Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Community Legal Centres · 2020-06-18 · Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Community Legal Centres National Association of Community Legal Centres

Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Community Legal Centres

National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc.

by Judith Stubbs and Associates

The Old Post Office 231 Princes Hwy, Bulli NSW 251

Ph: 02 4283 7300 • Fax: 02 4283 7399 [email protected] • www.judithstubbs.com.au

This report has been prepared for

June 2012

© National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc.You may copy, distribute, display, download and otherwise freely deal with this work for any purpose, provided that you:1) attribute National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc (NACLC) as the owner of this work and

Judith Stubbs & Associates as the authors of the work and the owners of the confidential intellectual property rights of all methods, processes and commercial proposals described in the work, and

2) you do not: a) charge others for access

b) include the work or any part in advertising or in a product for sale, or c) modify the work, without the express written permission of NACLC.

Intellectual Property RightsAll Rights Reserved. All methods, processes and commercial proposals described in this document are the confidential intellectual property of Judith Stubbs & Associates and may not be used without the written permission of Judith Stubbs & Associates.

This Report has been prepared by:Mr John Storer BE (Civil) Grad. Dip. (Econ.)Dr Judith Stubbs BSW UNSW PhD RMIT

Ms Colleen Lux BA MSc (Environmental Studies)

Funding for this project was provided by the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department and the National Association of

Community Legal Centres Inc.

National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc (NACLC) and Judith Stubbs & Associates thank the management and staff of the

community legal centres that participated in this study.

Table of Contents1. Rationale for Study ......................................................................................................................................5

2. Conceptual considerations ..........................................................................................................................6

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................6

2.2 Economicgoalsofgovernment...................................................................................................................6

2.3 Critiquesofthecost-benefitapproach......................................................................................................6

2.4 TheoriesofLaw................................................................................................................................................8

2.5 TheapproachtakenbythisStudy..............................................................................................................8

3. Framework for economic analysis ..............................................................................................................9

3.1 Whatisaneconomicanalysis?....................................................................................................................9

3.2 HowdoCLCsmeetthepublicpolicyobjectivesofgovernmentinaneconomicsense?........... 10

3.3 Applyingeconomicprinciplesandmethodologiestothelegalsystem........................................ 11

3.4 FrameworkfortheassessmentofeconomicimpactsofCLCs......................................................... 12

4. Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................14

4.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.2 Selectionofcommunitylegalcentres.................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Assessmentofoperatingcosts................................................................................................................. 15

4.4 Selectionofmatters.................................................................................................................................... 15

4.5 Evaluationofmattersusingtheframework......................................................................................... 15

4.6 Discussionandreviewwithcommunitylegalcentrestaff............................................................... 16

4.7 Finalisationandquantificationofbenefits........................................................................................... 16

4.8 Calculationandreportingofcostbenefitratio.................................................................................... 16

4.9 Interviewswithkeystaffonprogramsprovidedbyeachcentre..................................................... 16

5. Summary of results ....................................................................................................................................17

5.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2.1 Summary........................................................................................................................................17 5.2.2 Justificationfortheprogram....................................................................................................18 5.2.3 Valueassociatedwithvarioustypesofmattersandapproaches..................................19 5.2.4 GeneralfindingsregardingeconomicefficiencyandCLCs..............................................21

5.3 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................... 24

6. Case Study Centres .....................................................................................................................................26

6.1 LoddonCampaspeCLC................................................................................................................................ 26 6.1.1 CentreProfile.................................................................................................................................26 6.1.2 Analysisofprogramsofferedbythecentre..........................................................................32 6.1.3 AssessmentofEconomicBenefit............................................................................................38

6.2 GeraldtonResourceCentre.............................................................................................................................39 6.2.1 CentreProfile.................................................................................................................................39 6.2.2 Analysisofprogramsofferedbythecentre..........................................................................44 6.2.3 Assessmentofeconomicbenefit............................................................................................50

Economic cost BEnEfit AnAlysis of community lEgAl cEntrEs

-�-

6.3 ConsumerCreditLegalCentreNSW........................................................................................................ 51 6.3.1 CentreProfile.................................................................................................................................51 6.3.2 Analysisofprogramsofferedbythecentre..........................................................................57 6.3.3 Assessmentofeconomicbenefit............................................................................................61

6.4 MarrickvilleLegalCentre............................................................................................................................ 63 6.4.1 CentreProfile.................................................................................................................................63 6.4.2 Analysisofprogramsofferedbythecentre..........................................................................69 6.4.3 Assessmentofeconomicbenefit............................................................................................74

Appendix A: economic analysis of cases and advices..................................................................................75

LoddonCampaspeCommunityLegalCentre................................................................................................... 75

GeraldtonResourceCentre................................................................................................................................... 96

ConsumerCreditLegalCentre...........................................................................................................................118

MarrickvilleLegalCentre.....................................................................................................................................132

FiguReS

Figure1: LawTypeProfileforMaleandFemaleLCCLCClients................................................................... 28

Figure2: LawTypeProfileforTotalandIndigenousLCCLCClients............................................................ 28

Figure3: LawTypeProfilebyAdvice,CaseworkandFirstActivities.......................................................... 29

Figure4: LawTypeProfileforMaleandFemaleGRCClients...................................................................... 40

Figure5: LawTypeProfileforTotalandIndigenousGRCClients............................................................... 41


Figure7: LawTypeProfileforMaleandFemaleMLCClients...................................................................... 65

Figure8: LawTypeProfileforTotalandIndigenousMLCClients............................................................... 65


TAbleS

Table1: Resultsofcostbenefitanalysis......................................................................................................... 17

Table2: StaffingProfile,LCCLC.......................................................................................................................... 26

Table3: VolunteerProfile,LCCLC...................................................................................................................... 27

Table4: LCCLCFirstActivityMattersbyTotalProblemTypeSortedHightoLow................................ 30

Table5: LCCLCAdvicesbyTotalProblemTypeSortedHightoLow......................................................... 31

Table6: LCCLCCaseworkActivitiesbyTotalProblemTypeSortedHightoLow................................... 32

Table7: LoddonCampaspeCommunityLegalCentreProgramMatrix................................................. 33

Table8: Economicbenefitsofselectedcases................................................................................................ 38

Table9: StaffingProfile,GRC............................................................................................................................. 39

Table10: VolunteerProfile,GRC.......................................................................................................................... 39

Table11: GRCFirstActivityMattersbyTotalProblemTypeSortedHightoLow................................... 42

Table12: GRCAdvicesbyTotalProblemTypeSortedHightoLow............................................................ 43

Table13: GRCCaseworkActivitiesbyTotalProblemTypeSortedHightoLow...................................... 44

Table14: GRCProgramMatrix............................................................................................................................ 45

Table15: Economicbenefitsofselectedcases................................................................................................ 50

Table16: StaffingProfile,CCLC............................................................................................................................ 51

Table17: VolunteerProfile,CCLC........................................................................................................................ 51


-�-

Table 18: CCLC First Activity Matters by Total Problem Type Sorted High to Low .................................. 53

Table 19: CCLC Advices by Total Problem Type Sorted High to Low ........................................................... 55

Table 20: CCLC Casework Activities by Total Problem Type Sorted High to Low..................................... 56

Table 21: CCLC Program Matrix ........................................................................................................................... 58

Table 22: Economic benefits of selected cases ................................................................................................ 61

Table 23: Staffing Profile Summary, MLC .......................................................................................................... 63

Table 24: Detailed Staffing Profile, MLC ............................................................................................................ 63

Table 25: MLC Activities by Funded Service Type ............................................................................................ 66

Table 26: MLC First Activity Matters by Total Problem Type Sorted High to Low ................................... 67

Table 27: MLC Advices by Total Problem Type Sorted High to Low ............................................................ 68

Table 28: MLC Casework Activities by Total Problem Type Sorted High to Low ...................................... 69

Table 29: MLC Program Matrix ............................................................................................................................ 70

Table 30: Economic benefits of selected cases ............................................................................................... 74

Table 31: Economic benefits of selected cases (LCCLC) ................................................................................. 75

Table 32: Economic benefits of selected cases (GRC) .................................................................................... 96

Table 33: Economic benefits of selected cases (CCLC) .................................................................................118

Table 34: Economic benefits of selected cases (MLC) ..................................................................................132


-�-


-�-

1. Rationale for StudyTherearearound200CommunityLegalCentres(CLCs)inmetropolitan,regional,ruralandremotecommunitiesacrossallstatesandterritoriesinAustralia.CLCsarenot-for-profitorganisationsthatprovidelegalinformation,advice,casework,educationandlawreformservices,particularlytargetedatthosewhoaredisadvantagedorwithspecialneeds.TherearearangeofgeneralistCLCsthatprovideservicesacrossarangeoflawtypesforaparticulargeographiccatchment,andmanyspecialistCLCsthatfocusonparticulargroupsorissues,suchaspeoplewithdisabilitiesfacedwithdiscrimination,refugeesseekingasyluminAustralia,orthatassistindividualsandcommunitygroupsonenvironmentalmatters. 1

In2009/10,CLCsthatwerefundedundertheCommonwealthandStateCommunityLegalServicesProgram(CLSP)provided168,000informationandreferrals,247,000advices,68,000cases,andconcluded2,869CLEprojectsand1,051lawreformandpolicyprojects,2withtotalannualCLSPfundingof$47,254,132.

TheprimaryroleofCLCsinprovidingforequityofaccesstolegalservicesforthosewhooftenfacesignificantbarriersisnotinquestion,andisakeyobjectiveofgovernment.3However,asacompetitorforpublicfunds,thecommunitylegalsectorinAustraliaislikelytofaceincreasingimperativestojustifyeconomicallythevalueofservicesprovided.Thisisimportantinanenvironmentwherepublicpolicyislargelyconcernedwiththeallocationofscarcecommunityresources,andwhereneedstypicallyoutweighavailableresources.Understandingtheeconomicvalueofcommunitylegalcentresthusrequiresanappropriateframeworkthroughwhichtoanalysetheircontributiontomeetingobjectivesofgovernmentrelatedtoeconomicefficiency.

Theaimsofthisstudy,commissionedbytheNationalAssociationofCommunityLegalCentres(NACLC),arethusto:

• DevelopandapplyanappropriateeconomicframeworkforunderstandingtheeconomicvalueofCLCsinAustralia;and

• ProvideaqualitativeunderstandingofthetypeandrangeofclientsservicedbyCLCsandthetypesandrangeofworkundertaken,includingcases,advicesandprograms.

1 NACLC(2010)AnnualReport2009/10,pg17.2 NACLC(2010)AnnualReport2009/10,pg17.3 TheoutcomestatementfortheCommonwealthCommunityLegalServicesProgramsetoutintheProgramGuidelinesandapprovedbythethenAttorney-GeneralinOctober2005is‘equitableaccesstolegalassistanceservicesfordisadvantagedmembersoftheAustraliancommunityandthosewithspecialneeds’(CommunityLegalServicesProgramGuidelines,p6).


-�-

2. Conceptual considerations2.1 introductionThisstudyadoptstheeconomicframeworkofcost-benefitanalysistounderstandtheeconomicvalueofCLCsinAustralia.Cost-benefitanalysisisapowerfultoolfortheanalysisofpolicybutisnottheonlybasisforsuchanalysis,withotherconsiderationssuchasequityanddistributionofimpactsequallyimportant.HoweveritsuseisbestpracticeandisinlinewiththestatedvaluesofgovernmentinAustralia.4Atthesametime,threepointsmustbeacknowledged.Firstly,economicefficiencyisnotthesoleeconomicgoalofgovernment.Secondly,therecontinuetobedocumentedcritiquesofthecost-benefitapproach.Thirdly,applicationofeconomicstothelawisoneamongmanytheoriesoflaw.

2.2 economic goals of governmentTherearetwoimportanteconomicgoalsofgovernmenttobeconsideredwhenallocatingresourcestocompetingneeds.Thefirstisefficiency,5andthesecondisequity.6Whilethefirstisquantifiableindollarsusingcost-benefitanalysis,thesecondisamatterofvalues.Inwesternparliamentarydemocracies,suchasAustralia,decisionsabout‘values’aremadebyelectedrepresentatives.7Theexistenceofawelfaresystemincludingservicesforpeopledisadvantagedbyincome,culture,geographyordisability,whichtransferswealthfromonepartofsocietytoanother,showstheimportanceplacedbygovernmentonmattersofequityanddemonstratesthatthisacentralpolicyconcernofgovernment.WhilenotingthatCLCsperformanimportantequityfunction,providingaccesstolegalservicesforthosewhooftenfacesignificantbarriers,assessmentofthecontributionofCLCstoequityisoutsidethescopeofthisstudy.

2.3 Critiques of the cost-benefit approachThecost-benefitapproachhasalonghistory.ItwasfirstrequiredbygovernmentintheUnitedStatesofAmericaFlood Control Actof1936,8andsuchassessmentsareroutinelycarriedoutforproposalssuchaspublicengineeringworks.9Nonetheless,therecontinueto

4 ThepositionoftheAustralianGovernmentwithrespecttobestpracticeinevaluationofpolicyissetoutinAustralianGovernment(2010),Best Practice Regulation Handbook.“The Australian Government is committed to the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to assess regulatory proposals to encourage better decision making. A CBA involves a systematic evaluation of the impacts of a regulatory proposal, accounting for all the effects on the community and economy; not just the immediate or direct effects, financial effects or effects on one group. It emphasises, to the extent possible, valuing the gains and losses from a regulatory proposal in monetary terms. The goal of CBA is to provide the final decision maker with as much information about a regulatory proposal as is relevant in informing the decision. It provides an objective framework for weighing up different impacts and impacts which occur in different time periods. This objectivity is supported by converting all impacts into present value dollar terms. However, even when full quantification of impacts is not possible, CBA can still be useful in providing a clear decision making framework.In principle, CBA measures the efficiency or resource allocation effects of a regulatory change. It calculates the dollar value of the gains and losses for all people affected. If the sum is positive, the benefits exceed the costs and the regulatory proposal would increase efficiency. CBA is useful because it: provides decision makers with quantitative and qualitative information about the likely effects of a regulatory proposal; encourages decision makers to take account of all the positive and negative effects of a regulatory proposal, and discourages them from making decisions based only on the impacts of a single group within the community; assesses the impact of regulatory proposals in a standard manner, which promotes comparability, assists in the assessment of relative priorities and encourages consistent decision making; captures the various linkages between the regulatory proposal and other sectors of the economy (for example, increased safety may reduce health care costs), helping decision makers maximise net benefits to society, and helps identify cost-effective solutions to problems by identifying and measuring all costs.Even when it is difficult to estimate some costs or benefits with precision, CBA makes clear and transparent the assumptions and judgements made. Further, attempting to quantify costs and benefits encourages analysts to more closely examine these factors.”5 Thisconceptisatechnicaltermwherebythemaximumutilityisobtainedfromtheavailableresources.Itisdiscussedmorebroadlybelow.Relativeefficiencycanbeempiricallyobservedthroughtheoperationofmarketsandhenceismeasurable.6 Definedasfairnessordistributionofresources.Themeaningofthenotionitselfiscontested,forexampledoesequitymeanequalityofopportunityorequalityofoutcome?Thetwoapproacheshavequitedifferentpolicyimplications.SeeforexampleFriedmanL,(2002),The Microeconomics of Public Policy Analysis,Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress,page58.7 Ibid,page66.8 Ibid,page169.9 SeeforexampleNSWTreasuryNSW Government Guidelines for Economic Appraisal TPP07-5.


-�-

bepublishedcritiquesofthecost-benefitapproach.Intheareaofeconomicsandthelaw,theserangefromthepost-Freudian10andcriticalorpost-Marxistcritiques,11tomainstreamtechnicalcritiques.12Otherpapersdiscuss‘values’,13eitherplacingparticularvaluesaboveeconomicvaluesofefficiency,14orarguingthatvalueshavenoplaceinanyassessment.15

Publicpolicydecision-makingbasedoncost-benefitanalysistypicallyhasarangeofchecksandbalancestoaddresssuchcriticisms.Thecritiquestendtofallbroadlyintothreeschools.Thesearesetout,andbrieflyaddressed.

• Firstlythecost-benefitanalysisdoesnotassignsomethingthesamevaluethatthecriticthinksitholds,orthatthethingisofinfiniteorintrinsicvalue.16

Itmaybethattheanalysisdoesnotrankoptionsinthesamewayasthecritic’spersonalvaluesystemwouldrankthem,notingthattherearelikelytobearangeofoftencompetingvaluesandprioritieswithinthecommunity.Ineconomicterms,thesecompetingvaluescanbereflectedintheconceptof‘willingnesstopay’.17Inoursocialsystem,suchconsiderationsareeitherinformedbymarketconsiderations,basedonsurveyworktoestablishtheaverageacrosssocietyoraretheprovinceofelectedrepresentativeswhoconsiderawiderangeofmatters,includingeconomicefficiencyandthecostsofaproposal,whenmakingdecisionsregardingtheallocationofresourcesorotherpolicydecisions.

• Secondlycost-benefitanalysisisnotaccurateorexhaustiveenough. Whilealegitimatecriticism,itisbynomeansahopelessendeavour,withtheapproachcontainingchecksandbalancesdevelopedovertimetoaddresstheseissues.Acost-benefitanalysisaimstobetransparent,settingoutassumptionsandinputs,sothatifacriticofaparticularanalysisbelievesitisflawed,theycansaywhere,howandwhytheybelievetheoriginalanalysistobeincorrect.Sensitivityanalysisisusedtoensurethattheanalysisisnotparticularlysensitivetoreasonablechangesinassumptions.Finallythereisthematterofutility.Itcanbearguedthatpolicydecisionsbasedonimperfectinformationshouldcarrymoreweightthanthosebasedonnoinformationoronthepersonalvaluesofonedecisionmaker,forexample.

• Thefinalcommoncriticismisthateconomicanalysisdoesnotgiveregardtoequity;thatis,thedistributionofresourcesinsociety.

Thisisentirelycorrect.However,societyhasotherprocessesinplacetoaddressequityconcerns.Theseincludevarioussystemsoftransfers,includingmonetarytransferssuchaspensionsandindirecttransferssuchassubsidisedservicestoselectedgroupswithinthecommunity.Decisionsregardingappropriateformsandlevelsoftransfersaremadebyelectedrepresentatives,andsoareassumedtoreflecttheaveragevalues

10 SeeforexampleSchroeder,J.(1998),The end of the Market: A psychoanalysis of law and economics:HarvardLawReviewVol.112:483;discussingthemarketintermssuchasdesire,Thanatos(deathwish)andcastration,fromapost-Freudianperspectives.11 SeeforexampleHanson,J.,andYosifon,D.,(2003)The Situation: An introduction to the situational character, critical realism, power economics, and deep capture, UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawReview,Vol.152,p.129;discussingthesocialfunctionofeconomicsfromarangeoftheoreticalperspectives.12 SeeforexampleColeman,J.,(1982)The Normative Basis of Economic Analysis: A Critical Review of Richard Posner’s “The Economics of Justice”StanfordLawReview,Vol.34,NO.5,pp.1105-1131; Dworkin,R.,(1980)Is Wealth a Value?,TheJournalofLegalStudies,Vol.9,No2,pp.1991-226;Pildes,R.,(1991)The unintended cultural consequences of public policy: a comment on the symposium, MichiganLawReview,Vol.89,No.4;13 Itisnotclearwhetherthevaluesareuniversal(andifsohowdetermined)orwhethertheyarethevaluesoftheauthor.14 SeeforexampleSinger,J.,(2002),Something Important in Humanity,HarvardCivilRights-CivilLibertiesLawReview,Vol.37;andKennedy,D.(1998),law-and-economics from the perspective of critical legal studies, TheNewPalgraveDictionaryofEconomicsandtheLaw,ed.Newman,P.,MacmillanReferenceLimited.15 SeeforexampleKaplow,L.andShavell,S.(2001),Any non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle,JournalofPoliticalEconomy,Vol109,No.2,pp.281-286.16 Forexampleapersonmaysaythatthelegalsystemisaboutjusticeandapricecan’tbeplacedonjustice.17 Onemeasureofeconomicefficiencyiswhethersomethingisprovidedatapricesocietyiswillingtopay.Thisincludestheeconomicjustificationofpublicgoodssuchasexpressways.Inthecaseofexpressways,theassessingauthorityconsidersthetimesavingsforthetravellingpublicandthevalueplacedbypeopleonaverageontheirtimeagainstthecostofprovidingtheexpressway.


-�-

ofoursociety.Asnoted,theCLCsectorisassumedtomeettheequityobjectivesofgovernment,andthisisnotchallengedbythefindingsofthisstudy.

2.4 Theories of lawThefinalareatobediscussediswhetherthelawisinformedbyeconomicsandtowhatextentorwhethereconomicsisanappropriateparadigmfortheevaluationoflegaloutcomesingeneralortheworkcarriedoutbyCLCsinparticular.Theoriesoflawareattemptstounderstandwhy,injudicialmattersorlegalprinciples,oursocietyprefersonelegalprincipletoanother.Manysuchtheoriesoflawaredocumented.Himmaproposesausefultaxonomyofthreecategoriesintowhichthetopicsoflegalphilosophyfall,eachwithanumberofschools:18

AnalyticJurisprudenceaddressestheunderlyingquestionofdeterminingthenecessaryconditionsfortheexistenceoflawthatdistinguishlawfromnon-law.SchoolsareidentifiedasNaturalLaw(morality),LegalPositivism(socialconvention,socialfacts,separability[frommoralconsiderations])andDworkin’sThirdTheory.

NormativeJurisprudenceconsidersprescriptivequestionsaboutthelaw.SomeofthesequestionsincludeFreedomandthelimitsofLegitimateLaw,ObligationtoobeyLawandJustificationofPunishment.

ThefinalcategoryisCriticalTheoriesofLawwherebylawisconsideredwithinthecontextofsociety.SchoolsincludeLegalRealism(understandingthevaluesofjudges),CriticalLegalStudies(understandingtheimportanceofideology),LawandEconomics(understandingwaysinwhichthelawmaximisesthewealthofsociety)andOutsiderJurisprudence(understandingwaysinwhichlawpromotestheinterestsofelitesattheexpenseofothergroupssuchaswomenorracialandethnicminorities).

