Some of the key points and recommendations made in this submission are:
Each State and Territory should fund a national referral service with a widely recognised single entry point for legal referral. However, the aim should be to evolve this national number into a multi-disciplinary team.
We support findings by the Commission that industry ombudsmen meet legal need in a way that is fast, effective and free of charge for consumers.
We broadly support the PC that the profile of ombudsman services should be raised, but targeting information so that it reaches people at the point they need it the most will be more effective than blanket exercises to raise awareness.
We support the proposal to consolidate industry ombudsman schemes in appropriate cases, as long as doing so does not leave consumers without another accessible option, or reduce the level of expertise in dispute resolution.
The PC should acknowledge that there are a broader range of scenarios in which legal representation will improve efficiency and access to justice in tribunals.
Costs awards in lower courts should have a standard basis that is clear to parties and their advisers at the outset of litigation.
Parties represented pro bono should be entitled to seek an award for costs. For the avoidance of any doubt it should be clarified at law that Community Legal Centres and their clients are similarly entitled to recover costs.
We believe the lawyer acting should be the beneficiary of any cost award.
Courts should grant protective costs orders in appropriate public interest cases, and that courts should formally outline the criteria for granting these orders. Protective costs orders should not just be available against government entities, but against private parties too.
While there may be opportunity in alternative not-for-profit legal assistance models, we caution against any argument that self-funded services are the solution to ‘the missing middle’, or that they can replace the need for government funded services.
We support the use of legal health checks as part of a multifaceted approach
We suggest co-location of services and systems (like Consumer Action and CCLC’s legal and financial counselling services, together with worker advice lines) are more effective than referrals between organisations
Emphasis in the Draft Report on the consistent application of eligibility criteria to ensure limited legal assistance funding is well targeted. However, eligibility criteria is only one part of effectively targeting services;
Better service delivery must be informed by needs analysis. However, we submit that this analysis is best done collaboratively with services and done in a way that ensure continuous ongoing reflection on what works well for a service and why and what needs to be improved;
We emphasise the value of strategic advocacy and law reform activities by CLCs and LACs. CLCs play a key role in identifying and acting on systemic issues and these activities are an efficient use of limited resources.
