I’ve been in Sydney and Adelaide since the beginning of September, giving talks and workshops about the SRL research (like Canada and the US, Australia is facing an exponential rise in the numbers of those coming self-represented to the courts).
Politically, it’s been a pretty exciting week for Australians.
After weeks of intrigue, the ruling Liberal Party of Australia deposed their leader, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, on Monday evening.
Not that this was so surprising to Australians, who have seen four PMs removed by their own party in the last five years. The most popular insight presently trending on social media here is that Australia has not seen a PM serve their full term since the invention of the iPhone.
Which was, obviously, another age ago.
Abbott on A2J
No one, however, seems to be especially interested just now in analyzing the Abbott government’s track record on Access to Justice. This may be because the Abbott government did a lot of other things that many Australians feel unhappy about – including the Stop the Boats campaign, the elimination of renewal energy initiatives, and cuts to health care and education.
There is an important Access to Justice story from the Abbott period, however. In December 2014 the government announced dramatic cuts in the budgets of numerous “third sector” community agencies that provide legal assistance to vulnerable people, including the country’s 61 Community Legal Centres and the Legal Assistance Program for indigenous people.
Needs already overwhelming existing services
Twelve months earlier a report by the Australian Council of Social Services had concluded that unmet needs for legal assistance were rising exponentially, and ranked second only to the need for housing support among the poorest and most vulnerable communities.
Report data also showed that existing services were overwhelmed by the demand for legal assistance, and providers were unable to find enough staff or hours to anywhere near match the demand. The ACOSS Community Sector Report 2013.
Now budget cuts of up to 25% were proposed for these very same services – and some would be forced to close down entirely.
A united front
In an unprecedented show of solidarity, six of eight provincial and territorial attorneys general wrote to the federal AG demanding that the cuts be reconsidered. In that letter they said:
“The forecast cuts represent an abrogation of the Commonwealth Government’s responsibilities to this important area of service delivery to some of the most vulnerable in our community.”
Read more at “States and territories unite again over cuts to legal aid, community legal centre funding“.
A contradiction at the heart of “policy”
Elena Rosenman, the Executive Director of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Women’s Legal Centre, whose organization faced a 30% cut in funding, pointed out the contradiction between the Abbott government’s asserted public commitment to provide better protection for women facing domestic violence, and massive funding cuts for services.
“(C)utting funding to services like ours which are providing services to women trying to leave violent relationships, directly undermines that sentiment.”
Julie Oberin, the chairwoman of the Women’s Services Network, put it more bluntly:
“Women are increasingly seeking help and support and they’re increasingly being turned away because services are full. Now is not the time to cut funding…(I)f you don’t have crisis services, if you don’t have legal aid, you will have women dying.”
The pressure worked.
In March the Abbott government reversed its decision on the legal aid cuts: “Legal aid is sixth budget reversal“.
A foothold in the federal election narrative?
This story encourages us to remember that organized political and public pressure can have an impact. It is also a reminder that the challenges faced by legal services in Australia and the barriers to A2J are the same as those we face in Canada (where the federal government makes an important financial contribution to provincial legal aid plans) and are facing the US.
In the run-up to the federal election, there has been a deafening silence from politicians on issues of A2J. NSRLP has been trying to promote a debate by developing “Questions for Candidates”.
In this week’s National Magazine, Omar Ha Redeye argues that despite its neglect in the debates so far, A2J is an economic issue. He points to the 45% of Canadians that the CBA’s 2013 Reaching Equal Justice report said would have a legal issue in the next 3 years – a group whom we now know will have virtually no access to professional assistance from lawyers. As Omar succinctly expresses it, “Our inaction results in even greater inequality in Canadian society over time.”
Let’s get inspired by what Australians were able to do to reverse cuts to legal aid – and take hope from the increased provincial investment in legal aid announced by the Ontario government in the last 9 months – and encourage our friends and neighbours to ask pointed questions about A2J when they talk to candidates on their doorsteps and at riding meetings – and continue working on raising awareness about the importance and impact of fair and equal access to justice services for Canadian families.
Self-represented people need to be better organised. Right now we are losing a golden opportunity. We should all be going out to election campaign events and seek to get this issue on the national agenda
re the Australia experience – I am penniless, old and dispossessed by crime and injustice but believe that relying only on government funding by Community Legal Centres is counter productive since they then become part of the dumbed down society. One legal centre for instance is reported as being upset that funding cuts mean they wont be able to send submissions to law reform and other inquiries. I have had long periods of homelessness, cancer, crime etc but have managed to take part (by way of submissions) in dozens of inquiries and quoted in many A far better model is the one the Salvos run in NSW where they are set up like any other law firm and therefore make money from cases but the money they make is then redirected to those who cannot afford a lawyer thus making them independent of government. Also not sure if same in Canada but the States and Fed governments now contract out legal stuff to bigger law firms that used to do no win no fee for those fighting eg. police or other govmt bodies thus limiting the options of many who are fighting government coverup as is Sandra Olsen, another of your subscribers and myself – ie coverup of problems with DNA as evidence. Patti Farnell
I swear to high heaven, Just coming from a Supreme Court hearing deliberated for the fourth time that YES there is systemic abuse. Particularly when it comes to protecting the integral rights of children and needs to support families. I got chastised this afternoon in the rendering of a judgement. He stopped and completely exasperated, Chastised me for business there is NO WAY I could have known, assumed or even had access to. I am FORCED into self- litigation a case of which is to protect my children’s right to child support. When he said that this may all be for naught, I replied it isn’t my fight- its my duty to my children in upholding THEIR rights. In the end, he was very angry and stormed out saying to retrun tomorrow with information there was no way I should have known. That is the problem with the system. No legal Aid, NO legal representation, conflicting advise from community justice agencies, you are either too right or too poor and BEST of all–your case is “too complicated” for the so called community program. So, after stumbling in the dark forfor years, I can see why a judge is exasperated with me. I would be too. I’M NOT A LAWYER! NEVER stepped in a court room. I ShOULD NOT be there and I am GROSSLY incompetent to representing a case that is well beyond my complexity of understanding and grasp. I have no alternative. I am a se;f-represented litigant who gets on the judges nerves because road blocks at every turn.