Otherauthorsuseothertaxonomies.19

2.5 The approach taken by this StudyThecurrentstudyissituatedwithinamainstreameconomicparadigm,utilisingthetoolsofmicro-economicpolicyanalysis,whilstcognisantofthecritiquesofthisapproach.Consistentwiththis,itisinformedbyeconomictheoriesoflaw,acceptingthataneconomicapproachtolaw(andbyextensiontheworkofCLCs)isalegitimateperspective,amongothers,forunderstandingthevaluetosocietyofworkcarriedoutbyCLCs.

18 InternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy–ThePhilosophyofLawathttp://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/19 Seeforexample:Harris,J.(2004),Legal Philosophies,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,doesnotattempttocreateasystematicplanbutinsteadidentifiessome19headingsunderwhichareasoflegalphilosophicaldebatecanbegrouped.Theseincludenaturallawandmoraltruth;thecommandtheoryoflaw;utilitarianismandtheeconomicanalysisoflaw;punishment;Kelsen’spuretheoryoflaw(lawshouldbevaluefree);legalconcepts,legalrealismandcriticallegalstudies;Hart’sconceptoflaw(legalrulesassocialrules);freedomandtheenforcementofmorals;themoralityoflawandtheruleoflaw;statutoryinterpretation;precedent;Dworkin’srightsthesis;legalreasoning;thedutytoobeythelaw;thehistoricalschoolandnon-statelaw;sociologicaljurisprudence;law,societyandMarxistjurisprudence;andjustice:liberal,communitarianandfeminist;andLeiboff,M.andThomas,M.(2004),Legal Theories in Principle,LawbookCo.,Pyrmont,whoidentifyanddiscussnaturallawtheories;modernismandliberalism;legalpositivism;Marxisttheories;sociologicallegaltheories;feministlegaltheory;criticallegalstudies;post-modernism;criticalracetheoryandpostcolonialtheory;andemergingtheories.Theymention,butdonotdiscuss,economicanalysisofthelaw;commonlawtheory;historicalandanthropologicaljurisprudence;andarangeofphilosophicalandsociologicaltheorists.


-�-

3. Framework for economic analysis3.1 What is an economic analysis?Publicpolicyislargelyconcernedwiththeallocationofscarcecommunityresources,whereneedstypicallyoutweighavailableresources.20Economicanalysisisoneacceptedwayofassessingandcomparingsuchallocativedecisionstoprovideinformationtodecisionmakers.Thebreadthoftheanalysisisimportantand,inthisregard,economicanalysisshouldnotbeconfusedwithafinancialanalysis.Thelatterisconcernedwithanorganisation’sbottomline,whereasaneconomicanalysisisconcernedwithcostsandbenefitsacrossthewholeofsociety.Thislatterperspectivemaybechallengingtolegalpractitionersandotherserviceproviders,astheirprimaryconcernisunderstandablylargelyconcernedwithobtainingthebestoutcomefortheirclient,ratherthanthebestoutcomeforsociety.Aswewillseefromthecurrentstudy,thetwoarenotnecessarilythesame,thoughtheymayoftenintersect.

Aneconomic(or,moreprecisely,amicroeconomic)analysisofpublicpolicyisbasedonthepremisethatsomeallocationsofresourcesaremoreefficientthanothers,andthattoprovidemoreefficientallocationsisanimportantsocialobjective.Theterm‘efficiency’isusedinapreciseandtechnicalwaybyeconomists,andisbasedonthetheoreticalconceptofutilityandthesocialgoalofthemaximisationofutility.21SupposethatAhastenapplesandBhastenoranges.Theytradeapplesandorangeswitheachotherandendupwithfiveapplesandfiveorangeseach.Thetotalamountofresourceshasnotchanged,howeverthechangingallocationofthoseresourcesthroughtradehasincreasedthetotalutilityofAandB.Sincetheywerebothpreparedtotrade,theyboththinktheyarebetteroffcomparedwiththeiroriginalposition.An‘efficientoutcome’isoneinwhichtherearenomoretradesavailable,thatisnobodythinkstheycanimprovetheirpositionbymarketexchanges.22

Whileitcouldbearguedthatthisnotionofefficiencyisvalueladenandsubjective,itisalsoempirical,inthatitisgenerallydescriptiveofwhatpeopleactuallydowhentheytradethingsinamarketandthosemarketscanbeexaminedquantitatively.

Thereisanotherimportantpointtobeconsidered.Theefficientoutcomefrommarketexchangeswillalwaysdependontheinitialallocationofresources.Sointheexampleabove,ifAhadsixapplesandBhadtenoranges,theefficientallocationmayendupasAhavingthreeapplesandthreeorangeswhileBhasthreeapplesandsevenoranges.WhileAandBareboth betteroff,Bisbetter offthanA.

Thatinitialallocationofresourcesisentirelyarbitraryandreflectschanceandcircumstance.ForexamplesomeoneborninAustraliawillhaveaccesstomanymoreeconomicresourcesthanapersonborninCambodia,andso,iftheytraded,whilebothwouldbebetteroffaftertrading,theAustralianislikelytobemuchbetteroffthantheCambodian.WithinAustralia,anindigenouspersonlivinginaremoteareawillhavefarlessaccesstoemployment,healthandlegalservicesthanapersonborntoamiddleclassfamilyininnerSydneyorMelbourne.Thisraisesanotherimportantsocialconcern(andsecondeconomicobjectiveinoursystemofgovernment),thatof‘equity’orfairness.

Whiledifferentruleshavebeenproposedtoguideequity,thereisnoconsensusamongeconomistsregardinganappropriate‘socialwelfare’function.23InAustralia,equityisaddressedbyasystemoftransfers,wherebywealthistransferredfromonepartofsocietytoanother,eitherthroughcash,differentialtaxation,orthroughsubsidisedorfreeservicesandothermeasures.Theoretically,thosetransfersrepresentthesumofthevaluesofsocietywithregardtoequity,asexpressedbyourelectedrepresentatives.

20 SeeforexampleFriedmanop cit.,p.3.21 SeeforexampleNicholson,W.,(2005)Microeconomic Theory: Basic principles and extensions,9thed.,ThompsonSouthWestern,page338.22 TechnicallythisistermedtheParetoPrinciple.23 Thesetofrulesencapsulatingnormativestandardsthatshouldgovernredistributionofresources(seeforexampleFriedmanop cit, page58).


-�0-

ThethirdeconomicobjectiveofgovernmentinAustralia,andinsimilarcountries,istoprovidecertaingoodsandservices,characterisedinthisreportas‘publicgoods’.24Inthisregard,differentcountrieshavedifferentviewsastowhichservicesthemarketshouldprovideandwhichshouldbeprovidedbythestate,andwhatpriceshouldbepaidforthoseservices.

TheresultisthatinAustralia,andinothercountrieswithsimilarsystems,governmenthasthreebroadeconomicfunctions.Thefirstistomaximiseindividualutilityacrosssocietybymaximisingtheefficientallocationofgoodsandservices.Thesecondistoaddressmattersofequitybyfulfillingaredistributivefunction.Thethirdistoprovidepublicgoodsandservices.

Therearearangeofwell-understoodeconomictechniquesandprinciplestoevaluatetheeconomicsofpublicpolicy,commonlyreferredtoascostbenefitanalysis.Asnoted,thisisthemethodusedinthecurrentstudytoassesseconomicimpactsoftheoperationofCLCs.

3.2 How do ClCs meet the public policy objectives of government in an economic sense?

Fundamentally,CLCsareanequitymeasurefundedbygovernmenttoincreaseaccesstothelegalsystembythosewhomayotherwisebeexcluded,orbyimprovingandfacilitatingaccesse.g.byprovidinginformationtopeopleinthelegalsystemthatenablesthemtooperatemoreeffectivelyandefficientlywithinit.FundingprovidedtoCLCsrepresentsthevalueplacedonsuchoutcomesbyourelectedrepresentatives,givingregardtocompetingdemandsforresourcesfromothersectors.

AneconomicanalysisoftheCLCsectorthereforestartsfromthispositionbutalsoseekstounderstandthedegreetowhichthat‘equity’functionmayalsoachieve‘efficiency’functions.IftheCLCsectorcanachieveefficiencygoalsofgovernmentaswellasachievingequityfunctions,thentheAustraliancommunityhasdonewelloutoftheinitialallocationoffundingtothesector.

Therearethree broad areasinwhichCLCsmaycontributetoefficienteconomicoutcomes.

• Intermsoftheefficientoperationofthemarket,CLCscanassistinthe proper operation of the legal systemfromwhichweallbenefit,byprovidingaccesstothelegalsystemforthosewhomayotherwisebeexcluded.CLCsthusprovideanopportunityforthelawtobeengagedincircumstanceswhereitmaynototherwisebeengaged.Thisoutcomeispredicatedoneconomictheoriesofthelaw,wherebythelawischaracterisedasperformingasocialfunction(amongotherfunctions)offacilitatingtheefficientoperationofthemarket.

Proponentsoftheeconomictheoryofthelaw,suchasRichardPosner,25contendthatproperoperationofthelegalsystemprovidesaneconomicbenefittosocietybecauseitfacilitateseconomicallyefficientoutcomes.Posnerdrawsonawiderangeofeconomictheorytoillustratehowvariousareasofthelawachieveanefficientoutcome,oroptimisethebenefitsacrosssociety.Someareasoflaw,likenegligence,contractandfamilylaw,mayberegardedasofgreaterorlessereconomicbenefit,26whilstotherslikeemploymentlawandhumanrightsmaybestbeconsideredtransfersorequitymeasuresunderPosner’sframework.Forexample,contractlawensuresthatnon-simultaneoustransactionscanoccurwithconsiderablebenefitinmanyspheresofactivity.Such

24 Thesearegoodsandservicesthatareofvaluetothecommunity,howeverthemarketisunlikelytoprovidethemasoncebuiltorprovided,anyonecanusethemorhavethebenefitofthem,withoutpaying.Examplesincludepublicroads,defenceforcesand,intheclassicexample,lighthouses.Othergoodscouldbeprovidedbythemarketplace,suchaselectricitysupplies,waterandtrainservicesbutarecommonlyprovidedbygovernmentinAustraliaforotherreasons.Electricityforexampleisanaturalmonopoly,henceforthegovernmenttoprovideitistoensurethatitisprovidedatthelowestprice(notinghoweverthattherearearangeofinefficienciesassociatedwithgovernmentdeliveryofservices).25 Posner,R.,(2007)Economic Analysis of Law,7thed.,Aspen,NewYork.26 Negligence,forexample,promotesamarketbyplacingacostonnegligentactsthatwouldotherwisebebornebyothers,thusinternalisinganexternality.


-��-

theoristsprovideusefulinsightsintothelikelybenefitsofdifferentaspectsofthelaw,whichthecurrentstudydrawson,bothinaqualitativeandquantitativeway.

• CLCscanalsofunctiontoensurethe most efficient delivery of the equity goalsofgovernmentandthisisanimportanteconomicbenefit.Forexample,ifthecostofapersonobtainingappropriateaccesstojusticecanbehalved,thentwiceasmanyclientscanbeprovidedwithaservice.

• Finally,CLCscanassistinaddressing potentiallyadverse economic outcomes orexternalitiesrelatedtoperverseoutcomes.On average,theproperoperationofthelegalsystemshouldprovideeconomicallyefficientoutcomesforsociety.However,theoperationofthelegalsystemcanhaveunintendedconsequencesthatresultincoststhatarebornebythewholeofsociety,resultingin‘externalities’.27Forexample,thecostofinstitutionalisation,homelessnessorrelationshipbreakdownthatmayresultfromsomelegalprocessescanresultinsignificantdirectandhiddencoststhatmaybeavoidedthroughtimely,holisticorpreventativeaction,keystrategiesofCLCs.

3.3 Applying economic principles and methodologies to the legal system

Economicprinciplesofpublicpolicyanalysisprovideausefulwayofthinkingaboutthevalueoftheoperationandfunctioningofthelawinsociety,includingofCLCs,forthecurrentstudy,andprovidethebasisofaframeworkforevaluatingtheeconomicimpactofsuchservices.

OnlyafewstudiesinAustraliahavesoughttoanalysetheeconomicvalueoreconomicimpactofcommunityorpublicsectorlegalactivitiesinanappliedway.TheworkofPriceWaterhouseCoopersinevaluatingtheeconomicvalueoflegalaidfoundabenefit-costratioof1.60and2.25(usingarangeofdifferentcaseassumptions).28However,theanalysisisfinancialratherthaneconomicinthatitonlyconsiderscostsandbenefitsattheorganisationallevel,ratherthanatthewholeofcommunitylevelandisnarrowinscope.Thecalculationofthebenefit-costratiowasbasedonaveragecostsandtheoreticalscenarios.Threecasestudieswerealsoassessedinthestudy;however,theauthorofthisreporthasconcernswithsomeoftheassumptionsmadeinassessingthosecasestudies,forexample,theuseofwillingnesstopaymeasuresbasedonstatedratherthanrevealedpreferencesandtheascribingofaneconomicbenefittotheavoidanceoftransfers.29

TwootherAustralianstudieshavealsoaimedtoevaluatetheeconomicimpactsofthelegalsystem.30Thefirstoftheseisactuallyafinancialappraisal(concernedwithanorganisation’sbottomline)ratherthananeconomicanalysisandisrecognisedbyitsauthorsassuch.Thesecondstudyisnarrowinscope,consideringthreecasestudies,and,againintheopinionofthewriterofthisreport,containserrorssuchasconfusingthebenefittotheindividualwiththebenefittosociety.

Thereisvalueinthesestudies.Ingeneral,however,suchstudiesdonottakeacomprehensiveapproachtoeconomicevaluationofcommunityorpublicsectorlegalservices,andnoneofthestudiesbringtogethertherangeofconsiderationsoutlinedabove,assesscostsandbenefitsacrossthewholeofcommunityorbasetheiranalysisonastatisticallydefensiblesamplingapproach.ThecurrentstudyseekstoaddressthisgapbyconceptualisingthevalueofCLCserviceswithinaneconomicframework,byapplyingtheframeworktoquantifytheeconomicbenefitsassociatedwithCLCsusinganappropriatemethodology(cost-benefit

27 Suchmechanismsarecollectivelyreferredtoas“MarketFailure”.ForadiscussionseeSwann,M.andMcEachern,W.,(2003),Microeconomics, A contemporary introduction,2nded.,Thompson,pages105ff.28 PriceWaterhouseCoopers(2009)Economic value of legal aid, NationalLegalAid.29 Apension,forexample,isnotanetcostwhensummedacrosssociety,asoneperson’slossisanotherperson’sgain.Thereishoweveracosttosocietyfromtheadministrativesystemsrequiredtosupportbothsystemsoftaxationandpaymentsofpensions.30 KPMG(2008)Family dispute resolution services in legal aid commissions – Evaluation Report, Attorney-General’sDepartment;andInstituteforSustainableFutures(2006)The Economic Value of Community Legal Centres, NACLC.


-��-

analysisatthewholeofcommunitylevel)andbyusingasoundempiricalapproachbycalculatingaveragesbasedonasampleof160casestudies.

3.4 Framework for the assessment of economic impacts of ClCs

Aframeworkforthestudywasdevelopedprimarilyusingtheeconomicprinciplesofpublicpolicyanalysis,informedbyreferencetotheeconomictheoryoflaw,wherebylawisunderstoodbyitsabilitytoreturneconomicallyefficientoutcomes.Theseconceptswerebroughttogetherwithinanoverarchingassessmentofnetbenefitatthe‘wholeofcommunity’level(commonlyreferredtoas‘costbenefitanalysis’)inordertoevaluatetheeconomicimpactofCLCs.

Acost-benefitanalysisprovidesforthetransparentcomparisonofcostsandbenefitsacrossvarioustypesofprojects,policiesorprograms,usingacommoncurrency(dollars)andisthepreferredmethodofgovernmentfortheassessmentofeconomicbenefitsinNSWandnationally.31Ittakesa‘wholeofcommunity’approachtotheassessmentofcostandbenefits,includingthedirectorfinancialcostsofaprogramorprojectaswellasitsindirectorhiddencosts(‘externalities’)thatarenonethelessrealcoststothecommunity.Evenwhereallimpactscannotbequantifiedorvalued,itallowsforacleardecisionmakingframework,andincludesquantitativeandqualitativeinformationaboutthelikelyeffectsofaprogramorproposal.

ThecostsofCLCsarelargelyevident,generallythedirectcostsofprovidingCLCs,includingwages,administrationcostsandthelikefromgovernmentfundingandanyotherincome.

Threelevelsofbenefitareconsideredinaccordancewiththeconceptualconsiderationsoutlinedpreviously.

• Firstlythestudytakestheviewthatoneoftheoutcomesoftheproperoperationofthelegalsystemistoprovideeconomicallyefficientoutcomesacrossthewholeofthecommunity,withthoseefficientoutcomesintheinterestsofthewholeofsociety.Hence,functionsofCLCsthatleadtotheproperoperationofthelegalsystemarelikelytoprovideabenefittothecommunityasawhole.Typicallythesebenefitsareassessedqualitativelyinthisstudyasinpracticeitwouldbeexpectedthat,whiletheoverallbenefitofoursystemoflawislarge,foraparticularmatteronaveragemarginalcostswouldbeexpectedtoequalmarginalbenefits.32

• Secondly,consideringthelegalsystemasapublicgood(orservice)orasanequitymeasure,itisalsointheinterestsofthecommunitytohavethatpublicgoodorequitymeasuredeliveredinanefficientway,meaning,inthiscase,thatitisdeliveredatthelowestcost,henceanyfunctionsoftheCLCsectorthatreducethecostofoperatingthelegalsystem(e.g.earlyinterventionstrategiesthatkeeppeopleoutofthesystem,orgarneringvolunteerlawyers)willalsobeabenefit.ThereisalsoafurtherbenefitherewherebytheactionsofCLCsmayreducetransactioncostsmoregenerallyinsociety,forexampleprivatelegalcostsincurredbyparties.

• Finally,itisnotintheinterestsofthecommunityifthe‘blind’operationofthelegalsystemincurscostselsewhereinthecommunity,andthosecostsoutweighthe

31 SeeforexampleAustralianGovernment(2010),Best Practice Regulation Handbook.32 Thisisbecausetheexistenceorotherwiseofaneconomicallybeneficiallegalprincipleisunlikelytohingeonaparticularcaseormatteranditistheprinciplewhichprovidesthebenefittosociety.Asanexample,ifcontractlawwastodisappeartomorrow,therewouldbeanimmensefinancialcosttosocietyastransactionswouldbelimitedtothosewhichcanbemadesimultaneously.Howevercontractsareenteredintoeverydayacrosssocietyandveryfewofthoseendupindisputeorrequirecourtenforcementforperformanceastheprinciplesarewellestablishedandwellknown.Inacompletelyrationalsystem,onewouldexpectthatinanyinstancewherealegalprincipleisdefended,thecosttosocietyofconfirmingtheprinciplewillbeequaltothecosttosocietyofhavingtheprincipleignored.Inthisview,amaturesystemofjusticeisanalogoustoamarket,whereinsomepeoplesellgoodsformorethantheirminimumprice,andsomepeoplebuygoodsmorecheaplythantheyarepreparedtopay,butthelastsellersellsatexactlyhisminimumprice,andthelastbuyerpaysexactlyhismaximumprice.


-��-

benefitsfromtheoperationofthelegalsystemresultinginaperverseoutcome.Accordingly,theproperoperationoftheCLCsectorshouldseektoavoidtheseexternalcostsasthiswillgenerateapublicbenefit.Thesebenefitsarecharacterisedinthisreportas‘externalities’.33

33 Anexamplemaybeayoungoffenderwhoisunlikelytoreoffend,butwhoifsentencedtoacustodialsentencewillincuracosttosocietythroughincarceration.Itcouldalsobethattheirabilitytocontributetosocietywillbesignificantlyreducedastheymayhavedifficultyfindingworkinthefutureduetoacriminalrecord.Theselattertwocostscouldbeconsideredasexternalities.Fromaneconomicallyrigorousperspective,inthecasewheretheywerelikelytoreoffend,thecosttosocietyofongoingcrimewouldneedtobesetagainstthecosttosocietyofincarcerationandofreducedemploymentfromacriminalrecord.Theeconomicallyefficientpointwouldbewhereenoughpeoplewerebeingsentencedsothatthetwocostswereequal.


-�4-

4. Methodology4.1 Overview Theapproachwasbasedonareviewandanalysisofrandomlyselectedmattersacrossfourcommunitylegalcentresinamixofmetropolitanandregionalandremotelocations.Therewereeightkeycomponentstotheapproach:

• Selectionofcommunitylegalcentres• Assessmentofoperatingcosts• Selectionofmattersfromthecategoriesofinformation,adviceandcasework• Evaluationofmattersusingtheframework• Discussionandreviewwithcommunitylegalcentrestaff• Finalisationandquantificationofbenefits• Calculationandreportingofcost-benefitratio• Interviewswithkeystaffonprogramsprovidedbyeachcentre

Eachoftheseisdiscussedbrieflyinturn.

4.2 Selection of community legal centresFourcommunitylegalcentreswereselectedascasestudycentrestorepresentdifferenttypes,locationsandsizesofcentres.Thesewere:

• AgeneralistlegalcentreinaVictorianinnerregionalarea34(LoddonCampaspeCommunityLegalCentre)

• AgeneralistlegalcentreinaWesternAustralianouterregionalareaandservicingremoteareas35(GeraldtonLegalCentre)

• AspecialistlegalcentreinSydney(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)• AgeneralistlegalcentreinSydney(MarrickvilleLegalCentre)

Centresincludedthreegeneralistcentresandonespecialistcentre.Twowereinmetropolitanlocations,onewasinaninnerregionallocationandonewasinanouterregionallocation.

OfthefourcasestudyCLCs,LoddonCampaspeCommunityLegalCentreisageneralistlegalcentrelocatedinaninnerregionalarea,GeraldtonResourceCentreisageneralistlegalcentrelocatedinanouterregionalarea,ConsumerCreditLegalCentreisastatewidespecialistserviceandMarrickvilleLegalCentreisageneralistinnercitylegalcentreservicingaspecificgeographiccatchmentarea.

