between the legal assistance commissions and the community legal centres. In some states the amount of funding has increased and in some states it has reduced, because a demand-driven formula has been applied by my department. At the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council meeting in Canberra some weeks ago that formula was not called into question by any state or territory Attorney-General—not one.

The new National Partnership agreement gives certainty to the legal assistance sector over the coming years. It maintains the Commonwealth's very significant commitment to that sector. It means by the way that, although the focus of Commonwealth funding is on Commonwealth cases, there are large areas, particularly Indigenous legal assistance, where the responsibility for funding state matters is entirely borne by the Commonwealth.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the current NPA funding expires on 30 June this year, when was the new National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services signed, and why was there a delay?

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

There was not a delay.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When was it signed?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you concluded your answer, Minister?

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

Senator Lines, the Commonwealth expects—as was always the case—that the agreement will be signed between now and 1 July; in other words, in the coming week.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question: can the minister guarantee that no front-line services will be affected and no services will close as a result of the Abbott government's cuts to community legal centres?

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

Senator Lines, I can guarantee this to you: that the funding will be targeted where it is needed most. And if I can go to your first supplementary question for a moment, which perhaps I answered too briefly, it was always intended that the National Partnership agreement would be open for signature this month and that it would be completed before 1 July, and the Commonwealth expects that it will be. Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, by way of a point of order, can I raise with you—and I did not want to do this when it would interrupt the flow of question time—standing order 73(1), which says:

questions shall not refer to:

(l) proceedings in committee not reported to the Senate.

The question from Senator Collins to Senator Brandis clearly related to evidence given before either one of two committees which have not reported to the Senate on their proceedings. She has had no private discussions with anyone; the evidence clearly came from those committees; and the standing order says that the questions 'shall not refer to proceedings in committee not reported to the Senate'.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I understand what you are asking but, in this case, the standing orders refer distinctly to the Committee of the Whole of the Senate, not to estimates committees or standing committees.