MEDIA RELEASE

The Attorney-General, the Hon Dr Vanessa Goodwin MLC has today released the Review of the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania. The Review was undertaken by the Honourable Peter Evans. The Attorney-General has also released a Response to the Review by the Chairperson and Director of the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania (LACT).

As an open and accountable agency, the LACT welcomed the Review.

The Chairperson and the Director are pleased to see that the Review has settled a number of long-standing issues. The Reviews support for the mixed model of service delivery (where legal aid is delivered by both in-house lawyers and private lawyers), its endorsement of the LACT grants process, its support of the LACT transfers policy, and its support for the review committee process, should settle some long-running controversies.

Although the Chairperson and Director are committed to developing a comparative tool to enable meaningful comparisons between the work of in-house lawyers and the private profession, they do not agree with the Reviews cost comparison asthe data does not currently exist to enable the cost comparison that the Review purports to do.

The Chairperson and Director do not agree with the Reviews division of legal aid services into core services and secondary services. The LACT needs to offer a range of services that are appropriate, proportionate, and tailored to clients needs. Further, the Chairperson and Director hold that the Review is in error in its interpretation of s 19 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1990 (Tas). Section 19 does not afford priority to means-tested services (grants for representation in court) or prohibit non-means tested services (duty lawyer services, face-to-face advice, the telephone helpline).

The Review traverses a number of historical matters dating back many years that have no bearing on the current operations of the LACT.

1.1 Key findings that the Chairperson and Director agree with

a) The LACT is underfunded and receives 66% of the funds needed to achieve the priorities set for it by governments.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Review page 7]

b) Many of the Reviews recommendations have been underway since 2014 as part of the LACTs own reform program.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Review page 11]

c) In recent times, the LACT has significantly reduced its expenditure on staff salaries.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Review page 10]

d) The mixed model, where both in-house lawyers and the private profession deliver legal aid, is best and should not be departed from.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Review page 41]

e) The LACT grants system and its implementation is efficient.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Review page 40]

f) The process for reviewing the decisions of grants officers is sound and being implemented appropriately.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Review page 40]

g) The LACT transfers policy is appropriate and the LACT should only permit transfers from one private practitioner to another where there is no additional cost.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Review page 42]

h) The Parliament should reduce the LACT Board to five members and constitute the Board as recommended.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Review page 39]

i) The LACT compares well to mainland Legal Aid Commissions: A higher number of grants to new clients;[footnoteRef:9] [9: Review page 22]

Highest rates of approval of applications for legal aid;[footnoteRef:10] [10: Review page 23]

The fastest LAC in determining applications for legal aid;[footnoteRef:11] [11: Review page 22]

Per 1,000 head of population, the highest number of calls to a telephone helpline in Australia;[footnoteRef:12] [12: Review page 22]

A high total service count;[footnoteRef:13] [13: Review page 22]

Pays lawyers bills within one working day (fastest in Australia);[footnoteRef:14] [14: Review page 23]

Australias most successful family dispute resolution program;[footnoteRef:15] [15: Review page 22]

A high recognition rate within the community;[footnoteRef:16] [16: Review page 22]

Assessed as performing well in achieving the Commonwealths goals in increasing early intervention services, increasing total services, and avoiding recipients returning with the same problems;[footnoteRef:17] and [17: Review page 23]

A far-reaching community legal education program.[footnoteRef:18] [18: Review page 23]

1.2 Key findings that the Chairperson and Director dont agree with

a) That in-house lawyers deliver legal aid at twice the cost of private practitioners.[footnoteRef:19] The LACTs figures show that it spends $3.4 million on its in-house practice salaries (including superannuation and disbursements on files) and $3.6 million on grants to the private profession. It grants legal aid to about 5,300 new clients each year. The in-house practice services about 45% of those new clients and the private profession carries about 55%. [19: Review page 37]

b) That the Visual Files case management system can be used for performance management comparisons.[footnoteRef:20] Visual Files is an electronic file management system and is not a performance management system. It does not capture all of the activity undertaken by in-house lawyers. For this reason, it cannot be used to compare the cost of in-house lawyers to private practitioners as the Review purports to do. [20: Review pages 35-37]

c) That the LACTs provision of preventative services and early intervention services (the telephone helpline, duty lawyer services, and face-to-face advice) contravenes s 19 of the Act.[footnoteRef:21] The Legal Aid Commission Act 1990 permits the LACT to provide legal aid where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to provide the legal aid. [21: Review page 20]

d) That preventative services and early intervention services are secondary services that are subordinate to representation in court.[footnoteRef:22] In fact, there is an overwhelming body of research that shows them to be cost effective ways of preventing disputes or resolving them before they get to court. Furthermore, the Commonwealth requires the LACT to provide these services and it is not an option to make them subordinate. [22: Review page 31]

1.3 Recommendations that the Chairperson and Director agree with

a) That the LACT should regularly compare the cost of the delivery of legal aid through in-house lawyers and the private profession.[footnoteRef:23] [23: Review page 27]

b) That the Parliament should reduce the Board to five members and constitute the Board as recommended by the Review.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Review page 39]

1.4 Recommendation that the Chairperson and Director do not agree with

a) That the LACT should regard preventative services and early intervention services as secondary services and respond to financial constraints by cutting those services first.[footnoteRef:25] It is a requirement of the funding agreement with the Commonwealth that the LACT provide these services. [25: Review page 31]