Theloddon Campaspe Community legal CentrehelpsdisadvantagedCentralVictorianswithlegalproblems.ItiscommittedtohumanrightsandsocialjusticeandworkswithotherlocalagenciesandnetworkstoaddresscommonissuesofdisadvantageandneedintheLoddonCampasperegionofCentralVictoria.TheCentreprovidesfreelegaladvice,referralandongoingassistancetolocalresidentsinarangeofareasincludingfamily,consumer,debt,discrimination,family/domesticviolence,crime,motorvehicleaccidents,welfarerights,employment,guardianshipandvictimsofcrime.

Primarily,thelegalcentreprogramatgeraldton Resource Centreoperatestoprovideassistancetopeoplewhowouldnototherwisehaveaccesstolegaladvice.Italsoassistspeopletoaccessthelegalandothersystemswheretheiraccessislimited,forexampledue

34 AustralianStandardGeographicClassificationRemotenessStructure.35 Ibid.


-��-

topoorliteracy.TheCLCseekstonegotiateoutcomesbetweenpartiesandworkswithotherprogramswithinGeraldtonResourceCentretoassistclients.

Apartfromageneralistlegalprogram,anIndigenousWomen’sprogramandtenancyadvocacy,GeraldtonResourceCentreoperatesarangeofprogramstargetingtherootcauseofproblemsthatwouldotherwisemanifestaslegalmatters.Programsincludefinancialcounselling,supportprogramsforreleasedprisonersandahomelessnessservice.TypicallytheprogramsreflecttheworkloadoftheCLC.

TheConsumer Credit legal Centrefunctionstoprovideanexpertknowledgebaseintheareaofconsumercreditactinginthepublicinterestandprovidingvaluableinputtopolicymakers.Thecentrealsoservesacompliancefunction,byassessingtheperformanceoflendersandinsurancecompaniesagainstcodesofpracticeandstatutoryregulationandensuring,asfarastheyareable,thatthosecodesofpracticeandregulationsarecompliedwith.Atamorepracticallevel,benefitsareachievedbytheCLCfacilitatingnegotiationbetweenparties,withthesebenefitsaccruingtocreditors,debtorsandtothebroadercommunity.Importantly,andsimilartoothercentres,thecentreseekstoaddresstherootcauseofmattersthatwouldotherwisepresentaslegalproblemsbyprovidingcounsellingandsupporttoclients.

Marrickville legal Centreoperatestoprovideassistancetopeoplewhowouldnototherwisehaveaccesstolegaladvice.Italsoassistspeopletoaccessthelegalandothersystemswheretheiraccessislimitedduetolackofskillsorsophistication.TheCLCrunsspecialistprogramsintheareasofyoungpeople,tenancyanddomesticviolence.

4.3 Assessment of operating costsOperatingcostsweredeterminedfromtheaccountsofthevariouscentres.Whereacommunitylegalcentrewaspartofalargerorganisation,relevantofficersfromeachorganisationidentifiedthecomponentofcostattributabletothecommunitylegalcentre.

4.4 Selection of mattersAsamplingapproachwasusedtoestimatetheaveragebenefitassociatedwithamatterforaparticularcommunitylegalcentre.Over160matterswereassessedacrossthefourlegalcentres.36Theapproachusedatthefirstcentrewastoselecttwentyrandommatters(includingcasesandadvices)andtohavelegalstaffidentifyanothertwentycasesthattheyperceivedashavinghighvalue.

Followinganalysis,itwasfoundthattheeconomicbenefitassociatedwiththerandommatterswassimilartotheeconomicbenefitassociatedwiththemattersperceivedbylegalstaffashavinghighvalue.Forthisreason,intheotherthreecentrestwentyrandomcasesandtwentyrandomadviceswereselectedandevaluated.

4.5 evaluation of matters using the frameworkEachfilewasassessedastowhetherabenefitwasevidentinthethreeareasofthelaw,theprocessandexternalities.Thebenefitwasthenquantifiedusingarangeofmethodssuchasavoidedcostorwillingnesstopaywithrecoursetootherstudiesortoreportedcosts.Thiswasthemajorpartofthestudy,andmanydifferentapproacheswereused,butarenotrepeatedhere.Detailscanbefoundintheindividualcasestudieswiththestudy’sreport.

36 Whilealargersamplewillalwaysreduceoverorunderestimatesarisingfromsamplingerror,thereisatrade-offbetweenthecostofassessinglargerandlargersamplesandthereductioninsamplingerror.Forarandomlydistributedcontinuousvariable,suchasthebenefitassociatedwithamatter,asamplesizeof30isconsideredsufficienttoreturngoodresultshencethesampleof160matterscanbeexpectedtoprovidedefensibleresults.


-��-

4.6 discussion and review with ClC staffFollowinganinitialreviewandassessmentbytheresearcher,thematterswerethendiscussedwithcommunitylegalcentrestafftoseeif,first,thematterwasproperlyunderstood,andsecondly,whethertherewereothercircumstancesassociatedwiththematterthatmayhavecontributedadditionalbenefitthathadnotbeenidentified.

4.7 Finalisation and quantification of benefitsTheidentifiedandquantifiedeconomicbenefitswerethenfinalised.

4.8 Calculation and reporting of cost benefit ratioAnaveragebenefitpercaseandperadvicewascalculated.Thisaveragebenefitwasthenmultipliedbythenumberofcasesandadvicesrecordedbythecentreinatwelvemonthperiod,andthebenefitwasdividedbytheoperatingcostofthecommunitylegalcentretoreturnacostbenefitratio.Afurthercomparisonwasmadeofhighbenefitcaseswithoperatingcoststodeterminehowmanyhighbenefitcaseswouldberequiredtooffsettheoperatingcostofthecentre.

4.9 interviews with key staff on programs provided by each centre

Interviewswerealsoconductedwithkeystaffonprogramsprovidedbyeachcentretoprovideamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofthecentres’functions,andprovideamorequalitativeperspectiveonthevalueoftheCLCs.


-��-

5. Summary of results5.1 OverviewThestudyfindsthat,onaverage,CLCshaveacostbenefitratioof1:18;thatis,foreverydollarspentbygovernmenttheyreturnabenefittosocietythatis18timesthecost.Toexpressthisindollarterms,iftheaverageheldconstantforCLCsacrossAustralia,the$47.0millionspentontheprogramnationallyin2009/10wouldyieldaround$846.0millionofbenefittoAustralia.

TheassessmentofneteconomicbenefitsprovidesaverystrongrationaleforthecontinuedfundingoftheCLCprogram,andaclearjustificationofCLCsineconomicterms.Asnoted,noteverythingthatisdonebyCLCscan(orindeedshould)bequantified.Theassessmentisalsolimitedtodirectservice(advicesandcasework)andsodoesnotincludesomeofthecommunitylegaleducationandpolicyandlawreformactivitiesthatarecommonlyundertakenbycentres.Nonetheless,thoseactivitiesthathavebeenquantifiedindicateaveryhighrateofreturncompared,forexample,tothecostbenefitratiothatmayberequiredtojustifyaphysicalinfrastructureprogram(typicallyaround1:2or1:3).

Resultsofthecostbenefitanalysisaresummarisedinthetablebelow.Notethatcostsincludeallprogramcostsincludingcommunitylegaleducationandotheractivitiesaswellasinformation,adviceandcasework;hencetheresultsmaybeconservative.

Table 1: Results of cost benefit analysis

CentreAverAge

benefit of AdviCes

AverAge benefit of

CAses

Cost benefit rAtio notes

Loddon-CampaspeCLC

$3,999($95,537)

$6,634(77,010)

1:30(400)

Figureinbracketsincludesoneveryhighvaluematterwhichmayskewresults.

GeraldtonResourceCentre $173 $4,241

($12,241)1:6(17)

Figureinbracketsincludesatrainingcoursewhereascribingthebenefitsoftheprogramtothecentreis

debatable.ConsumerCreditLC $3,595 $2,379 1:33

MarrickvilleLC $567 $365 1:4average across cenTres $2,084 $3,405 1:18

Source:JSAdataandanalysis

5.2 discussion

5.2.1 SummaryInallcasestheestimatedcostbenefitratiowashighenoughtojustifythecentreeconomicallyevengiventheuncertaintiesinestimatingandassigningbenefitstothevariouscentres.Asnoted,onaverageacrossthefourcentres,andbyextrapolationforthesectorasawhole,benefitsexceededcostsbyafactorof18(acostbenefitrationof1:18).However,aswouldbeexpected,therewasfoundtobeawiderangeofbenefitsassociatedwithmatters,witheconomicbenefitstothecommunityrangingfromzeroinsomecasestomillionsofdollarsinothermatterswheretheactionsoftheCLCavoidedtheverylargecostsassociatedwithinstitutionalcare.Theaveragebenefitofinformationandadviceswasfoundtobesimilartotheaveragebenefitofcases;however,thenumberofinformationandadvices


-��-

considerablyexceedsthenumberofcases,sothatthetotalbenefitofinformationandadvicesexceededthetotalbenefitofcasesacrossthefourcentres.

Thedifferencebetweencentresconsideredinthisreviewisstriking,withtwocentresassessedashavingcostbenefitratiosfivetimeshigherthantheothertwo.

ThereareavarietyofreasonswhyeconomiccostbenefitratiosmayvaryforCLCs.Theseinclude:• Inthisreview,benefitwasassessedfrommattersperformedinandbythelegalpractice,whereascostwasassessedbylookingatthewholecostofthecommunitylegalcentre.Somecentreshaveotherprogramsandworkersthatprovideotherservices,forexample,familyviolencecounsellingorcommunityeducationactivitiesandotherpreventativeandcapacitybuildingstrategies,thathavenotbeen'counted'inthebenefitanalysisbuttheircostmayfigureinthecostofthecentre.Dependingonthenumberandprofileoftheseotherservices,thiscostcouldbeverysignificantinsomecentres,butonlyacomparativelysmallcostatothers.

• Centresmayhavedifferentintakepolicies,withsomecentresassistinganyonefromtheircommunitywhopresents,atleastinitially,whileothersmayhavemorestrictguidelines,effectively'filtering'thepeopletheyassistbeforetheyseethem.Applicationorimplementationofintakepoliciescanalsovarybetweencentres.

• Centresmayhavemore,orless,effectivetriageassessment.Withmoreresourcesallocatedtothisstage,morepeoplemaybereferredtootherprovidersimmediately,meaningthatthosewhoareseenbyalawyermaybemorelikelytohavesignificantproblemsthatcanbeaddressedbythecentre.Thismayincreasethebenefitsideoftheequation.

• Therearedifferencesintheprofileofthecentres'underlyingclientbaseand/orthecatchment(geographicorcommunityofinterest)uponwhichtheydraw.Forexample,servicestargetedatIndigenousorparticularimmigrantorseniorsgroupsmayrequireserviceproviderstogooutintothecommunitiestoengagewithpotentialclientsbeforelegalneedscanbeexpressedoridentified,orservicesprovided.Theseclientsalsorequiremoretime.Thetimeandcostofprovidingservicesinthisway,includingtheuseofinterpretersortakingintoaccountculturalsensitivities,maysignificantlyaffectaneconomicassessment.

• Therearedifferencesinprogramfocus,forexamplesomecentresmaychoosetoprovidemainlylegaladviceandlegalcaseworkservices,whileothersmayincludeagreaterproportionofearlyinterventionorpreventativework,suchascommunitylegaleducationorlawreformactivities.Again,thiswillaffecttheassessmentofrelativecostsandbenefits.

• Differenttypesoflawareassociatedwithgreaterandlessereconomicbenefits,consequentlycentresfocussingonareasoflawunderpinnedbyequityconsiderationswillbeassessedashavinglowereconomicbenefitscomparedtocentresfocussingonareasoflawunderpinnedbyefficiencyconsiderations.

5.2.2 Justification for the programTheestimatedcostbenefitratiowasquitehigh,andmorethansufficienttojustifytheongoingfundingoftheprogramfromaneconomicperspective.Whilethecostbenefitratiowasquitehigh,therewillalwaysbeuncertaintiesastothedegreeofprecisioninthequantificationofbenefits,uncertaintyastowhetherallbenefitsandcostshavebeenidentifiedandfinallyuncertaintyastothedegreetowhichbenefitscanbefullyascribedtotheoperationofCLCs.Giventhehighcostbenefitratio,evenintheunlikelyeventthatbenefitsweresignificantlyoverestimated,theeconomicbenefitsofthesectorarestilllikelytosignificantlyexceedcosts.Forexample,evenifbenefitswereoverstatedbyafactoroftwo,thecost-benefitratiowouldstillbe1:9.


-��-

Asnoted,governmenttypicallyregardsacost-benefitratioof1:2or1:3assufficientjustificationtoproceedwithamajorinfrastructureprojectinvolving,insomecasesbillionsofdollarsinpublicexpenditure.37Bythisbenchmark,acostbenefitratioof1:18wouldberegardedasprovidingcleareconomicjustificationfortheCLCprogramusingthegovernment’spreferredeconomicevaluationmethodology.

5.2.3 Value associated with various types of matters and approaches

Thefollowingprovidesexamplesoftypicalmatterswhereabenefitwasachieved.Thesemattersillustratesomeofthewiderangeofeconomicbenefitsassociatedwithmattershandledbycommunitylegalcentres,andshowthequantumofbenefitthatcanbeachieved.Followingtheseexamples,somegeneralprinciplesareextractedregardingthetypesofmattersandapproacheslikelytoyieldhigheconomicbenefits.

benefits arising from the proper operation of the lawThereareanumberofareasofthelawwheretheoperationofcommunitylegalcentrescanresultinasignificantandquantifiedbenefit.Thisisparticularlyevidentfromcasestudiesassociatedwiththeavoidanceofdomesticviolenceandchildabuse,whereestimatesofthelifetimecostofabusedchildrenarearound$38,000perchildandestimatesofthelifetimecostofdomesticviolencearearound$37,000pervictim.38Theresponseavailablethroughthelegalsystemtothesecostsappearstobethroughcriminalaction,violenceorders(withdifferentnamesindifferentstates)andthroughcustodyinterventions.

Case study 1the client’s previous partner was subject to an intervention order and was in jail for breaches of that order and was to be released shortly. the client feared for her safety and that of her child. she was advised to report a previous breach of the intervention order and was referred to a range of support services. if the intervention order was not further enforced, it would become meaningless and would not serve its function of preventing violence.

Case study 2the client’s granddaughter lived with them but the mother had custody. the child was at risk of harm from her mother arising from violence and exposure to drug taking. the community legal centre facilitated the paternal grandparent’s successful application for custody.

Oneoftheimportantfunctionsofthelawwithregardtoeconomicefficiencyisthroughinternalisingexternalitiesthroughthenotionofnegligence,thatis,inaneconomicsenseapartyisrequiredtopaythefullpriceoftheiractions.Thebenefitofanyindividualcaseacrosssocietyislikelytobesmall,asataneconomicallyefficientpoint,thecostofadditionalenforcementwouldbeexpectedtobeequaltothecostofadditionalnegligenceacrosssociety.Howeverlevelsofenforcementbelowthisoptimumlevelwouldbeinefficientasthereducedcostfromlowerlevelsofnegligencewouldexceedtheadditionalcostoffurtherenforcement.

37 Whileacostbenefitratioof1:1.08wouldbesufficienttojustifyaproject,thehighervalueof1:2or1:3quotedreflectsthevariousuncertaintiesincalculatingbothcostsandbenefits.38 Taylor,P.,Moore,P.,Pezzullo,L.,Tucci,J.,Goddard,C.andDeBortoli,L.(2008),The Cost of Child Abuse in Australia, AustralianChildhoodFoundationandChildAbusePreventionResearchAustralia:Melbourne;AccessEconomics(2004),The Cost of Domestic Violence to the Australian Economy.


-�0-

Case study 3the client suffered a serious workplace injury while working as an apprentice. the injury was poorly managed with the employer originally claiming that the client was a subcontractor rather than an employee. A settlement was offered but appeared low in view of the client’s uncertain future earning capacity. the client suffered depression as a result of his injury. the community legal centre arranged for the client to be represented by a commercial firm.

Usingasimilarargument,itiseconomicallyefficientforcontractstobeenforced,otherwisethepricespaidbythepartiesdonotreflectthedistributionofrisk.Againthebenefitofanyindividualcasetosocietyislikelytobesmall,asataneconomicallyefficientlevelofenforcement,thecostofadditionalenforcementwouldbeexpectedtobeequaltothecostofadditionaldefault.

Case study 4the client was a department of Housing tenant. due to a leak, his flat had been damp or wet for a four year period and the problem was ongoing. the community legal centre assisted him in his successful application to the tenancy tribunal for repair works. in addition he received an ex gratia payment of $4,000 in respect to a damages claim.

benefits arising from a more efficient operation of the legal systemThereisarangeofareaswheresomeclassesofpeopleareexcluded,eitherpartiallyorfully,fromtheeconomicallyefficientoperationofthelaw.OneofthepurposesofCLCsistoprovideaservicetothesepeople,effectivelyasaresultofequityconsiderationsonthepartofgovernment.Inthesecases,itisimportanttominimisecoststoallparties.

Case study 5the client was an 18 year old on Centrelink payments and had entered into an agreement with a mobile phone provider. she exceeded the cap on her initial plan and so entered into a more expensive plan which she was unable to afford and she accrued a debt of $1,800. there were some irregularities in her initial application, as she would not have been eligible under the provider’s guidelines due to her low income. the community legal centre negotiated to have the debt waived as the client was effectively judgement free due to her inability to repay the debt. the benefit was around $540, including the average cost of a magistrates’ court hearing of $330 and $213 for the average cost of enforcement by the sheriff. in addition, it is likely that the provider has avoided other internal administrative and legal costs.

Therearecostsassociatedwithalitigantinperson,orthroughengagingaformalsystemwhenmatterscanberesolvedmoresimply,suchasbynegotiation.Theseapproachesleadtoacostsavingacrosssociety.

Case study 6the client was a disability pensioner. He was one week behind in his rent and had arrears with regard to other debts, owing a total of $515 including his back rent. the community legal centre negotiated with the real estate Agent for the client to pay an extra $60 per fortnight to reduce the debt and arranged with Centrelink to take an additional amount from his payments until his debts were paid off. the average cost of a rental tribunal hearing, around $430, was saved, as were any administrative costs that would be incurred by the real estate Agent in pursuing the matter.

Oftentimelyadvicecanresultinamatternotbeingpursuedincomparativelyexpensivecourtortribunalproceedings,withresultantsavingstoboththeclientandtheotherpartyinadministrativecostsandtime,andtothepubliclyfundedjusticesystem.


-��-

Case study 7the client had been employed as a kitchen hand at a mine site. she cut her hand, and the injury was quite severe, requiring plastic surgery. she was concerned that she had been underpaid while working as a kitchen hand and that her workers’ compensation payments ceased when she resigned and took up another job. she was advised that her compensation payments appeared to be appropriate, and that, on review of her employment contract, she had been correctly paid. the benefit is difficult to assess as it is not clear that she would have pursued the matter using a more formal process. At a minimum, she will not spend any more time pursuing the matter, a saving to herself and to publicly funded tribunals and hence the community.

benefits arising from avoidance of externalitiesInsomecases,theoperationofthelaw,whileaddressingoneproblem,cangiverisetoothercostswithinsociety.Avoidanceofthesecoststhroughapreventativeorholisticapproachcanleadtosubstantialbenefits.

Case study 8the client had a daughter who was developmentally delayed and had behavioural problems, causing her to act violently at times. the response of the client or her neighbours was to contact the police. due to the number of call outs, and because of concerns for the safety of a younger brother, police sought a violence order. this would most likely have resulted in a breach, meaning that the daughter could no longer live at home. the community legal centre facilitated a range of negotiations resulting in the daughter providing a limited undertaking and a number of supports being put in place. While it is important to avoid the costs of assault, estimated at around $5,750 for a significant assault, the cost of providing residential accommodation support is a much greater cost to the community at around $112,000 per annum per client, or a one off cost over twenty years of $1.2 million. this cost was avoided.

Case study 9the client was on workers’ compensation and had received a default notice from his home loan lender. He had been advised by the bank to convert his loan to fixed interest, but was not able to pay the higher payments and so was issued with a default notice. He changed back to a variable loan but was required to pay a cancellation fee. the bank had not advised him of the option of a hardship variation. the community legal centre negotiated with the bank and was successful in having the cancellation fee waived. if the matter had gone further, it is likely that costs of around $6,850 in court and enforcement costs and $11,000 in estate agent fees would have been incurred across society. the bank would also incur costs, both legal and internal. these costs were avoided by the negotiated settlement.

5.2.4 general findings regarding economic efficiency and ClCs

Overarching principlesTheoverarchingprinciplewhenassessingeconomicbenefitsistodothisfromtheperspectiveofthewholeofthecommunity.Thisperspectivecanbechallenginginthecontextofassessinglegalservices,asbytheverynatureofthelegalsystem,legalpractitionersareconcernedwiththeoutcomefortheirclient,butagoodoutcomeforaclientmaynotleadtoaneconomicbenefitforallofsociety.Forexample,alegalpractitionermaybesuccessfulinhavingaclient’sdebtwaived,butthecostofthatdefaultisbornebytherestofsociety,throughforexample,higherinterestratesorprices.Inadditiontransactioncostshavebeenincurred.Consequently,whatisaneconomicbenefitforaclientisnotnecessarilythesamethingasaneconomicbenefitforsociety.

Theperspectiveofthewholeofthecommunityalsogoesmuchfurtherthanwhatisoftentheconcernofgovernmentagencies,thatis,thefinancialimpactontheirbudget.Thetwo


-��-

arenotthesamething,forexample,thefinancialimpactonanorganisation’sbudgetcanbeminimisedbyreducingtheservicesdelivered,butthecostofnotdeliveringtheservicemightwelloutweighthemoneysaved,forexample,notspendingmoneyonlegalaidmayresultinawholeclassofpeopleexcludedfromtheproperoperationofthelawandconsequentlytheirexclusionfromanyeconomicbenefitsassociatedwiththatproperoperation.

Further,whenassessingeconomicbenefitforthecommunity,indirectcoststothecommunityshouldbetakenintoaccount.Thecosttosocietyofinstitutionalcareofapersonisverygreat,typicallyatleast$100,000peryear.Ifsuchcostscanbeavoided,benefitsaresignificant.

benefits arising from the operation of the lawTherearesomeareasofthelawwherethelaw’soperationresultsinaneconomicbenefit;however,inotherareasthepurposeofthelawisbestconsideredasameasuretoaddressequityconcerns,thatis,notionsoffairness.Itotherwords,itisatransfer.

Withregardtothoseareaswherethelawcanbeseentodeliveraneconomicbenefit,therearefoursetsofcircumstances,listedinorderofdecreasingeconomicbenefitacrossthewholeofthecommunity.

• Wherethelawfunctionstoavoidcosts,thatis,functionsbeforetheeventinapreventativeway,thentheeconomicbenefitsmaybequitehigh.Inthesecasesthelawappearstofunctionsoastoavoidexternalities.Someexamplesofthisincludeviolenceorderswherequitesmalladministrativecostsmaybeincurredtopreventorreduceviolence,andcustodyorders,wherethepurposemaybetoavoidcostsrelatedtochildabuse.Otherareasincludecustodyfollowingrelationshipbreakdown,withevidencethatchildreninjointcustody(followingrelationshipbreakdown)arebetteradjustedbycomparisonwithchildreninsolecustodyarrangements.39Considerablecostscanbesavedifpeoplemanagetheirownaffairsratherthanrelyingonthepublictrusteeandsoifarrangementscanbefacilitatedforthemtomanagetheirownaffairsortoavoidtheinterventionofthepublictrustee,thereareassociatedeconomicbenefits.CLCscanreturnahigheconomicbenefitinthesetypesofmatters,effectivelythroughtheavoidanceofrelativelyeasilyquantifiedexternalities.

• Wheretheeconomicbenefitoftheproperoperationofthelawservesadeterrentfunctionbypunishment40orassignspropertyrights,itislikelythatanybenefitasaresultoftheoperationofthelawwouldbemarginal.Usinganeconomicapproachtothelaw,itwouldbeexpectedthatanoptimumpositionwouldbeachievedwherebytheexpectedcostofbreakingthelawisgreaterthantheexpectedbenefitofbreakingthelaw,butthatdoesnotmeanthatthelawwouldalwaysbeenforcedineverycase.Lookedatanotherway,aneconomicallyefficientpointmightbewherethecosttosocietyofincorrectlyfindingsomeoneguiltyisequaltotheadditionaladministrativecostofmeetingahigherlevelofproof.Conversely,ahighstandardofproofmightincorrectlyfindsomeonenotguilty,andhenceincurcostselsewhereinsocietythroughfailuretodetercrime.Thismeansthatwhiletheeconomiccosttosocietyof,say,abreakdownofcontractlawmightbeverylarge,onaveragethecostsofanyparticularbreachmightbeexpectedtobeoffsetbythecostofpursuingthatbreach.

Someexamplesofthesetypesofbenefitswheremarginalbenefitswouldbeexpectedtoequalmarginalcostsincludecorrectallocationofriskininsuranceclaimssuchasworkers’compensation,theenforcementofdebts,nuisance,contractualmattersincludingtenancymattersandpunishmentforcriminalmatters.TheeconomicbenefitreturnedbyCLCs

39 Bauserman,R.(2002)ChildAdjustmentinJoint-CustodyVersusSole-Custody:AMeta-AnalyticReview,Journal of Family Psychology,AmericanPsychologicalAssociationAPA,Inc.2002,Vol.16,No.1,91-102.Theauthorconductedameta-analysisof33studies,findingthatchildreninjointcustodyarrangementswerebetteradjustedacrossarangeofmeasurescomparedtochildreninsolecustodyarrangements,andwithresultssimilartochildreninintactfamiliesandthattheconclusionwasrobustacrossstudies.40 Inaneconomicanalysisofthelaw,acriminalsentenceorafineputsapriceonacriminalorproscribedactivityandthereforepromotesamarket.


-��-

inthesemattersisthereforedifficulttoquantifybecauseofthemarginalnatureofthebenefit,butisnonethelessvaluable,asforexampleintheabsenceofCLCstheremaybeaclassofpeoplewhoareexcludedfromthebenefitsofaneconomicallyefficientoutcomeduetotheirinabilitytounderstandortoaccessthelegalsystem,orinotherwaysredressawrongorsolvetheirproblem.

• Inothercasestheoperationofthelawseemstobelargelyamatterofsettlingdisputes,althoughthiscanbejustifiedeconomicallyastheminimisationoftransactioncosts,whichareessentiallyresourcesexpendedfornoreturn(i.e.benefitequalscost)whenlookingacrossallthepartiesoracrossthewholeofsociety.Someexamplesincludelawsaroundwillsandprobate,disputesbetweenneighbours,childsupportmatters,propertysettlementafterdivorceandbankruptcy.Ofcourse,disputescan,andsomenotinfrequentlydo,escalate,andhence‘cost’more,soearlyresolutionofdisputesmaystillbeasavingtosociety(andtoindividuals’qualityoflifeandwell-being),althoughnotalwaysprovableorquantifiable.

• Finally,inmanyareasoflaw,theunderlyingrationaleisoneofequity,thatis,fairnessorredistribution.TheseareoftenimportantareasforCLCs,reflectingtheircommitmenttotheseprinciples.Someexamplesincludelawsrelatingtorefugees,discriminationofvariouskinds,labourlaws,victims’compensationschemesandaspectsofconsumerprotectionlegislation.Howeverintheseareasthelawdoesnotoperateinawaythatcanbeconceptualisedaspromotingeconomicefficiency,andconsequentlythereisnoassociatedeconomicbenefit.

The processTherearethreeimportantareaswhereCLCsreducecostswithinthelegalsystemacrossthewholeofsociety.Thesavingscomefromareductionintransactioncostsandadministrativeaction,firstlybytheclientthemselves,secondlybytheotherpartyandthirdlywithinthelegalsystem.Theareasarelistedinorderoftheirabilitytoreducetransactioncosts.Itshouldalsobenotedthatinmanycases,theearlierthecommunitylegalcentrebecomesinvolved,thegreatertheopportunityforsavings.

• ThefirstandperhapsthesimplestiswhentheCLCformsanindependentviewofaperson’scaseormatterand,whereappropriate,advisesthemthatthecasehaslittleornoprospectsofsuccess,orthatwhatmaybe‘won’wouldbefaroutweighedbythecostorpotentialrisk(e.g.fromanadversecostsorder)totheclient.Ifthisisthecase,thenconsiderableadministrativeeffort(andcost)canbesaved,bothonthepartoftheclientandinthelegalsystemand/orotherpartsoftheeconomy.

• Negotiatinganoutcomeisanotherimportantapproach.Sometimesintroductionofathirdpartytoadisputeleadstoarapidconclusion.Sometimesthematterindisputeisasignofanunderlyingproblem,andwhenthisproblemisidentifiedandaddressed,aconclusioncanbereachedrapidly.Inanycase,comparedtotheconsiderableadministrative(andpersonal)expenseingoingtocourt,negotiatedsolutionsinvariablyhaveabenefit.

Empoweringpeopletomanagetheirownaffairsthroughcommunitylegaleducationisanotherimportantarea.Thisisalong-standingandcommittedstrategyofCLCs.Oftenpeopleneedguidanceonhowtonegotiatetheadministrativeorlegalsystemaboutaparticularissueormatter,orwhattheirlegalrightsoroptionsare,orhowtoprotectorassertthem.Oncetheylearnthesethings,orhavesomesupport,theycanoftenprogressandresolvethematterthemselves.

• Finally,communitylegalcentrescanrepresentclients.Intermsoftheprocess,thereisonlyasmallsavingincourtcosts(reportedas20%onaverage)betweenalitigantinpersonandsomeonewhohaslegalrepresentation.41Itisnotclearthatthisisahigh

41 Malcolm,D.(2004)2004 Annual Review of Western Australian Courts,page50(thesourceofthedataisnotclear).


-�4-

benefitareaforcommunitylegalcentres,asinthreeofthelegalcentresconsidered,theaveragebenefitofinformationandadvicesexceededtheaveragebenefitofcases(although,averagedacrossthefourcentres,thevaluewassimilar).Themajorbenefitofcaseworkappearstolieinfourareas:

- Strategiccaseworkcantestandcreatelaw,orconfirmorclarifytheinterpretationorapplicationofthelawwhich,inthetypesofmattershandledbyCLCs,suchaswelfarerights,migration,tenancy,canoftenoperatetothebenefitofmorepeoplethanthepartyinvolved,andisthereforealsotothebenefitofjudicialandadministrativedecision-makers.Onemattermaybeaserviceandgivebenefittoanindividualbutoperatetopreventorresolvelegalproblemsformany.

- ‘Test’casescanresolvetherightsoftheparties,butalsoworkaseducativeorawarenessraisingmechanismsforthecommunitytoo,informingthemofpotential‘dangers’e.g.paydaylendingschemes,workingwithasbestosandusingtheDalkonShield.Thiscanalsoeducatepeopleabouttheirrightsandpossibilitiesforrecourse,andcanhaveadeterrenteffectonwrongdoerswhohavebeenoperatingtothedetrimentofthedisadvantaged.

- Conductingcasescanbeimportantprofessionaldevelopmentforlawyers,maintainingandimprovingtheirprofessionalknowledgeandskills,especiallyinkeyareas.

- Theavailabilityoflitigationandlegalcaseworkopportunitiescanbeasignificant‘drawcard’inrecruitmentandretentionoflawyers,particularlyimportantinrural,regionalandremoteareas,whererecruitmentandretentionareoftenhardest.

externalitiesTheoperationofthelegalsystemcanresultinunintendedcostselsewhereintheeconomy.Whereveryhighbenefitsareassociatedwithamatter,theyareusuallytheresultofavoidanceofthesetypesofexternalities.Wherethesebenefitsareidentifiedinthecasestudies,theyareoftenbecausecommunitylegalcentrestakeaholisticorcasemanagementapproach,thatis,theylookbeyondthelegalproblemandseektoidentifyitscausesand/orotherunderlyingproblems.Simpleapproaches,suchasassistingsomeoneinarrangingtheirfinancialaffairs,orinco-ordinatingwithsupportservicestoenablepeopletoremainintheirdomesticarrangements(avoidinginstitutionalcare)canhaveveryhighbenefitsfortheindividual,andbyextension,tosociety.

5.3 Conclusion ThestudydemonstratesthatthecalculatedbenefitsoftheCLCsectorsignificantlyoutweighthecosttothecommunityofprovidingcommunitylegalservices.Anaveragecalculatedcostbenefitratioof1:18issuchthat,evenaccountingfortheopportunitiesforimprecisionintheanalysis,theconclusionwillberobust,thatisitwouldrequireverysignificanterrorsinthevaluesusedandintheassumptionsforbenefitsnottoexceedcostsbyanacceptablemargin.

Thoughthestudy’sscopewasfocusedonthequantificationofadvicesandcasesindollarterms,amorequalitativereviewofprogramslikecommunitylegaleducationandlawreformisalsolikelytoyieldaneteconomicbenefittotheextenttowhichtheyperforminformation,empowermentandpreventativefunctions,andleadtotheavoidanceofexternalitiesandtransactioncosts.Intheseways,CLCsperformanimportantroleinfulfillingtheobjectivesofgovernmentrelatedtoeconomicefficiency,inparticularrelatedtotheprovisionoflegalservices.

OtherfunctionsofCLCswhereabenefitisnotevidentarebestthoughtofasequitymeasuresandaremoredifficulttovalueineconomicterms.Theyaregenerallyacosttosociety,butone


-��-

thatwearepreparedtopay,andfulfilalegitimatemarketfunctioninaddressinginequalitiesintheinitialallocationofresourceslikeincome,education,ability,location,culturalandotheraspectsofsocialandeconomicdisadvantage,thatprovideabarriertoaccessoflegalservices.Inthisregard,CLCsperformanimportantfunctioninmeetingtheequityobjectivesofgovernment,suchasthecurrentAustralianGovernment’spolicyagendasofsocialinclusionandequitableaccesstojustice,andcanalsoprovideaneconomicbenefitwheresuchfunctionsareperformedinacosteffectivewaycomparedtodeliveringservicesthoughhighercostdeliverymechanisms.

ThefunctionsperformedbyCLCsarethusofgreaterorlessereconomicvalue,dependingonthenatureoftheworkundertaken,thetypesofmattersdealtwithandtheprioritiesgiventocertainapproachestoworking.

Theaveragebenefitassociatedwithinformationandadviceswasfoundtobesimilartothatarisingfromcasework,stronglysupportinggreaterallocationofresourcestothisactivity,soastomaximisenumbersofpeoplehelpedwiththelimitedresources.Atthesametime,casesareimportantintestingthelaw,sometimesasacosteffectivepreventativestrategy,andformaintainingthecurrencyoflegalstaff’sknowledgeandexpertiseandotherbenefitsnotedabove.

Someareasofthelaw(orlegalprinciples)areassociatedwithhighereconomicbenefitstosocietythanotherareasandhencemaximisingeconomicbenefitmightmeanafocusontheseareas,thoughthiswillneedtobebalancedwithconsiderationsofequity.Thatis,involvementinotherareasofthelawmaynothavethesameeconomicbenefitsasinotherareas,butatthesametimesuchinvolvementachievesanequitygoalofgovernmentbyprovidingaccesstothelegalsystemtopeoplewhomaybeotherwiseexcluded.

Intermsofreducingtransactioncosts,anearlyprofessionalassessmentofthemeritsofamatter,andwhereamatterprogresses,seekingtosettlevianegotiationwhereverpossibleandappropriate,canprovidesignificanteconomicbenefits.Processesofcommunityeducationandlawreformarealsosupportedbyeconomicanalysisduetothelowunitcostofsuchmeasuresandtheopportunityforreducingtransactioncosts.Finally,theeconomicbenefitsofarepresentedlitigantcomparedtoalitigantinpersonareacostsaving,thoughnotparticularlyhighonaverage.42

Fromaneconomicperspective,someofthelargesteconomicbenefitsareachievedbyaholisticapproachtocasemanagement,wherebyanuancedunderstandingandmanagementofaperson’scircumstancescanleadtotheavoidanceofoftensignificantcostsbothwithinandexternaltothelegalsystem,andtoworkinginapreventivewaytoavoidormitigatecosts.ThisisanareawhichCLC’sareuniquelyplacedtoprovidevalueforthefundingprovidedbygovernment.

42 Thereislimiteddataofunknownprovenancearoundthismatter,suggestingitcouldbeanareawarrantingadditionalresearch.


-��-

6. Case Study Centres6.1 loddon Campaspe ClCTheLoddonCampaspeCommunityLegalCentre(LCCLC)islocatedinBendigo,Victoria.LCCLC’sprimarygeographiccatchmentincludesthe6LGAsofMacedonRanges,CentralGoldfields,Loddon,Campaspe,MountAlexanderandtheCityofGreaterBendigo.ThecentreisalsorunningapilotservicethatoperatesintheGoulburnValley,incorporatingthe5LGAsofCityofGreaterShepparton,Campaspe,Strathbogie,MoiraandMitchell.

6.1.1 Centre profile

Current Staffing profileBasedoninformationreceivedfromthecentre,thecurrentstaffingprofileasatMarch2011forLCCLCstaffisasfollows.

Table 2: Staffing profile, lCClC

role fte

Principal/Coordinator 0.8

CommunityEducator 0.6

Solicitor(General) 2

Solicitor(FamilyRelationshipCentre/General) 1

Solicitor(GoulburnValleyPilotService) 1

Solicitor(Senior’sRightsVictoria) 1

Solicitor(Familyviolenceandclinicaleducation) 0.45

CLCAdministrator 1

Finance/Administration 0.9

Executivemanagementcontribution 0.5

TOTAl 9.25

Source:LCCLC2011,JSA2011

TheCentrealsoreceivessupportfromarangeofvolunteers.ClaytonUtzandotherlocallawyersprovideprobonolegalassistanceonacasebycasebasis.Ingeneral,theCentre’svolunteerprofileisasfollows:


-��-

Table 3: Volunteer profile, lCClC

role Hours per Week fte

Legalvolunteers 13 0.37

Studentvolunteers 8 0.23

Administrativevolunteers 4 0.11

ToTal 25 0.71


Current Service provisionLCCLCisageneralistcentreprovidinglegalassistance(information,adviceandcasework),communitydevelopmentandlegaleducation,lawreformandspecialprojects.

• Generalistservicesareprovidedthroughtelephoneandface-to-faceappointments(dayandevening)inBendigo.

• OutreachservicesareprovidedbyappointmentatEchuca,MaryboroughandKyneton.• FamilyViolencePreventionLegalServicesattendsBendigocourtseveryWednesdayandMaryboroughandEchucacourtsonalternateTuesdays.

• SeniorsRightsVictoria• ImmigrationAdviceServicesisprovidedbyappointmentinBendigoandShepparton.• HomelessPersons’LegalClinicisprovidedeveryFridayinBendigo,withamonthlyprofessionaldevelopmentseminarseriesalsoconducted.

• GoulburnValleyCLCPilot(October2009-June2011)hasprovidedlegalservicesthroughtelephoneandface-to-faceappointmentsdayandeveningoncertaindaysoftheweekatShepparton.

Client profileDuringthe2009/10financialyear,theLCCLCprovidedserviceto2,275clients.43

• 57.4%civillawclients,43.8%familylawclientsand5.8%criminallawclients(notethataclientcanhavemultiplelawtypes)

• 60%femaleclients,39.2%maleclients,0.8%clientsex/genderunknown

• 3%Indigenousclients

• 1.7%wereunder18years,25.6%wereaged18-34years,32%wereaged35-49years,20.3%wereaged50-64years,16.8%wereaged65orolderand3.6%agewasnotstated

• 79%werenewclientsduringtheperiod,11%wererepeatclientsand10%wereexistingclients.44

Femaleandmaleclientshadslightlydifferentlawtypeprofiles,withfemaleclientsmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforfamilylawtypeproblems(50.5%femaleclients/33%maleclients)andmalesmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforcivil(53.9%femaleclients/63.1%maleclients)andcriminallawtypeproblems(3.9%femaleclients/9%maleclients).

43 AsperCLSISCC6.ClientbyLawTypereports.44 AsperCLSISCA1.1ActivitySummarycountof2107totalclientsfor2009/10FY.


-��-

Figure 1: law Type profile for Male and Female lCClC ClientsSource:LCCLC2011,JSA2011

IndigenousclientswerelesslikelythanTotalClientstoreceiveservicesforcivilandcriminallawproblemsandmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforfamilylawproblems.Notethatfor2009/10,Indigenousclientscomprised3%oftotalclients(n=69).

Figure 2: law Type profile for Total and indigenous lCClC ClientsSource:LCCLC2011,JSA2011

Activity profileLCCLCconducted46informationand2059advicesactivitiesin2009/10.Thecentreopened998newcasesduringtheyearandclosed966cases,including864minorcases,91mediumand11majorcases.LCCLCalsocompleted4non-caseworkprojectsduringtheyearincluding1CLEprojectand2LawReformandPolicyprojects.Therewerealso16non-caseworkprojectsopenandstillgoingthroughouttheperiod.45

45 AsperCSLISCA1.1ActivitySummary


-29-

Problem Type ProfileLCCLC works across all areas of law, but a large proportion of its activities (advices, casework and first activity matters) are focused on family and civil law problem types, with a large proportion dedicated to family/domestic violence and other civil violence/retraining order problems.

Figure 3: Law Type Profile by Advice, Casework and First ActivitiesSource: LCCLC 2011, JSA 2011

First Activity MattersFirst Activity Matters are a count of the first interaction or ‘activity’ a client has with the service within the period of time specified. First Activities would most likely be advices and are thought to represent the most common problem types generated by clients of the service. For LCCLC in the 2009/10 FY, there were 2143 first activity matters. The most common problem types were Family/Domestic Violence, Other Civil Law, Wills/Probate, Contact and Residency and Property. Around one quarter of all first activities are related to Family/Domestic Violence problem types, plus around 7% of all first activities are Other Civil Violence/Restraining Order problems.


-�0-

Table 4: lCClC First Activity Matters by Total problem Type Sorted High to low

problem type # first ACtivities % first ACtivities TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 533 24.87%TotalOtherCivilLaw 329 15.35%TotalWills/Probate 208 9.71%TotalContactandResidency 169 7.89%TotalProperty 137 6.39%TotalCreditandDebt 95 4.43%TotalImmigration 91 4.25%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 90 4.20%TotalMotorVehicle 68 3.17%TotalDivorceandSeparation 67 3.13%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 56 2.61%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 55 2.57%TotalEmployment 49 2.29%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 35 1.63%TotalInjuries 35 1.63%TotalConsumerComplaints 34 1.59%TotalTenancy 22 1.03%TotalChildProtection 17 0.79%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowances 17 0.79%TotalChildSupport 11 0.51%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 11 0.51%TotalDiscrimination 9 0.42%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 4 0.19%TotalEnvironment 1 0.05%ToTal FirsT acTiviTy MaTTers 2143 100.00%


AdvicesTheproblemtypeprofileofadviceactivitiesin2009/10issimilartofirstactivities,withastrongemphasisonFamily/DomesticViolence,OtherCivilLaw,Wills/ProbateandContactandResidency.Adviceserviceswerealsodiverseacrossarangeofproblemtypes.Withintheseareasoflaw,keyproblemtypesincluded:

• Familyordomesticviolenceorder,18.71%• Othercivilviolence/restrainingorders,6.38%• Childcontactsorcontactorders,5.24%• Wills/probatepowerofattorney,3.87%• Elderabuse(physical,sexual,psychological,social,neglect,agedcare),3.13%


-��-

Table 5: lCClC Advices by Total problem Type Sorted High to low

problem type # AdviCes % AdviCes TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 519 22.84%TotalOtherCivilLaw 350 15.40%TotalWills/Probate 225 9.90%TotalContactandResidency 196 8.63%TotalProperty 143 6.29%TotalCreditandDebt 105 4.62%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 96 4.23%TotalImmigrationLaw 93 4.09%TotalMotorVehicle 80 3.52%TotalDivorceandSeparation 68 2.99%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 60 2.64%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 57 2.51%TotalEmployment 53 2.33%TotalInjuries 43 1.89%TotalConsumerComplaints 41 1.80%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 39 1.72%TotalTenancy 22 0.97%TotalChildProtection 21 0.92%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowance 21 0.92%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 15 0.66%TotalChildSupport 11 0.48%TotalDiscrimination 8 0.35%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 5 0.22%TotalEnvironment 1 0.04%ToTal aDvices 2272 100.00%


Casework ActivitiesLCCLCcaseworkactivitiesfor2009/10FYwereagainspreadacrossarangeofproblemtypes.WhilstFamily/DomesticViolencematterswereakeyareaofactivity,thesetypesofmatterscomprised40%ofcaseworkactivities.OtherCivilLaw,Wills/Probate,ContactandResidencyandCreditandDebtwerealsoprimaryareasofcaseworkactivities.Withintheseareasoflaw,keyproblemtypesincluded:

• Familyordomesticviolenceorder,37.87%• OtherCivilViolence/RestrainingOrders,14.4%• Wills/probatepowerofattorney,5.27%• Wills/probateguardianship/trusteeship,4.03%• Creditanddebtowedbyclient,2.11%• Elderabuse(physical,sexual,psychological,social,neglect,agedcare),1.63%


-��-

Table 6: lCClC Casework Activities by Total problem Type Sorted High to low

problem type # CAseWork ACtivities

% CAseWork ACtivities

TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 418 40.08%TotalOtherCivilLaw 208 19.94%TotalWills/Probate 117 11.22%TotalContactandResidency 41 3.93%TotalCreditandDebt 38 3.64%TotalMotorVehicle 27 2.59%TotalProperty 26 2.49%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 21 2.01%TotalImmigrationLaw 19 1.82%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 17 1.63%TotalDivorceandSeparation 16 1.53%TotalInjuries 15 1.44%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 14 1.34%TotalConsumerComplaints 12 1.15%TotalEmployment 12 1.15%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 11 1.05%TotalChildProtection 8 0.77%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowance 8 0.77%TotalTenancy 4 0.38%TotalDiscrimination 4 0.38%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 4 0.38%TotalChildSupport 1 0.10%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 1 0.10%TotalEnvironment 1 0.10%ToTal casework acTiviTies 1043 100.00%


6.1.2 Analysis of programs offered by the centreAbriefanalysisofthelikelyeconomicoutcomesofselectedprogramsprovidedbytheLoddon-CampaspeCLCinBendigoareprovidedinthetablebelow,togetherwithabriefdescriptionoftheprograms,theiraimsandkeyoutcomes.ThisinformationisbasedonaseriesofinterviewscarriedoutwithkeycentrestaffduringthevisittothecentreinMarch2011.


-��-

Tabl

e 7:

lodd

on C

ampa

spe

Com

mun

ity le

gal C

entr

e pr

ogra

m M

atrix

lCCl

C pR

OgR

AMpR

OgR

AM A

iMS,

SeR

ViCe

S, e

TCOV

eRVi

eW O

F deS

iRed

OuT

COM

eSeC

On

OM

iC C

On

Side

RATi

On

S

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

GeneralistLegal

Service

AiM

S:Toprovidefreelegalinformation,adviceand

caseworktodisadvantagedgroupswithlimited

accesstojustice–allwithinacommunity

developmentframework.

SeRV

iCeS

:•TelephoneadviceMonday1-4pmandThursday

9.30am-12.30pm

•EveningAdviceService

•Wednesday 6-8pm.

•DayappointmentsThursday1-4pm

•Outreachappointmentsavailable

inShepparton,Echuca,Kynetonand

Maryborough.

•CLE

Resolutionofissues,includingproviding

importantinformationwherepeopledo

nothaveacase.

Facilitatesaccessto

thelegalsystem,and

inmanysituations

resolutiontoaproblem,

formanypeoplewho

wouldnothaveanyother

meansofaccessingthe

system.

Holdgovernment

agenciesandinstitutions

toaccountwherethey

arenotenactingtheir

ownpolicies.

Reducestheneedfor

litigationthrough

appropriatetriaging

ofmatters,assistingin

negotiationoradvising

wheretheremaybe

limitedmerittoamatter,

andwheretheclient

wouldnothavetheskills

orknowledgetodosoon

theirown.

Preventsissuesfrom

developingfurtheror

worseningbymaking

referralsbothinternal,and

workinginanholisticway

withclientstoaddressa

rangeoflegalandnon-legal

issues.

CLE–Youth

CreditandDebt

Project

AiM

S:Toprovideinformation,adviceandraiseawareness

amongyoungpeopleaboutcredit/debt.

SeRV

iCeS

:•Presentationsandinformationsessions.

•Creativeworkwithyoungpeople–making

videos,audiorecordingsetc.

•Preparationofinformationmaterials,fliers,

resourcesheets.

•Targetedvisitstoalternativeschools,TAFE,

drug/alcoholservices

Assistyoungpeopletoresolveexisting

debtissues,notenterintodangerous

creditarrangementsinthefirstplace,

changetheirattitude,reducestresslevels

andpreventproblemsfromescalatingto

largerlegalissuesandfamilyissues.

Reducingrecklesslending

practicestoyoungpeople

mayreducecoststowider

community.

Dealingwithmany

individualmatterstime

consumingandinefficient.

Creditorreceivessomeorall

ofwhatisowed.

Establishbetterhabits

toavoid/preventfuture

credit/debtissues

and/orescalationof

existingproblemsto

largerlegalissueswith

greaterramifications(eg

incarceration)


-�4-

lCCl

C pR

OgR

AMpR

OgR

AM A

iMS,

SeR

ViCe

S, e

TCOV

eRVi

eW O

F deS

iRed

OuT

COM

eSeC

On

OM

iC C

On

Side

RATi

On

S

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

FamilyViolence

CourtProgram

AiM

S:Toprovideinformationandadvicetopeople

experiencingfamilyviolenceandseekinglegal

action,facilitateimprovedlevelofsafetyforvictim

andanychildren.

SeRV

iCeS

:•OutreachtoBendigoCourt 1day/wk

•OutreachtoMaryboroughandEchucaCourts

everysecondTuesday.

•ClinicallegaleducationpartnershipwithLa

TrobeUniversity( 4-6studentspersemester)

•Providesdutysolicitortoassistnon-

representedparties,principallyapplicants,in

familyviolencematters

•Providesfollowupadviceandcaseworkas

relevant

•Engagesinarangeofawarenessraisingand

networkingactivitiesaspartofapreventative

focus

•Themostappropriateoutcomein

familyviolencemattersthatcome

beforethecourt(principallyrelatedto

applicationsforInterventionOrders)

•Safetyofvictimsoffamilyviolence,

imbalanceinrepresentationbetween

applicantandrespondentsis

addressed(e.g.thelatteraremore

likelytoberepresentedbyLegalAid

duetoprioritisationofmatterslikely

tohaveseriousconsequences)

•Greaterawarenessoffamilyviolence

issuesandserviceco-ordinationin

thisareaaspartofapreventative

approach.

Greatlyreducesthe

numberofunrepresented

matters.

Elevatestheseriousness

offamilyviolence

intheeyesofpolice,

governmentagencies,

potentialperpetrators

andthecommunity.

Greaterunderstanding

ofthelegalremedies

andprocess,makemore

efficientprocess.

Representationstreamlines

thecourtprocess.

Reduceexperiencesof

violence.

Higherpublicprofileof

issueleadtoitbeing

takenmoreseriouslyby

offenders,greaterpolice

accountability.

LegalVolunteer

Program

AiM

S:•Toaugment/increaseCLCserviceswith

additionalexpertiseandstaffingprovidedby

legalvolunteers.

SeRV

iCeS

:•Volunteersolicitors,mainlyfromlocalprivate

practices,providefreeadvicenightsinBendigo

(2hrs/wkw/3volsols)andShepparton(2hrs/

wkw/2volsols)

•Studentvolsalsosupportcentreoperations.

•Increasedaccessibilityoffreelegal

adviceforthecommunity.

•IncreasedawarenessofCLCand

itsworkamongstcommunityand

privatelegalprofession.

Ensurestimely,accessible

advicelikelytoresolve

issues.

Providesaccessto

appropriatefollowup

legaladviceorcasework

whererequiredthrough

theprivate,publicor

communitylegalsector.

Providesatleast 10hrsper

weekofvoluntarylegal

advice.

Providesadditional

voluntaryhourstosupport

centreactivities.

Timelyresolutionof

matters,including

regardingwhetherornot

thereisacase,increased

abilitytoself-representor

gainearlyresolution.

Promptandappropriate

resolutionofmattersis

likelytoreduceflow-on

effectstootheraspectsofa

person’slife.


-��-

lCCl

C pR

OgR

AMpR

OgR

AM A

iMS,

SeR

ViCe

S, e

TCOV

eRVi

eW O

F deS

iRed

OuT

COM

eSeC

On

OM

iC C

On

Side

RATi

On

S

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

Secondmentto

Seniors’Rights

Victoria

AiM

S:Assistpeopleexperiencingelderabuse(financial,

psychological,socialorphysical).

SeRV

iCeS

:SolicitorandcaseworkersecondedtoSeniors

RightsVictoria.

Modelprovidesforinitialinterviewbyasolicitor

andacaseworker/advocatetodealwitholder

persons’issuesinaholisticway.

Helppreparesafetyplans,guardianshipmatters,

refertootherservicesforassistanceifrequired.

Worksfroma‘rights’modelthatsupports

thedignityofolderpeople,seeksto

empowertheolderperson,andtogain

whattheyconsidertobethemost

appropriateoutcome.

Ensuringthatolder

peopleareawareoftheir

rightsandpotential

remedies,andalerts

thosecaringforthem

thatolderpeoplehave

rightsandremedies,

assiststheproper

operationofthelegal

system.

Dealingwithissuesthat

havethepotentialto

involvemoreprotracted

disputesattheearlyor

interimstagehasthe

potentialforsignificant

costsavings.

Havingasolicitorand

caseworkerisacost

effectivewayofdealing

withnon-legalproblems

thatoftenaccompanylegal

issues.

Wherefamilyrelationship

breaksdownandcare

arrangementsmust

change,issueswith

recoveryofmoneyinvested

andrequireasubsidised

loworhighcareplacement,

orbecomingeffectively

homeless.

Legalremediescanbe

expensiveandinvolve

supremecourtactionto

establishwhetherthey

haveanequitableinterest

inproperty.

Preventativeaspectsof

CLEinrelationtoensuring

knowledgeofrights,

enteringintoappropriate

agreementscanavoid

externalities(e.g.abilityto

befinanciallyindependent,

remaininownhome,etc)

Maintenanceofpositive

familyrelationshipsalso

promoteshealthyagingand

supportforyoungpeople.

Avoidhomelessness,

organisedappropriate

supporttostayinthehome.


-��-

lCCl

C pR

OgR

AMpR

OgR

AM A

iMS,

SeR

ViCe

S, e

TCOV

eRVi

eW O

F deS

iRed

OuT

COM

eSeC

On

OM

iC C

On

Side

RATi

On

S

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

Immigration

AdviceService

AiM

S:Provideadvicetomostvulnerableand

disadvantagedduetoresourceconstraintsasthere

isalackofaccesstoassistanceasfewmigration

servicesavailable.

SeRV

iCeS

:•

3x1hrappointmentsinBendigoperfortnight.

•MattersoftenrelatedtoDVwheresomeone

isinAustraliaonaspouse/partnervisaand

isbeingthreatened/abused,temporary

protectionvisaholdersapplyingfororwhere

partnerhasdiedwithinthetemporaryvisa

period.

•ServicesalsoprovidedinSheppartonthrough

GVmigrationclinic.

Provideadvicesufficienttoachieve

anoutcomefortheclient.Maybe

apermanentvisa,accesstomore

appropriatelegalservices–suchasa

LegalAidlawyer,andincasesofDVthat

personandchildrenareinsafersituation.

Greatdemandfor

migrationservices

forvulnerableand

disadvantagedpeoplein

regionalVictoria.CLCslike

LCCLCbecomingregistered

inmigrationlawand

usingprobonosolicitors

tomeetsomeoftheneed,

butgovernmentsrelying

ontheseserviceswithout

providingmuchadditional

fundingandclientshave

littletonocapacitytopay.

Preventingpeople

remaininginunsafe

relationships/situationsdue

tovisastatus.

Avoidpeoplereturningto

unsafesituations/country.

Reuniteand/orkeep

familiestogetherwhere

maybeseparated.

GoulburnValley

CLCPilot

AiM

S:PromoteCLCservicesandtheirvalueintheGV.

EncouragegovernmenttofundapermanentCLC

intheregion.

SeRV

iCeS

:•TelephoneadviceMonday 2-4pm.

•EveningadvicebyappointmentTuesdays 6-

8pm(2volsols)

•10locallawyersonadviceroster

•CobramFamilyViolenceService

•GVHospiceOutreach

•MigrationClinic

•CLEandcommunityconsultation

Mattersoftenrelatedtofamily(contactand

residency),creditanddebt,familyviolence

•Hasprovidedaccesstoservicesfor

disadvantagedgroupswhopreviously

hadnoaccess,particularlyfaceto

face.

•Hasdocumentedanddemonstrated

theneedthatexistsforservicesinthe

region.

•RaisedawarenessaboutroleofCLCs.

Documentingand

demonstratingneedfor

increasedservicing.

ReducingpressureonLAC

officeinSheppartonby

increasedaccesstoservices

andeducation.

Providingservicewhere

peopleneedit,avoiding

costlytripstoothercentres/

Melbournetoaccess

services.


-��-

lCCl

C pR

OgR

AMpR

OgR

AM A

iMS,

SeR

ViCe

S, e

TCOV

eRVi

eW O

F deS

iRed

OuT

COM

eSeC

On

OM

iC C

On

Side

RATi

On

S

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

Family

Relationship

CentreSolicitor

AiM

S:Assistpeopletocometoanegotiatedagreement

thatisinthebestinterestsofthechild/ren.

SeRV

iCeS

:BendigoandSheppartonbasedgiveinformation

sessions( 2-3sessions/wk),advice,assistance

tomediators(eg.reconsentorders)toachieve

informalagreement,throughatherapeutic

approach.

Negotiatedoutcomesbetweenparents

thatisinthebestinterestsofthechild/

ren.

Reservescourtprocess

forthoseissuesthattruly

requirelitigationwhere

mediationhasfailed.

Avoidcourtproceedings.

Lessconflictandbetter

outcomesforchildren.

Preventcontinuedstress,

strainamongfamiliesand

childrenduetoon-going

conflict.

Homeless

Persons’Service

AiM

S:Toprovidelegalassistancetopeopleexperiencing

oratriskofhomelessness

SeRV

iCeS

:Freelegaladviceforissuesrelatedtohousing

andtenancy,finesandinfringements,Centrelink,

creditanddebt,familyandcriminalmatters,

victimsofcrime,guardianshipandadministration,

discriminationandhumanrights.

Latemorningsessions( 1

0am-12pm)onFridaysat

StLuke’sAnglicareortheLegalCentre.

Tomovebeyondtheimmediate

presentingcrisistotheunderlying

issueswhicharekeepingsomeonein

homelessness(oratrisk)andprevent/

mitigatethoseissues.

Preventorreduce

homelessnessand

institutionalisationof

vulnerablepeople.

BulkDebt

Scheme

AiM

S:

Bulkdebtnegotiationschemetohelplow-income

debtorsinfinancialhardship.

SeRV

iCeS

:Identifiespeoplewhoneedimmediatefinancial

reliefthroughdebtwaiverandfasttracksa

resolution,helpingthecreditortowipeabaddebt

andmoveon.

Moreefficientlyassistagreaternumber

ofpeoplewithdebtissuesbybundling

andnegotiatingissuestogether.

Insteadofnegotiating

hardshipcasesor

repaymentplansonacase-

by-casebasismatterswith

acommoncreditorare

bundledandnegotiated

together.

Relievinghardshipfor

peoplestrugglingwith

debt.

Source:JSAinterviewswithLCCLCstaff,March201

1


-��-

6.1.3 Assessment of economic benefitArandomsampleoftwentycasesandadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedtwentycasesevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue,andtheeconomicbenefitsofthesecaseswerealsoestimated.

Theresultsoftheanalysisaretabulatedbelow.

Table 8: economic benefits of selected cases

group Number The Law The Process exTerNaLiTies AverAge benefit

RandomAdvices

13 $12,120 $950 $1,228,915 $95,537($3,999excludingonebenefitestimatedat

$1.19million).

RandomCases

7 $38,770 $540 $7,130 $6,634

SelectedCases

20 $118,750 $73,455 $1,348,000 $77,010($17,510excludingonebenefitestimatedat$1.19

million).

Source:JSAresearchandanalysis

In2009-10theAdvocacyandRightsCentrehadatotalbudgetofaround$1.2million.TheCommunityLegalCentreprogramhadexpenditureof$531,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad1,043casesand2,272advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$224million,acostbenefitratioofover400,howeverthisisinflatedbytheinclusionofoneveryhighvalueadviceinthedataset.Excludingtheveryhighvalueadvice,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$16million,acostbenefitratioofover30.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.Theuseofaveragecostsforserviceswillalsounderandoverestimatethebenefitassociatedwithaparticularoutcome.Thereisconsiderablecomfortinthehighcostbenefitratio,suggestingthatifonlyoneinthirtyoutcomeswasattributabletotheCommunityLegalCentre,costswouldstillexceedbenefits.

Arangeofhighvaluecaseswereidentified,includingintherandomselection.Themaximumbenefitwas$1.19million,representingthebenefitofavoidinginstitutionalaccommodationandsupportforadisabledpersonoveratwentyyearperiod.IftheCommunityLegalCentrewasinstrumentalinonesuchoutcomeeverytwoyears,thiswouldjustifythecostofthecentre.

Theothermajorbenefitisintheareaofchildabuse.Theavoidanceofinstitutionalandothercostsinmattersofchildabusehasbeenassessedat$38,000.14suchcaseseachyearwouldjustifythecentreeconomically.


-��-

6.2 geraldton Resource Centre

6.2.1 Centre profileTheGeraldtonResourceCentre(GRC)islocatedinGeraldton,WesternAustralia(intheMidWestRegionofWAaround400kmnorthofPerth).GRC’sgeographiccatchmentincludestheLGAsofGeraldton,GreenoughandtheMidWestregionofWA.

Current Staffing profileBasedoninformationreceivedfromthecentre,thecurrentstaffingprofileforGRCisasfollows.

Table 9: Staffing profile, gRC

role fte

Managers(CorporateServices,Operations,Assistant) 3.0

Administration(Non-LegalSecretary,Accounts,Etc) 1.9

LegalTeam:PrincipalSolicitor 0.9

LegalTeam:Paralegals 2.8

LegalTeam:LawGraduate 1

LegalTeam:TenantAdvocate 1.8

LegalTeam:FinancialCounsellor 2

LegalTeam:CommunityLegalEducation 0.8

LegalTeam:LegalSecretary 1

OtherPrograms:MoneyBusiness(Leader&FamilyHelpers/Outreach) 4.8

OtherPrograms:PrivateRentalProgram(Caseworker) 0.8

OtherPrograms:Re-entryProgram(Leader,Caseworkers,Transport) 5

OtherPrograms:HomelessnessSupport(Caseworkers) 2

OtherPrograms:SupportedHousing(Caseworkers) 2

OtherPrograms:HomeVisiting 0.5

OtherPrograms:EmergencyRelief 0.3

ToTal

Source:GRC2011,JSA2011

Thecentrealsoreceivessupportfromarangeofvolunteers.ClaytonUtzandotherlawyersprovideprobonolegalassistanceonacasebycasebasis.Ingeneral,thecentre’svolunteerprofileisasfollows:

Table 10: Volunteer profile, gRC


Legalvolunteers:probonosupervisingsolicitor 3 0.1

Legalvolunteers:lawgraduates 12 0.3Studentvolunteers(TAFECertificateIII/IVandDiplomaofCommunityServiceplacements) 6 0.2

Administrativevolunteers 3 0.1ToTal 24 0.7



-40-

Current Service provisionTheGRCiscomprisedofmanycomplementaryservicesincluding:GeraldtonCommunityLegalCentre,RuralWomen’sLegalOutreachService,GascoyneCommunityLegalService,FinancialCounsellingService,TenantAdvocacyService,CommunityandHomeVisitingScheme,SupportedHousingAssistanceProgram,Re-EntryService,TransportofPrisonersProgram,PrivateRentalAccommodationCaseworkandMoneyBusiness.

Client profileDuringthe2009/10FY,theGRCprovidedserviceto1702clients.46

• 85%civillawclients,27%familylawclientsand3%criminallawclients(notethataclientcanhavemultiplelawtypes)

• 51%femaleclients,47%maleclients,1%clientsex/genderunknown


• 1%wereunder18years,41%wereaged18-34years,35%wereaged35-49years,14%wereaged50-64years,5%wereaged65orolderand3%agewasnotstated


Femaleandmaleclientshadbasicallyequivalentlawtypeprofiles.

Figure 4: law Type profile for Male and Female gRC ClientsSource:GRC2011,JSA2011

IndigenousclientswerelesslikelythanTotalClientstoreceiveservicesforfamilyandcriminallawproblemsandmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforcivillawproblems.Notethatfor2009/10,Indigenousclientscomprised49%oftotalclients(n=835).

46 AsperCLSISCC6.ClientbyLawTypereports.47 AsperCLSISCA1.1ActivitySummarycountof1616totalclientsfor2009/10FY.


-4�-

Figure 5: law Type profile for Total and indigenous gRC ClientsSource:GRC2011,JSA2011

Activity profile• GRCconducted1320informationand1967advicesactivitiesin2009/10.• Thecentreopened575newcasesduringtheyearandclosed511cases,including

230minorcases,227mediumand54majorcases.

• GRCalsocompleted112non-caseworkprojectsduringtheyearincluding69CLEprojectsand5LawReformandPolicyprojects.

• Therewerealso146non-caseworkprojectsopenandstillgoingandthroughouttheperiod.48

problem Type profileGRCworksacrossallareasoflaw,butalargeproportionofitsactivities(advices,caseworkandfirstactivitymatters)arefocusedoncivilandfamilylawproblemtypes,withalargeproportiondedicatedtotenancy,creditanddebtandothercivillawproblems.Thereisadefinitedifferencebetweentheprofileofadviceandcaseworkactivities,withafarsmallerproportionofcaseworkactivitiesrelatedtofamilylawproblemtypescomparedtoadvices.

Figure 6: law Type profile by Advice, Casework and First ActivitiesSource:GRC2011,JSA2011

48 AsperCSLISCA1.1ActivitySummary


-4�-

First Activity MattersFirstActivityMattersareacountofthefirstinteractionor‘activity’aclienthaswiththeservicewithintheperiodoftimespecified.FirstActivitieswouldmostlikelybeadvicesandarethoughttorepresentthemostcommonproblemtypesgeneratedbyclientsoftheservice.ForGRCinthe2009/10FY,therewere1779firstactivitymatters.Themostcommonproblemtypeswererelatedtotenancy,creditanddebt,othercivillaw,governmentpensionsandbenefits,andcontactandresidency.Keyproblemtypesincluded:

• Creditanddebtother(9.95%)• Tenancyaccess(9.27%)• Othercivil(7.25%)• Governmentpensions/benefitsallowancesOther(6.58%)• Changeofnameorbirthrecords(6.46%)

Table 11: gRC First Activity Matters by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowproblem type # first ACtivities % first ACtivities TotalTenancy 389 21.87%TotalCreditandDebt 328 18.44%TotalOtherCivilLaw 176 9.89%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowances 137 7.70%TotalContactandResidency 133 7.48%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 126 7.08%TotalProperty 90 5.06%TotalDivorceandSeparation 62 3.49%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 60 3.37%TotalInjuries 54 3.04%TotalWills/Probate 50 2.81%TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 36 2.02%TotalEmployment 32 1.80%TotalChildSupport 23 1.29%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 23 1.29%TotalChildProtection 14 0.79%TotalConsumerComplaints 14 0.79%TotalDiscrimination 10 0.56%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 7 0.39%TotalMotorVehicle 6 0.34%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 3 0.17%TotalImmigration 3 0.17%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 2 0.11%TotalEnvironment 1 0.06%ToTal FirsT acTiviTies 1779 100.00%


AdvicesTheproblemtypeprofileofadviceactivitiesin2009/10issimilartofirstactivities,withastrongemphasisontenancy,creditanddebt,contactandresidency,othercivillaw,otherfamilylawandgovernmentpensionsandbenefits.Adviceserviceswerealsodiverseacrossarangeofproblemtypes.Withintheseareasoflaw,keyproblemtypesincluded:


-4�-

• CreditandDebtOther(10.93%)• Tenancyaccess(8.39%)• Othercivil(6.09%)• Changenameorbirthrecords(5.94%)• Governmentpensions/benefitsallowancesOther(5.56%)• TenancyOther(4.01%)• Childresidency(3.82%)• Childcontactandcontactorders(3.59%)

Table 12: gRC Advices by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowproblem type # AdviCes % AdviCes TotalTenancy 514 19.43%TotalCreditandDebt 477 18.03%TotalContactandResidency 287 10.85%TotalOtherCivilLaw 228 8.62%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 175 6.62%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowance 173 6.54%TotalProperty 144 5.44%TotalDivorceandSeparation 118 4.46%TotalWills/Probate 87 3.29%TotalInjuries 85 3.21%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 73 2.76%TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 59 2.23%TotalChildSupport 39 1.47%TotalEmployment 36 1.36%TotalChildProtection 34 1.29%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 33 1.25%TotalConsumerComplaints 22 0.83%TotalMotorVehicle 17 0.64%TotalDiscrimination 17 0.64%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 12 0.45%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 7 0.26%TotalImmigrationLaw 4 0.15%TotalEnvironment 2 0.08%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 2 0.08%ToTal aDvices 2645 100.00%


Casework ActivitiesGRCcaseworkactivitiesfor2009/10FYwerealsospreadacrossarangeofproblemtypes.However,thevastmajorityofcaseworkactivitieswereassociatedwithcivillawproblemtypes.Tenancy,creditanddebt,injuries,othercivillawandgovernment/administrativelawwereprimaryareasofcaseworkactivities.Withintheseareasoflaw,keyproblemtypesincluded:

• Tenancyaccess(18.13%)• Creditanddebt-Other(13.6%)


-44-

• Tenancyrent(7.16%)• Injuriescompensation(5.85%)

Table 13: gRC Casework Activities by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowproblem type # CAseWork

ACtivities % CAseWork

ACtivities TotalTenancy 327 47.81%TotalCreditandDebt 176 25.73%TotalInjuries 44 6.43%TotalOtherCivilLaw 23 3.36%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 16 2.34%TotalProperty 15 2.19%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowance 14 2.05%TotalMotorVehicle 13 1.90%TotalContactandResidency 12 1.75%TotalDiscrimination 9 1.32%TotalDivorceandSeparation 7 1.02%TotalChildProtection 5 0.73%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 5 0.73%TotalChildSupport 4 0.58%TotalConsumerComplaints 4 0.58%TotalMotorVehicle 4 0.58%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 4 0.58%TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 2 0.29%ToTal casework acTiviTies 684 100.00%


6.2.2 Analysis of programs offered by the centreAnanalysisofthelikelysocialandeconomicbenefitsofselectedprogramsprovidedbytheGeraldtonResourceCentreisprovidedinthetablebelow,togetherwithadescriptionoftheprograms,theiraimsandkeyoutcomes.

Primarily,theCLCoperatestoprovideassistancetopeoplewhowouldnototherwisehaveaccesstoexpertlegaladvice.Italsoassistspeopletoaccessthelegalandothersystemswheretheiraccessislimited,forexampleduetolimitedliteracy.TheCLCseekstonegotiateoutcomesbetweenpartiesandworkswithotherprogramswithinGeraldtonResourceCentretoassistclients.

WhiletherangeofprogramswithinGeraldtonResourceCentreismuchwiderthanthoseofferedbytheCLCcomponent,thecentreoperatesinasynergisticway,andinthiswayprovidesasocialbenefitmuchgreaterthanthatprovideddirectlybytheCLCcomponent.Theprogramsareintendedtoaddresstherootcauseofmattersthatotherwisepresentaslegalissuesandprovidesocialandeconomicbenefitsacrossarangeofareas.Primaryareasincludefinancialcounselling,assistancewithtenancymattersandprogramsaimedataddressingrecidivism.


-4�-

grC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s

prop

er o

pera

tion

of

the

lega

l sys

tem

effic

ienc

y of

serv

ice

prov

ision

/out

com

esAv

oidi

ng e

xter

nalit

ies

GeneralistLegal

Providelegalservicestothecommunitywithan

emphasisonselfempowerment,usingparalegals

andonesolicitorwithapracticingcertificate.This

limitstheabilitytodocourtwork,withparalegals

limitedtosupportroleincourt.

Telephoneandfacetofaceadviceandcasework

providedfromGeraldtonandCarnarvonoffices

Outreachtoclientsbasedonneedand

appointments.Paralegalshavespecificgeographic

areastheyservicebasedonfundingrequirements.

CLEandinfosessions,regularRadioMama

interviews(AboriginalradiostationfortheMid

Westregion)&ABC

PrincipalSolicitordoeslawreformworkandjoint

submissionswithotherorganisations.

Providepeoplewithenoughinformation

tosolvetheirissue.Ifadditionalassistance

isrequiredthecentrewillprovideitin

ordertoachieveabeneficialoutcomefor

theclient.

Holdgovernment

agenciesand

institutionstoaccount

wheretheyarenot

enactingtheirown

policies.

Servicefillsgaps

fromLegalAid,ALS

(primarilycriminal

withsomecivil)and

FVPLS(advice&case

workforAboriginal

womenonly).

Facilitatesaccessto

thelegalsystem,and

inmanysituations

resolutiontoa

problem,formany

peoplewhowould

nothaveanyother

meansofaccessing

thesystem.

GRCreducescourtaction

byassistingaclientto

negotiateanagreement,

wheretheywould

nothavetheskillsor

informationtodosoon

theirown.

GRCstopsissuesfrom

developingfurtheror

worseningbymaking

referralsbothinternal

&externalofGRCfor

increasedandspecialised

supportfortheclient.

Tabl

e 14

: gRC

pro

gram

Mat

rix


-4�-

grC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s

prop

er o

pera

tion

of

the

lega

l sys

tem

effic

ienc

y of

serv

ice

prov

ision

/out

com

esAv

oidi

ng e

xter

nalit

ies

Indigenous

Women’sparalegal

Providelegalinformation,adviceandcasework

forAboriginalwomenoncriminalinjuries

compensation,motorvehicleinjuriesandchild

protection.

WeeklyappointmentsatGRCoffice

MonthlyoutreachtoMeekatharra,Mullewa,Cue,

MtMagnetforclientappointments,liaisonwith

services,informationsessions

WeeklyoutreachtoGeraldtonwomen’srefuge

RegularinterviewswithRadioMama

Togetclientscompensationforinjuriesor

togettheirchildrenbackintheircare.

Injuriescompensation

(CIC)claimsrequireclient

tosupplymanyexternal

documentsthatcost

moneywhichmayprevent

aclientfromlodginga

claim.GRCnetworksand

assistancecanfacilitate

reducedcostorfree

accesstodocuments

(e.g.Psychiatristsreport).

Clientsareunlikelyto

accessthesystemforCIC

withoutGRCassistance.

LegalAidonlyprovides

initialadviceandprivate

solicitorfeeshighandany

compensationreceived

wouldpaylawyerandnot

client.

GRCispreventingwomen

doingnothingabout

theviolencetheyhave

experiencedandinjuries

sustained.

Tenantadvocates

(Aboriginalspecific

andgeneral)

Advocacyforclientsintenancymatterswithprivate

andsocialrentalorganizationsthrough:

Telephoneandfacetofaceadviceandcasework

AssistclientsatResidentialTenancyMagistrates

Court

CLEandinformationsessions(1permonthto4

outreachlocations,weeklyatGeraldtonAboriginal

MedicalService,irregularlyatprison)

RadioMamainterviews

Keeppeoplehousedandintenancy

agreement.

Toassistpeopletomaintaintheir

home,payrent,knowtheirrights,take

responsibilityandfunctionsuccessfullyon

theirown.

Clientsareunlikelyto

accesslegalsystem

tohaveproblem

addressedwithout

assistanceofGRC.

Otheroptionsare

TAShotlineinPerth,

consumerprotection

office,ALS,butall

havelimitationsand

willnotdofaceto

faceoutreachorcourt

assistance.

GRCispreventing:

Increasingdebt

Breakdownofthe

relationshipbetween

tenantandlandlord

(privateorpublic)

Morepeopleontenancy

‘blacklist’

Lossoftenancy

Homelessness


-4�-

grC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s

prop

er o

pera

tion

of

the

lega

l sys

tem

effic

ienc

y of

serv

ice

prov

ision

/out

com

esAv

oidi

ng e

xter

nalit

ies

Financial

counselling

Toresolveissueswithoutstandingcredit/debtfor

thebenefitofclientandcreditor–withtheclient

comingfirst;andimprovemoneymanagement

skillsthrough:

Telephoneandfacetofaceadviceandcasework,

Negotiationwithcreditorsincludingutilities

CLEandinformationsessions

RegularmonthlyoutreachtoMidWest

communitiesforworkshopsandclient

appointments

ApproveHardshipUtilitiesGrantScheme(HUGS)

applications

Negotiatedoutcomeswhereclientcan

paywhattheycanaffordandcreditorgets

something.

Empowermentbygivingclientsskills

theyneedtomanagetheirownsituation,

providingthemwithoptions,andmaking

suretheyareawareoftheirrightsand

responsibilities.

Informingclients

oftheirrightswith

collectionagencies,

andactingontheir

behalfregarding

aggressivecollection

methods,intimidation,

misleadingclients,

coercionandother

deceptivepractices.

Informingcreditors

wheretheyarenot

followingcodesof

conduct,theirown

policiesandthelike.

Otheroptionsfor

assistanceincludeDeptof

Commerce,StateFinancial

Counsellinghotline,Legal

Aidoraprivatelawyer.

Mostwouldbeunable

tocopewithincreased

demandoraretoocostly

forclients.

Professionallegaladvice

wouldcostaclientatleast

$280perhour

DeptofCommercerefers

toGRCregularly.

Hotlineregularlycloses

downduetotoomany

clients.Itservesallof

WAwith4or5financial

counsellors.

GRCispreventing:

Bankruptcywhereclient

hasassets

Lossoftenancy

Foreclosureson

properties

Peoplelivingwithout

basicutilitiesand

necessities

Additionalstress,

depression,illness,and

suicide

Familyviolence

Re-entrysupport

Provideone-on-onesupportforprisonersat

GreenoughRegionalPrisonfor6monthspre-

releaseand12monthspost-releasebyassisting

with:

Sourcingidentificationdocuments(birthcertificate,

medicarecard,bankaccount)

Outstandingissuesincludingdebts,cars,pets,child

support

Contactingfamilymembers

Food,clothing,lifts,helpseekingemploymentetc

Makereferralstoservicesw/inandoutsideGRC

Keepprisonersfromre-offendingforas

longaspossible.

Reducerecidivism


-4�-

grC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s

prop

er o

pera

tion

of

the

lega

l sys

tem

effic

ienc

y of

serv

ice

prov

ision

/out

com

esAv

oidi

ng e

xter

nalit

ies

TOP(Transport

OptionsProgram)

Transportprisonersviacar,busorplanebackto

theirhomecommunityuponrelease.

RidesareprovidedasfarnorthasExmouthandeast

toMeekatharra,withothersusingpublictransport.

Returnprisonerstotheirhomecommunity

&connectionsimmediatelytoprevent

themfromre-offendingduetoinabilityto

gethomeandlackofaccommodationand

support.

Reducerecidivism

Transitional

Accommodation

SupportService

(TASS)

PartnershipwithHomesWest(threeproperties)

providessix-monthleasesandsupportupon

releasefromprisonforsinglesorfamiliesreuniting.

Assistwithwhitegoods,furniture,amenities,food

etctomakeita‘home’uponrelease.

Providesupportedaccommodationfor

prisonersuponreleasetokeepthemfrom

reoffendingandre-integrateintothe

community.

Reducerecidivism

Outreach

Provide12monthsofsupporttoprisonerswho

havereturnedtoremotecommunities.

Keepprisonersfromre-offendingforas

longaspossible.

Reducerecidivism

MoneyBusiness

MoneymanagementservicefundedbyFaHCSIA

thatprovides:

Financialliteracyworkshopsusinginformation

fromvariousgovernmentdepartments(eg.Deptof

Commerce,WACommunityServicesetc)delivered

inpartnershipwithotherorganizations.

WorkshopsareheldweeklyinGeraldtonand

regularlyacrossmanyoutreachlocationsintheMid

Westbasedonarosterandexpresseddemand.

Adviceandcaseworktoidentifyissuesandprepare

budgetswithindividualclientsthatarisesfrom

workshops,walk-insandreferralsfromwalkinand

outsideGRC.

WeeklyvisittoGeraldtonAboriginalHealthService

MonthlyadinlocalAboriginalpaper.

Freetaxreturns(eg.FY09/10completed150)

PrepareHUGSapplicationsforFinancialCounsellor

toreviewandapprove.

CompleteandprocessNoInterestLoanScheme

(NILS)applications.

Toimproveoutcomesinafinancialwayfor

individualsandthecommunity.

Withmanyserviceswithin

GRC,referralsandproblem

solvingforclientsismore

efficient.

GRCispreventingor

reducing:

Incorrectpaymentstoand

fromCentrelinkandthe

Numberofpeople

experiencingfinancial

hardshipand

accumulatingdebt

Receivereferralsfrom

MentalHealth,Dept

ofJustice,judges,Drug

andAlcoholservicesetc

whereclientisadvised

theyrequirefinancial

counsellingassistance.

GRCbenefitsthose

servicesbysupporting

clientsatapersonal,case

managedlevel.

Reducedcostsforlow-

incomehouseholds

byprovidingFacilitate

accesstoprograms(eg.

NILS,HUGS,freepatches

toquitsmokingetc)


-4�-

grC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s

prop

er o

pera

tion

of

the

lega

l sys

tem

effic

ienc

y of

serv

ice

prov

ision

/out

com

esAv

oidi

ng e

xter

nalit

ies

PrivateRental

Accommodation

Casework(PRAC)

Provideassistancetothoseseekingorinprivate

rentaltenancyincluding:

Forexistingtenants-negotiationwithrealestate

agentsandpropertyownersre:arrears,property

maintenance,anti-socialbehaviour

Fornewtenants–reviewtenancyhistory,work

inpartnershipwithotherGRCservicestorelieve

outstandingdebts,liaisewithreferences,bond

assistanceforms,gatherprivaterentallistand

discussneeds,arrange/accompanytoviewing,

assistwithpropertyapplication,refertoother

servicesforfurnitureetc

RegularinterviewsonRadioMama

Topreventhomelessnessbyassisting

clienttokeeptenancyorattainstable

accommodationwhilstwaitingforsocial

housing(Deptofhousingwaitlist 6years,

prioritylist1

2-18months)

GRCispreventingissues

withlandlordsescalating

tocourtifpossible.

GRCispreventing:

Homelessness

Familiesfrombeing

separateddueto

homelessness.

Ifabletoassistpeopleto

keepsuccessfulprivate

tenancies,GRCreduces

demandonpublic

housingsystemand

waitinglist.

Homelessness

–Prisoners

Locateaccommodationandprovidesupport

forprisonersreferredfromCorrectiveServices,

CommunityJusticeandYouthJustice.

Fundedtohouseupto 16clientsper12month

period.

Sourcehousesthroughprivatemarket,public,

familymember,etc–solelyGeraldtonbased

Weeklyhomevisitsfortenants

Backgroundchecksonallpropertiestoassess

suitabilityofplacement

Toseeclientshousedfor1

2months.

GRCispreventing:

Homelessness

Recidivismorlength

oftimebetweenre-

offending

Homelessness

–General

Locateaccommodation(publicorprivate)and

providesupportforthosewhoarehomelessorat

riskofimminenthomelessness.

Fundedtohouseupto 10clientseverysixmonths.

Weeklyorsemi-regularhomevisitsforclients

Assistancewithanythingtomaintaintenancy

–assistancewithjobsearch,independentliving

skillsetc.

Toseeclientshousedfor1

2months.

GRCispreventing:

Homelessness

Livinginunsafeand

violentsituationswithor

withoutchildren

Depression,suicide

Source:Staffinterviewsduringweekof11-15April20

11andcentrepublications


-�0-

6.2.3 Assessment of economic benefitArandomsampleoftwentycasesandtwentyadviceswasselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedonecaseevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue,andtheeconomicbenefitsofthiscasewasestimated.



group number tHe lAW tHe proCess externAlities AverAge benefit

RandomAdvices 20 $0 $2,860 $600 $173

RandomCases 20 $168,000 $8,820 $68,000

$12,241($4,241ifatrainingcoursewithanassessedbenefitof$160,000is

excluded)

SelectedCases 1 $224,000 $0 $0 $224,000


In2009-10theGeraldtonLegalCentrehadtotalexpensesofaround$520,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad684casesand2,645advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$8.8million,acostbenefitratioofabout17.

AlargebenefithasbeenassociatedwithatrainingsessioncarriedoutbytheCLCforanotherorganisation.Itisdebatableastowhetherthisbenefitshouldbeascribedtothelegalcentreratherthantotheotheragency.Excludingthistrainingsession,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$3.4million,acostbenefitrationofoversix.

Theaveragecostovercasesandbenefitsis$137,suggestingthecostbenefitratioonadvicesis1.3.Ascasesarelikelytotakemoreresourcesthanadvices,theeconomicreturnonadvicesislikelytobemarginal.

ThemajoruncertaintyintheestimateisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldhavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.Howeverintheworstcase,theCLCwouldneedtobeinstrumentalinoneinsixcasestobreakeven,henceitislikelythatapositivecostbenefitratioisachieved.

Onehighvaluecasewasidentified.IftheCommunityLegalCentrewasinstrumentalinfivesuchoutcomesintwoyears,thiswouldjustifythecostofthecentre.


-��-

6.3 Consumer Credit legal Centre nSWTheConsumerCreditLegalCentreNSWislocatedinSurryHills,NewSouthWales(aninnercitysuburbofSydney).CCLCNSWprovidesastatewideserviceacrossNSWandanationalserviceforitsinsurancelawprogram.


Current Staffing profileBasedoninformationreceivedfromthecentre,thecurrentstaffingprofileforCCLCisasfollows.

Table 16: Staffing profile, CClC

role fte

Administration(3staff,1alsodoessomeSolicitorwork) 2.3

Solicitors(10staff) 9

FinancialCounsellors(7staff) 5

ToTal

Source:CCLC2011,JSA2011

Thecentrealsoreceivessupportfromarangeofvolunteers.Ingeneral,thecentre’svolunteerprofileisasfollows:

Table 17: Volunteer profile, CClC


Legalvolunteers 0 0

Studentvolunteers 1-3PLTstudentscompleted15weekplacements 2

Administrativevolunteers 0 0

ToTal


Current Service provisionClient profileDuringthe2010calendaryear,theCCLCprovidedserviceto6925clients.49

• 49.5%femaleclients,49.9%maleclients,0.6%clientsex/genderunknown

• 1.0%Indigenousclients

• 0.2%wereunder18years,22.9%wereaged18-34years,36.4%wereaged35-49years,21.4%wereaged50-64years,5.3%wereaged65orolderand13.8%agewasnotstated

• 94.5%werenewclientsduringtheperiod,4.1%wererepeat50clientsand1.4%wereexisting51clients.52

49 AsperCLSISCC6.ClientbyLawTypereports.50 Previousfileclosed.51 Filestillopen.52 AsperCLSISCMR1.1ActivitySummarycountof6901totalclientsfor2010.


-��-

Activity profile• CCLCconducted6832informationand9896adviceactivitiesin2010.• Thecentreopened487newcasesduringtheyearandclosed455cases,including144minorcases,178mediumand133majorcases.

• CCLCcompleted4non-caseworkprojectsduringtheyearincluding1CLEprojectand1LawReformandPolicyproject.

• Therewere5non-caseworkprojectsopenandstillgoingandthroughouttheperiod.53

problem Type profileCCLCprovidesadviceandcaseworkacrossparticularcivillawproblemtypesrelatedtocreditanddebt,consumercomplaintsandinsuranceclaims.

First Activity MattersFirstActivityMattersareacountofthefirstinteractionor‘activity’aclienthaswiththeservicewithintheperiodoftimespecified.FirstActivitieswouldmostlikelybeadvicesandarethoughttorepresentthemostcommonproblemtypesgeneratedbyclientsoftheservice.ForCCLCinthe2010FY,therewere8311firstactivitymatters.78.1%ofmatterswereassociatedwithcreditanddebtproblemtypes,9.9%wererelatedtoconsumercomplaints,generallyconcerninginsurance,and12%wererelatedtomotorvehiclecrashes.Thefollowingtablebelowshowsthefirstactivitymattersbyproblemtypesortedhightolow.

53 AsperCSLISCMR1.1ActivitySummary


-��-

Table 18: CClC First Activity Matters by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowCode problem type # first

ACtivities % first

ACtivities 3420 Creditanddebtconsumercredit 1602 19.28%3440 Creditanddebtowedbyclient 1186 14.27%3425 Creditanddebtmortgagehardship 1047 12.60%5320 Consumercomplaintsfinancial/insurance/superetc 658 7.92%3410 Creditanddebtbankruptcy 477 5.74%5510 Motorvehicleaccident 420 5.05%3471 Statementofclaim 416 5.01%3460 Creditanddebtcollection 291 3.50%3472 Judgmentdebt 262 3.15%5520 Motorvehiclepropertydamage 257 3.09%5521 Motorvehicle3rdpartyrecoverybyinsurer 253 3.04%3490 CreditanddebtOther 211 2.54%3461 Repossessioncar 159 1.91%3476 Garnishee(wages/salary/account) 137 1.65%3430 Creditanddebtowedtoclient 102 1.23%3470 Creditanddebtrecovery(court) 76 0.91%3482 Creditreportingdispute 75 0.90%3412 BankruptcyNotice 70 0.84%3473 Writforlevyofproperty 70 0.84%5590 MotorvehicleOther 70 0.84%3481 Creditreportenquiry 68 0.82%3475 Noticetovacate 52 0.63%3414 PartIXAgreement 42 0.51%5322 Insurance-storm/flood 42 0.51%5380 Consumercomplaintsfairtrade/trade/sellpractice 39 0.47%5390 ConsumercomplaintsOther 39 0.47%3480 Creditanddebtinformation/privacy 32 0.39%3413 Creditor’sPetition 31 0.37%3477 Examinationnotice/order 30 0.36%3474 Writofpossession 20 0.24%3462 Repossessionothergoods 16 0.19%5370 Consumercomplaintsservices 16 0.19%3411 Debtor’sPetition 10 0.12%5360 Consumercomplaintsproducts 10 0.12%5361 Mathematicstutoringsoftware 8 0.10%3441 Debttoinsurancecompany(notMVA) 6 0.07%5340 Consumercomplaintslegal/solicitors 5 0.06%5321 Insurance-bushfire 4 0.05%5310 Consumercomplaintsbuilding 2 0.02%ToTal FirsT acTiviTies 8311 100.00%



-�4-

AdvicesTheproblemtypeprofileofadviceactivitiesin2010issimilartofirstactivities,with81%ofadvicesrelatedtocreditanddebt,9.2%relatedtoconsumercomplaints,largelyinsurancematters,and9.9%dealingwithmotorvehiclecrashes.Thefollowingtablebelowshowsadvicesbyproblemtypesortedhightolow.


-��-

Table 19: CClC Advices by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowCode problem type # AdviCes % AdviCes 3420 Creditanddebtconsumercredit 2114 17.03%

3425 Creditanddebtmortgagehardship 1959 15.79%3440 Creditanddebtowedbyclient 1538 12.39%5320 Consumercomplaintsfinancial/insurance/superetc 908 7.32%3471 Statementofclaim 799 6.44%3410 Creditanddebtbankruptcy 625 5.04%5510 Motorvehicleaccident 520 4.19%3472 Judgmentdebt 516 4.16%3460 Creditanddebtcollection 450 3.63%5521 Motorvehicle3rdpartyrecoverybyinsurer 311 2.51%5520 Motorvehiclepropertydamage 305 2.46%3490 CreditanddebtOther 297 2.39%3461 Repossessioncar 268 2.16%3476 Garnishee(wages/salary/account) 251 2.02%3470 Creditanddebtrecovery(court) 183 1.47%3412 BankruptcyNotice 175 1.41%3475 Noticetovacate 143 1.15%3473 Writforlevyofproperty 127 1.02%3430 Creditanddebtowedtoclient 126 1.02%3482 Creditreportingdispute 97 0.78%5590 MotorvehicleOther 90 0.73%3481 Creditreportenquiry 75 0.60%3477 Examinationnotice/order 64 0.52%3413 Creditor’sPetition 59 0.48%5380 Consumercomplaintsfairtrade/trade/sellpractice 59 0.48%5390 ConsumercomplaintsOther 56 0.45%3474 Writofpossession 54 0.44%5322 Insurance-storm/flood 49 0.39%3414 PartIXAgreement 43 0.35%3480 Creditanddebtinformation/privacy 34 0.27%3462 Repossessionothergoods 28 0.23%5370 Consumercomplaintsservices 25 0.20%5361 Mathematicstutoringsoftware 16 0.13%3411 Debtor’sPetition 11 0.09%5360 Consumercomplaintsproducts 11 0.09%5340 Consumercomplaintslegal/solicitors 9 0.07%3441 Debttoinsurancecompany(notMVA) 7 0.06%5321 Insurance-bushfire 5 0.04%5310 Consumercomplaintsbuilding 3 0.02%ToTal aDvices 12410 100.00%



-��-

Casework ActivitiesTheproblemtypeprofileofCCLCcaseworkactivitiesfor2010calendaryearwassimilartofirstactivitiesandadvices,withaslightlygreateremphasisonconsumercomplaints.79%ofcaseworkactivitieswereassociatedwithcreditanddebt,12.6%wererelatedtoconsumercomplaints,largelyinvolvinginsurancematters,and8.1%relatedtomotorvehicles.Thefollowingtablebelowshowscaseworkactivitiesbyproblemtypesortedhightolow.

Table 20: CClC Casework Activities by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowCode problem type # CAseWork


ACtivities 3420 Creditanddebtconsumercredit 166 26.82%3425 Creditanddebtmortgagehardship 117 18.90%5320 Consumercomplaintsfinancial/insurance/superetc 69 11.15%3440 Creditanddebtowedbyclient 44 7.11%3471 Statementofclaim 32 5.17%3472 Judgmentdebt 24 3.88%3475 Noticetovacate 23 3.72%5521 Motorvehicle3rdpartyrecoverybyinsurer 19 3.07%3461 Repossessioncar 16 2.58%5510 Motorvehicleaccident 15 2.42%5520 Motorvehiclepropertydamage 14 2.26%3460 Creditanddebtcollection 13 2.10%3410 Creditanddebtbankruptcy 11 1.78%3476 Garnishee(wages/salary/account) 11 1.78%3473 Writforlevyofproperty 8 1.29%3413 Creditor’sPetition 5 0.81%3470 Creditanddebtrecovery(court) 5 0.81%3412 BankruptcyNotice 4 0.65%5322 Insurance-storm/flood 4 0.65%3482 Creditreportingdispute 3 0.48%3430 Creditanddebtowedtoclient 2 0.32%3474 Writofpossession 2 0.32%3477 Examinationnotice/order 2 0.32%3490 CreditanddebtOther 2 0.32%5361 Mathematicstutoringsoftware 2 0.32%5380 Consumercomplaintsfairtrade/trade/sellpractice 2 0.32%5590 MotorvehicleOther 2 0.32%3481 Creditreportenquiry 1 0.16%5390 ConsumercomplaintsOther 1 0.16%ToTal casework acTiviTies 619 100.00%



-��-

6.3.2 Analysis of programs offered by the centreAnanalysisofthelikelysocialandeconomicbenefitsofselectedprogramsprovidedbytheConsumerCreditCLCareprovidedinthetablebelow,togetherwithadescriptionoftheprograms,theiraimsandkeyoutcomes.

Atthehighestlevel,theCLCfunctionstoprovideanexpertknowledgebaseintheareaofconsumercreditactinginthepublicinterestandprovidingvaluableinputtopolicymakers.Thecentrealsoservesacompliancefunction,byassessingtheperformanceoflendersandinsurancecompaniesagainstcodesofpracticeandstatutoryregulationandensuring,asfarastheyareable,thatthosecodesofpracticeandregulationsarecompliedwith.Atamorepracticallevel,benefitsareachievedbytheCLCfacilitatingnegotiationbetweenparties,withthesebenefitsaccruingtocreditors,debtorsandtothebroadercommunity.Importantly,andsimilartoothercentres,thecentreseekstoaddresstherootcauseofmattersthatwouldotherwisepresentaslegalproblemsbyprovidingcounsellingandsupporttoclients.


-��-

CClC

pRO

gRAM

pRO

gRAM

AiM

S, S

eRVi

CeS,

eTC

deSi

Red

OuT

COM

eSid

enTi

Fied

SO

CiAl

An

d eC

On

OM

iC b

eneF

iTS

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/ o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

CreditandDebt

Hotline&Casework

Service

AiM

S:Toprovidelegaladviceandcasework,financial

counsellinginformationandreferralstoNSWresidentsin

relationtocredit,debtandfinancialhardship.

SeRV

iCeS

/ACT

iViT

ieS:

Clientsreceiveinitialinformationandadvice(including

legaladvice)requiredtoresolvetheirproblemontheir

ownifpossible.Ifthematterismorecomplexand/orthe

clientisunabletoself-advocate,facetofacefinancial

counsellingorlegalassistancewillbeoffered.Legal

assistancemayincludemakingsubmissionsonbehalfof

theclienttoanappropriatedisputeresolutionservice.

Provideprofessionaladvicetofinancialcounsellors,CLCs,

LegalAidandotherservicesasrequired.

Appearonbehalfofclientsincourtsandtribunals

includingtheNSWSupremeCourt.

Lodgecomplaintsonbehalfofclientstoregulatory

organisations(suchasAustralianSecurities&

InvestmentsCommission,LegalServicesCommissioner,

andInsolvencyTrusteeServiceofAustralia)toensure

thattheyareawareofrelevantsystemicbreachesof

legislation.

Majorityofclientsableto

resolvetheirissuesontheir

own.

Clientswithurgent,

complexmatters,strong

publicinterestcomponent,

limitedabilitytoself-

advocate,and/orisseverely

disadvantaged(including

pensioner,lowincome

family,disability,NESB)

assistedwithadditional

adviceandcaseworktohelp

solveissue.

Ensurethatlenders

andcreditorsare

operatingaccording

tolawandcodesof

practice.

EnsureExternal

DisputeResolutions

Schemesareaccessible

forconsumers,fairand

accountable.

Negotiationand

planningwith

debtorsandcreditors

cansignificantly

reduceuseofcourt

procedures.

Reduceunnecessarybankruptcies

–wherecreditorsloseoutentirely

onrecoveringtheirdebtsandthe

individualmayexperiencelimitations

inthefutureandrelyongovernment

subsidies.

Canbepositiveoutcomeforcreditors,

toreceivesomerepaymentofdebt

versusnoneatall.

InsuranceLaw

Service

AiM

S:Toprovidenationwidefreelegalinformation,adviceand

caseworkforpeoplewhohaveproblemswithinsurance

claims.

Toidentifylegitimatebarrierstomakingclaims.

Topreventunnecessarybankruptcies.

Toraisetheprofileofthedisputeresolutionprocess.

SeRV

iCeS

/ACT

iViT

ieS:

Legalinformationandadviceprovidednationallyviaa

1300numberforinsurancerelatedmatters(primarily

relatedtomotorvehicle,naturaldisasterand/ordifficulty

receivingclaims).

Clientshavingtrouble

makingclaimsareableto

resolvetheirissues.

Barrierstomakingclaims

areidentifiedandreformed

ifpossible.

Monitorandensure

insuranceindustryis

actinginaccordance

withestablishedlaws

andcodesofpractice.

Negotiation

betweenparties

cansignificantly

reduceuseofcourt

procedures.

Tabl

e 21

: CCl

C pr

ogra

m M

atrix


-��-

CClC

pRO

gRAM

pRO

gRAM

AiM

S, S

eRVi

CeS,

eTC

deSi

Red

OuT

COM

eSid

enTi

Fied

SO

CiAl

An

d eC

On

OM

iC b

eneF

iTS

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/ o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

MortgageHardship

Service

AiM

S:Toprovideinformation,adviceandcaseworkto

homeownersinNSWinordertohelppeoplestayinand

savetheirhomesifpossible.

Ifstayinginthehome/savingthehomeisnotfinancially

sustainablefortheclient,assisttominimisetheloss(e.g.

Saleofpropertyetc).

SeRV

iCeS

/ACT

iViT

ieS:

Telephoneinformation,adviceandreferrals.Caseworkfor

appropriateclients(seeabove).

Providefreeadviceviaadutyrosteronceperweekatthe

NSWSupremeCourtforunrepresentedlitigantsinthe

possessionslist(e.g.AssistwithurgentstaysonWritsfor

Possession).

Aclient’shomeisretained

andasustainable

repaymentprogramis

achieved.

Ifahomeisunableto

besaved,astrategyis

developedtominimisethe

lossandtoassistclientto

repaysomedebtandmove

forward.

Negotiation

betweenparties

cansignificantly

reduceuseofcourt

procedures.

Lossofahome.

Unnecessarybankruptcies.

Personalandfamilystress,health

issues,etc.

PolicyandLaw

Reform

AiM

S:Toprovidefeedbackandaccountabilitytothecredit/

lendingindustry&regulators.

ACTi

ViTi

eS/S

eRVi

CeS:

Preparepolicysubmissions

RepresentCCLConmultipleadvisorycommittees,panels,

referencegroupsetc–atahighlevel.

Serveanaccountability

functionandprovide

feedbacktotheconsumer

creditprocessataveryhigh

level(e.g.Commonwealth

–ASIC,Treasury,State,

MajorBanksandother

lenders,creditors/collection

agencies).

Assistinthereformoflaws

toimprove/safeguardthe

systemforconsumers.


-�0-

CClC

pRO

gRAM

pRO

gRAM

AiM

S, S

eRVi

CeS,

eTC

deSi

Red

OuT

COM

eSid

enTi

Fied

SO

CiAl

An

d eC

On

OM

iC b

eneF

iTS

prop

er o

pera

tion

of th

e le

gal s

yste

mef

ficie

ncy

of se

rvic

e pr

ovisi

on/ o

utco

mes

Avoi

ding

ext

erna

litie

s

Training&

Education

AiM

S:Toinformandtraincommunitysectorprofessionalsabout

keyissuesrelatedtoconsumercredit(suchaschangesto

laws,etc)inordertoimproveserviceprovisiontoclients.

Toinformthepublicregardingkeyissues,theirrightsand

responsibilitiesrelatedtoconsumercreditinorderto

reduceincidenceandseverityofproblemsexperiencedby

consumers.

ToincreaseawarenessofavailabilityofCCLCservices.

Toencourageandfacilitatedebateonlaw-reformissues.

SeRV

iCeS

/ACT

iViT

ieS:

ConductregulartrainingforFinancialCounsellorsin

urbanandruralNSW.

Respondtomediainquiriestoprovidepubliceducation

onkeyissuesthroughnewspaper,radio,magazinesand

TV.

Developanddistributeeducationmaterialsforthesector

(e.g.CreditLawToolkittoinformfinancialcounsellors,

legalaidsolicitorsandcommunitysectorlawyershowto

usenewCommonwealthlaws.11

00copiesdistributed

freetoservicesacrossAustraliaorMortgageStress

Handbook).

Informedandcompetent

serviceproviders(e.g.

Financialcounsellors,

solicitors,etc)andpublic/

consumers.

Reducedincidence/severity

ofconsumercredit

problems.

Source:BasedoninformationreceivedfromKarenCoxduring05/05/11interviewandCentre’s2

009/10AnnualReport.


-��-

6.3.3 Assessment of economic benefitArandomsampleoftwentycasesandtwentyadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedcasesevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue.Typicallytheeconomicbenefitsofthesecasesweresimilartothoseintherandomsampleofcases,consequentlythesewerenotevaluated.




RandomAdvices 20 $0 $54,047 $17,850 $3,595

RandomCases 20 $0 $11,670 $35,910 $2,379


In2009-10theConsumerCreditLegalCentrehadtotalexpensesofaround$1,378,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad619casesand12,410advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$46.1million,acostbenefitratioofaround33.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.Howeverthereisconsiderablecomfortinthehighcostbenefitratio,suggestingthatifonlyoneinthirtyoutcomeswasattributabletotheCommunityLegalCentre,costswouldstillexceedbenefits.

Noparticularhighvaluecaseswereidentified,howeverthereisabenefitassociatedwithmostmatters,theaveragebenefitisquitehigh,andaverylargenumberofadvicesareprocessed.Ofparticularinterest,particularlywithregardtomortgagedispute,theearlierthecentrewasinvolvedparticularlypriortolegalaction,thegreaterthebenefit.Theoverallimpressionisthatthecentredealswitharangeofpeopleandmattersanddoesthisinaveryefficientway,particularlynotwastingpeople’stimeandthecentre’sresourceswherethereisnocase,andstrategicallyfollowingthroughonselectedmattersforarangeofreasons.Thisisaneffectiveuseofcommunityresourcesandisreflectedinthehighbenefitcostratio.

Theeconomicbenefitsoftheproperprocessofthelawwithrespecttocontractsaredifficulttodetermine.

Theeconomicbenefitofcontractlawlargelycomesfromallowingpeopletoconducttransactionsovertimebymakingsurethatcustomersgetwhattheypayfor,andsuppliersprovidenomorethantheyhavebeenpaidfor,thatisthatpricesreflectaccuratelyreflectservices.Theeconomiccostsifsocietydidn’thaveaproperregulatorysystemaroundcontractscouldbeenormous,butbecausesocietydoeshavesuchasystem,it(probably)functionsatalevelwherecostsjustequalbenefits.Itisexpectedthatonaverage,themarginalcostsofpursuingaclaimwouldbeequaltothemarginalbenefitshoweverthiswillnotalwaysbethecase,particularlywherethereisasymmetricinformation.TheConsumerCreditLegalCentreperformsanimportantfunctioninthisregard,byprovidingexpertadviceatlowcosttooffsetthehighcosttoindividualsinobtainingsufficientinformationtoreachaninformedview.Insurancecompaniesandfinanciersaredealingwithclaimsandthecourtsallthetime,andsowouldbemuchmorelikelytoknowthelawthananindividualwhomayhaveoneortwomattersinalifetime.Thisprovidesanopportunityformoralhazard,whereacompanymayrejectaclaimwithoutappropriatesupport,buttakingadvantageofthecustomer’slackofsophistication.Thisbenefitisbestassessedintermsofwillingnesstopay,thatiswhatpriceisthecommunitypreparedtopaytohaveaccesstogoodlegaladviceatnocost.

Bywayofexample,thecostofthecentreperadviceis$111.Thismayrepresentgoodvalueintermsofthecommunity’swillingnesstopay,asa“flagfall”withaprivatesolicitorislikely


-��-

tobearound$300,andthecentrehasaveryhighlevelofexpertiseastheydealwiththesemattersallthetime.OnapercapitabasisandtakingtheadultpopulationofNSWas4.9million,54thecostofthecentreperadultis$0.30peryear.Inthisregard,eventhoughtheaveragebenefitassociatedwithcasesisabouthalfthebenefitassociatedwithadvices,thecasesprobablyserveatrainingorcurrencypurpose,ensuringthatsolicitorsinthecentreareuptodatewiththelaw.Moreimportantly,thereisanadditionalbenefitarisingfromcaseworkasmatterscanoftenbesettledquicklyascreditorsandinsurersknowthattheCLCispreparedtoruncasesthroughcourtorexternaldisputeresolutionandarethereforemoreinclinedtosettlethaniftheCLCofferedadviceonlywithnoopportunitytoengagethelegalsystem.

54 ABSCensus2006


-��-

6.4 Marrickville legal CentreTheMarrickvilleLegalCentre(MLC)islocatedinMarrickville,NewSouthWales(aninnersuburbofSydney)andwasestablishedin1979.MLC’sprimarygeographicservicecatchmentincludesthe12LGAsofAshfield,Auburn,Bankstown,Burwood,CanadaBay,Canterbury,Hurstville,Kogarah,Marrickville,Rockdale,StrathfieldandSutherland.


Current Staffing profileMLCstaffaredividedintothreeteams:legal,tenancyandadministration.Basedoninformationreceivedfromthecentre,thecurrentstaffingprofileasatMarch2011foreachteamisasfollows.

Table 23: Staffing profile Summary, MlC


TotalPermanent 262.5 7.5

TotalTemporary 136.5 3.9

TotalVolunteer 256 7.3

ToTal 655 18.7

Source:MLC2011,JSA2011

Table 24: detailed Staffing profile, MlC

teAm role Hours per Week fte

Legal PrincipalSolicitor(Permanent) 35 1

Legal Solicitor(Permanent) 91 2.6

Legal Solicitor(Temporary) 28 0.8

Legal Solicitor(SecondeefromPrivateFirm) 16 0.45

Legal Solicitor(Volunteer) 5 0.14

Legal Paralegal(Temporary) 7 0.2

Legal LegalStudent(Volunteer) 70 2

Legal EveningAdviceSolicitor(Volunteer) 68 1.9

Legal EveningAdviceAssistant(Volunteer) 17 0.5

Tenancy Advocate(Permanent) 45.5 1.3

Tenancy Advocate(Temporary) 52.5 1.5

Tenancy Information/ReferralOfficer(Permanent) 17.5 0.5

Administration CentreCoordinator(Permanent) 35 1

Administration Information/ReferralOfficer(Permanent) 17.5 0.5Administration Finance(Permanent) 21 0.6Administration DVPASSCoordinator(Temporary) 35 1Administration DVPASSWorker(Temporary) 14 0.4Administration Student(Volunteer) 80 2.3

ToTal 655 18.7



-�4-

Current Service provisionMLCoffersfourprograms:

• GeneralLegalService(GLS)- ProvidesfreelegaladvicetoadultresidentsoftheMLCcatchmentviatelephoneandface-to-facethroughdayandeveningappointmentsandoutreaches.

- Providescasework,advocacyandrepresentationservicestoclientsmeetingintakecriteria.

- ProvidesCommunityLegalEducation(CLE)

- During2009/10FY,thisprogramwassupplementedbytwoone-offgrantsincludingtheFamilyRelationshipCentrePilotProject(endedDecember2010)andCALDCreditandDebt(endedJune2010).

• Children’sLegalService(CLS)- Providesastatewideadviceservicebytelephoneorface-to-facetochildrenandyoungpeopleunder18yearsoldwholiveinNSW.


- ProvidesanoutreachadviceserviceatayouthcentreinBankstown.

- ProvidesCLE

- ConvenestheYouthJusticeCoalition(YJC),anetworkofyouthworkers,children’slawyers,policyworkersandacademicswhoworktopromotetherightsofchildrenandyoungpeopleinNSWandacrossAustralia.

• InnerWestTenancyAdviceandAdvocacyService(IWTAAS)- Providesadvice,caseworkandCLEservicestotenants(includingboarderandlodgers)rentingintheinnerwestofSydney.


- ProvidesaweeklyoutreachatNewtownNeighbourhoodCentre.

- ProvidesadutyadvocacyserviceattheConsumer,TraderandTenancyTribunalintheSydneyCBD.

• InnerWestDomesticViolencePro-ActiveSupportService(IWDVPASS)- ProvidesinformationandreferralservicestopersonsinneedofprotectionnamedonApprehendedDomesticViolenceOrderapplicationsmadebyNSWPoliceinNewtownandBalmainLocalCourts.

Client profileDuringthe2009/10FY,theMLCprovidedserviceto2864clients.55

• 76%civillawclients,20%familylawclientsand10%criminallawclients(notethataclientcanhavemultiplelawtypes)

• 55%femaleclients,43%maleclients,2%clientsex/genderunknown


55 AsperCLSISCC6.ClientbyLawTypereports.


-��-

• 48%ofclientshadastatedage.Ofthegroupofclientswithaknownage:8%wereunder18years,31%wereaged18-34years,34%wereaged35-49years,20%wereaged50-64years,and7%wereaged65orolder.


Femaleandmaleclientshadslightlydifferentlawtypeprofiles,withfemaleclientsmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforfamilylawtypeproblemsandmalesmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforcriminallawtypeproblems.

Figure 7: law Type profile for Male and Female MlC ClientsSource:MLC2011,JSA2011

IndigenousclientswerelesslikelythanTotalClientstoreceiveservicesforcivillawproblemsandmorelikelytoreceiveservicesforfamilyandcriminallawproblems.Notethatfor2009/10,Indigenousclientscomprised1%oftotalclients(n=29).

Figure 8: law Type profile for Total and indigenous MlC ClientsSource:MLC2011,JSA2011

Activity profileMLCconducted2994informationand3582advicesactivitiesin2009/10.Thecentreopened285newcasesduringtheyearandclosed250cases,including168minorcases,61mediumand2majorcases.MLCalsocompleted102non-caseworkprojectsduringtheyearincluding59CLEprojectsand28LawReformandPolicyprojects.Thefollowingtableshowsabreakdownofactivitiesbyfundedservicetype.

56 AsperCLSISCA1.1ActivitySummarycountof2840totalclientsfor2009/10FY.


-��-

Table 25: MlC Activities by Funded Service Type

serviCe type/speCifiC projeCt AdviceCasesopenatstart

Casesopenedduringperiod

Casesclosedduringperiod

CLEActivitiescompletedduringperiod

LRLPActivitiescompletedduringperiod

TOTALACTIVITIES 3582 75 285 250 59 28Funded Service Type Generalist 1758 52 158 142 21 4Generalistcreditanddebt 33 6 3GeneralistDVAS 414 2Generalisttenancy 1097 8 44 29 5GeneralistYouth 236 15 75 74 29 23FRC 44 2 2 2 1


problem Type profileMLCworksacrossallareasoflaw,butalargeproportionofitsactivities(advices,caseworkandfirstactivitymatters)arefocusedoncivillawproblemtypes.

Figure 9: law Type profile by Advice, Casework and First ActivitiesSource:MLC2011,JSA2011

First Activity MattersFirstActivityMattersareacountofthefirstinteractionor‘activity’aclienthaswiththeservicewithintheperiodoftimespecified.FirstActivitieswouldmostlikelybeadvicesandarethoughttorepresentthemostcommonproblemtypesgeneratedbyclientsoftheservice.ForMLCinthe2009/10FY,therewere3850firstactivitymatters.ThemostcommonproblemtypeswereTenancy,Employment,Family/DomesticViolence,Credit/DebtandOffencesAgainstPropertyorOtherOffences.OverathirdofallfirstactivitiesarerelatedtoTenancyproblemtypes;howeverthetablebelowshowsthediversityofproblemtypescapturedduringfirstactivitiesin2009/10.


-��-

Table 26: MlC First Activity Matters by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowproblem type # first

ACtivity mAtters

% first ACtivity mAtters

TotalTenancy 1392 36.2%TotalEmployment 431 11.2%TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 415 10.8%TotalCreditandDebt 376 9.8%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 226 5.9%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 201 5.2%TotalMotorVehicle 188 4.9%TotalContactandResidency 131 3.4%TotalConsumerComplaints 130 3.4%TotalInjuries 73 1.9%TotalDiscrimination 73 1.9%TotalOtherCivilLaw 62 1.6%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 33 0.9%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 29 0.8%TotalWills/Probate 23 0.6%TotalChildSupport 16 0.4%TotalProperty 16 0.4%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 10 0.3%TotalDivorceandSeparation 8 0.2%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowances 8 0.2%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 3 0.1%TotalChildProtection 3 0.1%TotalImmigrationLaw 3 0.1%ToTal FirsT acTiviTy MaTTers 3850 100.0%


AdvicesTheproblemtypeprofileofadviceactivitiesin2009/10issimilartofirstactivities,withathirdofadvicesdealingwithTenancymattersandsmallerproportionsrelatedtoCredit/Debt,Employment,Family/DomesticViolenceandOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences.Adviceserviceswerealsodiverseacrossarangeofproblemtypes.Withintheseareasoflaw,keyproblemtypesincluded:

• Familyordomesticviolenceorder,8.1%• Credit/debtowedbyclient,7.5%• Tenancyother,7.5%• Government/Administrationissuesrelatingtofines,4.8%


-��-

Table 27: MlC Advices by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowproblem type # AdviCes % AdviCes TotalTenancy 1760 33.0%TotalCreditandDebt 638 12.0%TotalEmployment 571 10.7%TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 467 8.8%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 340 6.4%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 328 6.2%TotalMotorVehicle 317 5.9%TotalConsumerComplaints 236 4.4%TotalContactandResidency 166 3.1%TotalInjuries 131 2.5%TotalDiscrimination 105 2.0%TotalOtherCivilLaw 82 1.5%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 46 0.9%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 36 0.7%TotalWills/Probate 29 0.5%TotalProperty 18 0.3%TotalChildSupport 17 0.3%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 15 0.3%TotalDivorceandSeparation 9 0.2%TotalGovtPensionsBenefitsAllowances 7 0.1%TotalChild/SpousalMaintenance 4 0.1%TotalChildProtection 3 0.1%TotalImmigrationLaw 2 0.0%TotalEnvironment 1 0.0%ToTal aDvices 5328 100.0%


Casework ActivitiesMLCcaseworkactivitiesfor2009/10FYwerespreadacrossarangeofproblemtypes.WhilstTenancymatterswereagainakeyareaofactivity,thesetypesofmatterscomprised17%ofcaseworkequaltoCredit/Debtcasework.Employment,Government/Administrativelaw,OffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences,andInjurieswereprimaryareasofcaseworkactivities.Withintheseareasoflaw,keyproblemtypesincluded:

• Credit/debtowedbyclient,12.5%• Government/Administrationissuesrelatingtofines,8.2%• Injuriescompensation,4.7%• Employmentunfairdismissal,4.5%• Tenancyterminationbylessor,4.0%• Roadtrafficandmotorvehicleregulatoryoffences,3.8%


-��-

Table 28: MlC Casework Activities by Total problem Type Sorted High to lowproblem type # CAseWork


ACtivities TotalTenancy 73 17.2%TotalCreditandDebt 73 17.2%TotalEmployment 61 14.4%TotalGovt/AdministrativeLaw 48 11.3%TotalOffencesAgainstPropertyandOtherOffences 40 9.4%TotalInjuries 31 7.3%TotalMotorVehicle 18 4.2%TotalOtherCivilLaw 18 4.2%TotalConsumerComplaints 16 3.8%TotalDiscrimination 12 2.8%TotalFamily/DomesticViolence 10 2.4%TotalContactandResidency 9 2.1%TotalOffencesAgainstPersons 7 1.6%TotalWills/Probate 3 0.7%TotalProperty 2 0.5%TotalNeighbourhoodDisputes 2 0.5%TotalChildSupport 1 0.2%TotalOtherFamilyLaw 1 0.2%ToTal casework acTiviTies 425 100.0%


6.4.2 Analysis of programs offered by the centreAnanalysisofthelikelysocialandeconomicbenefitsofselectedprogramsprovidedbytheMarrickvilleLCisprovidedinthetablebelow,togetherwithadescriptionoftheprograms,theiraimsandkeyoutcomes.

Primarily,theCLCoperatestoprovideassistancetopeoplewhowouldnototherwisehaveaccesstoexpertlegaladvice.Italsoassistspeopletoaccessthelegalandothersystemswheretheiraccessislimitedduetolackofskillsorsophistication.TheCLCrunsparticularprogramsintheareasofyoungpeople,tenancyanddomesticviolence.


-�0-

mlC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s

Properoperationofthe

legalsystem

Efficiencyofserviceprovision/

outcomes

Avoidingexternalities

GeneralistLegal

Services

Toprovideaccesstojusticeforpeoplewho

wouldnototherwisehaveit.

Toprovideinformationandadvicetoanyone

livinginthe12LGAsoftheMLCcatchment,

thatisnot-selectiveormeanstested,in

certainareasoflaw.

Toprovideminorcaseworkassistanceand

caseworktoclientswhoareparticularly

disadvantagedintheiraccesstojustice

includingIndigenous,NESB,women

experiencing/escapingDV,peoplewith

mentalhealthissuesand/ordisabilities,youth,

andpeoplewhoaregay/lesbian.

YouthandIndigenousclientsareabletosee

solicitorwithoutanappointment,toavoid

failuretoreturn.

OutreachonceperfortnightforNESBliving

inRockdaleandKogarahattheStGeorge

MigrantResourceCentre.

InvestigatingnewoutreachtoBurwood,

HomebushWest,andBelmore/Campsieareas

basedonlegalneedsstrategicplanning.

MentorandtrainPLTstudentplacements.

CLE,lawreformandpolicywork.

FamilyRelationshipCentrepartnership.

FacilitateaccesstoVictim’sCompensationfor

CALDandvulnerablewomen.

Peoplewhowouldn’t

normallyhaveaccess

tolegaladvicecan

determinewhattheir

problemis,whatoptions

theyhavetodealwith

it,beconnectedtothe

mostappropriatelegal

servicetodealwiththeir

problem,andeventually

obtainaresolution.

Resolutionofissues,

includingproviding

importantinformation

wherepeopledonot

haveacase.

ImpactonGovernment:

Thecentreagitatesfor

reformwheresystemic

issuesareidentified.Holds

governmentagencies

andinstitutionsto

accountwheretheyare

notenactingtheirown

policies.

Impactonprivate

enterprise:Inemployment

lawmattershaving

arepresentedclient

achievesbetterresults

inmoreefficientway

asemployerstakethe

mattermoreseriously.

Representation‘levelsthe

playingfield’.

Impacton‘legalsystem’:

Improvesandincreases

accessibilitytothesystem.

Thecentrefacilitates

probonoworkbylegal

firms,practicesand

professionals.Thereare80

volunteersolicitorsinthe

MLCadviceprogram,and

eachgives 1eveningper

fortnightoftime.

Providingclientswithinformation

abouttheirrights,responsibilities,

andproceduralissues(suchasthe

correctforum/arenaandwaytodo

things)savesconsiderabletimeand

resources.

Ifaclientdoesnotstartamatterin

thecorrectforum(CTTT,localcourt,

FairWorkAustralia,etc)theywaste

theregistrar’stime.

Ifsomeonecommencesaclaim

incorrectly,thecourtmayrequire

multipleamendmentstogetit

right.Thisisveryinefficientforthe

client,courtandallinvolved.

Withfines,oftenthepersonshould

paywhattheycan,asopposedto

progressingacasewheretheyhave

nogrounds.

Muchoftheworkofthecentreis

innegotiatedsettlementswithout

litigation,estimatedat9

0%ofthe

time.Thisisaconsiderablecost

saving,asthehighestcostsare

incurredinatrialwithajudgeor

magistrate’stime.

Theearliersomeonecomesto

thecentrethemoreefficientand

greatestcostsavingsareachieved.

Reducestheneedforlitigation

throughappropriatetriagingof

matters,assistinginnegotiationor

advisingwheretheremaybelimited

merittoamatter,andwherethe

clientwouldnothavetheskillsor

knowledgetodosoontheirown.

Byprovidingclientswith

informationaboutreasonable

expectations–suchaswithdebt

andfamilylawmatters–thiscan

streamlinetheprocess,saving

timeandmoneyforallparties

concernedandoftenachieving

amoredesirableoutcomeforall

concerned.

Inadebtmatter,negotiatinga

paymentplanandavoidingcourt

providescreditorwithsomething

ratherthancontinuedcosts

chasingsomeone.

Withfamilylawandcare

arrangements,thebestinterests

ofthechildmaynotmean50/50

timesplit.Workingthroughwith

aparentwhattheyarelikelyto

achieveasopposedtocontinued

fighting,stress,etcmaygivea

betterresult.

Preventsissuesfromdeveloping

furtherorworseningbymaking

referrals.

Tabl

e 29

: MlC

pro

gram

Mat

rix


-��-

mlC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s


legalsystem


outcomes


LegalVolunteer

Program

AiM

S:Toaugment/increaseCLCserviceswith

additionalexpertiseandstaffingprovidedby

legalvolunteers.

SeRV

iCeS

:Volunteersolicitors,mainlyfromlocalprivate

practices,provideTuesandThurseveningfree

advicesessionsatMLCbyappointment.

Lawgraduatescompletingtheirpracticallegal

trainingcomponentonavoluntarybasis.

Undergraduatelawstudentsassistingwith

receptionduties.

Increasedaccessibilityof

freelegaladviceforthe

community.

Increasedawareness

ofCLCanditswork

amongstcommunityand

privatelegalprofession.

Ensurestimely,accessible

advicelikelytoresolve

issues.

Providesaccessto

appropriatefollowup

legaladviceorcasework

whererequiredthrough

theprivate,publicor

communitylegalsector.

Providesadditionalvoluntaryhours

tosupportcentreactivities.

Timelyresolutionofmatters,

includingregardingwhetheror

notthereisacase,increasedability

toself-representorgainearly

resolution.

Promptandappropriateresolution

ofmattersislikelytoreduceflow-

oneffectstootheraspectsofa

person’slife.

Children’sLegal

Service

Providestatewidelegaladviceandcasework

tochildren,youthworkersandother

communityworkerswhoworkwithchildren,

inallareasoflawbutprimarilyrelatedto

fines,criminalcharges,courtprocess,bail,

victimscompensation,AVOs,ADVOs,debt,

schoolsuspension/expulsion,bullying/

harassmentandfamilylaw.

Outreach:OneperfortnightatHomebase,

multiculturalcentreinBankstown.

ConvenorofYouthJusticeCoalition(YJC),

anetworkoflawyers,children’ssolicitors,

academicsandyouthworkerswhoadvocate

fortherightsofyoungpeopleinthejuvenile

justicesystem.

Lawreformandpolicyworkbasedonaims

andobjectivesoftheYJC.

CLEwithyouth/communityworkersand

youngpeople(e.g.Everysixweeksatyouth

refugeinLeichhardt).

SecondmentofChildren’ssolicitorto

AboriginalLegalService.

Toprovidehelpful,

practicalandconsistent

legaladviceforyoung

peopleacrossNSWin-

person(ifpossible)and

inanenvironmentthat

isaccessibleandless

intimidating.

Tosupportyouthworkers

withissuessuchasduty

ofcare,confidentiality

andvicariousliability.

Ensuringthatyoung

peopleareawareof

andunderstandtheir

rightsandhavecontact

andaccesstotheright

servicetohelpthem

exercisethoserights.

Advocateforchanges

inthejuvenilejustice

system.

Impactongovernment:

Buildabridgebetween

youngpeopleandNSW

PoliceandStateDebt

RecoveryOfficesothat

mattersmaybesettled

bynegotiation.Give

info/advice/assistance

toclientstoassistin

navigatingthesystem.

Ex:MLCwasinvolvedwith

settinguppilot‘Work

DevelopmentOrders’

programw/StateDRO

whereyoungpeople

canworkortakepartin

activitiestopayofffines.

MLCassistedYJCto

conducthumanrights

consultationwithyoung

peoplefrom 80-90schools

whereoutcomeswere

partofshadowreport

thatwenttotheUNwhen

Australiawasbefore

theUNHumanRights

Commission.Couldhave

impactonnationallevel

reforms.

Otherserviceoptionsavailablefor

youngpeopleincludeLegalAid

telephonehotline(whichdoes

notprovidefacetofaceadviceor

representation),dutysolicitoratthe

courtsorprivatesolicitor.Shopfront

LegalService(CLCforyoungpeople)

onlyprovidesadviceandcasework

foryoungpeopleinSydneymetro

areaandincriminallawmatters.

Ourlegalrepresentationtakes

pressureoffLegalAid,private

solicitors,registrarsandthecourts.

Withfines,StateDROhaslittle

enforcementofyoungpeoplenot

payingfines.Weassistyoungpeople

tomeetdebtswithgovernment

wheretheyprobablywouldn’t

otherwise.

Engagingandinformingyoung

peopleabouttheirrightsand

responsibilitiesregardingaproblem

earlywillhopefullyavoidorlimit

furtherengagementwiththe

juvenilejusticesystem.

Reducingjuvenilejusticedetention

andrecidivism.

Assisting/referringtoother

servicesforcorrespondingmental

health,housing/homelessness,

drug/alcoholproblemsthatclient

mayhave.


-��-

mlC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s


legalsystem


outcomes


InnerWestTenants’

Adviceand

AdvocacyService

Assisttenantsandpromotetenants’rights.

Providetenantswithinthe5LGAsofthe

IWTAAScatchmentwithinformation,

adviceandrepresentationintheCTTT(NSW

Consumer,TraderandTenancyTribunal)if

appropriate.

Adviceisprovidedoverthetelephone,with

followupadvocacysuchasliaisingwithreal

estateagents,writinglettersandtribunal

actionifappropriate.

WeeklyoutreachtoAshfield/HomebushWest

areaisproposed(notcommenced).

Lawreformandpolicysubmissions.

CLEwithcommunityworkers,particularly

aboutthepriorityhousingsystemwith

HousingNSW(process,howtoappeal,etc).

Fundedfor1

05hoursperweekornearly3FTE

throughtheOfficeofFairTradingandRental

BondBoard.(currentlyhavemorestaffdueto

one-offfundingincreaseandsurplus)

DutyadvocacyatCTTT

1 /2dayperfortnight

atSydneyregistrytoassistwithconciliation

resolution(notfundedtodothis,sharedwith

4otherservicesandsupportedbyMLC).

OutreachprogramtoNewtown

NeighbourhoodCentre.

Outreachprogramtargetedtoboardersand

lodgers.

Topromotetenants

rightsandhelppeople

attainsecureandstable

accommodation.

Addressinghousing

crisisinNSW,preventing

homelessness,

addressingsystemic

barriersthatprevent

peoplefromaccessing

theirrights.

Tenantsenforcingtheir

rights.

Protectingtenantsfrom

termination.

Makingsureproperties

arefittolivein.

Makingsurepeoplehave

accesstopublichousing

andareappropriately

housedtomeettheir

needs.

Makesureproblems

arefixedandissues

addressed.Ifatenanthas

sufferedtheyareableto

receivecompensation.

ImpactonGovernment:

EnsureHNSWare

followingtheirpolicies,

proceduresandlegislation.

Makesubmissionstothe

Ministerandothersto

havepracticeschanged

wheresystemicissues

exist.

AimtoensuretheOfficeof

FairTradingaredoingtheir

jobofenforcementwith

regardtotheResidential

TenanciesAct.

Ensureadministration

withintheCTTTis

correct(lostapplications,

applicationcheques/

payment,etc).Gather

evidencetosupport

reformofpractices(ex:

applicationsinthreatof

lock-outasopposedto

onlyafterlock-outhas

occurred).

Impactonprivate

enterprises:Ensure

bestpractice,negotiate

outcomesandconduct

tribunalactionwithReal

EstateAgents.Facilitate

‘Misleadinganddeceptive

conduct’claimsasa

consumermatterfor

BoardingHouselodgers

usingAustralianConsumer

Laws.

Impacton‘legalsystem’:

ImpactonCTTT,district

andhighcourtsthrough

interpretationofthelaws.

Resolutionofdisputesbetween

tenantsandlandlordsthrough

negotiatedoutcomesthatwould

otherwisebeheardbyamagistrate

ortribunalatahighercost.

Providingclientswithinformation

abouttheirrights,responsibilities

andprocessensuresthatpeople

arenotmakingerroneousor

unnecessaryclaimsthataretime/

resourceintensiveforcourtstowork

through.Givingclientsrealistic

expectationsabouttheirmattercan

streamlinelegalprocessesandsave

resources.

‘Governmentoftenthinksthatif

theyfundusmoretheywillhave

moreproblems,butitisreallythe

oppositeasoftenonceclientgets

informationtheyrealisetheydonot

haveacase.’

Preventinghomelessness.Evena

shortstintofhomelessnesscan

havelastingimpactonhealthand

employmentprospectsresultingin

costtorelevanthealthservices.

Tenancymatterscanexacerbate

existingmentalhealthissues,

achievingaresolutioncanlimit

thecostandflowonimpacts.


-��-

mlC

pro

grAm

pro

grAm

Aim

s, se

rviC

es, e

tCde

sire

d o

utCo

mes

iden

tifi

ed s

oCi

Al A

nd

eCo

no

miC

ben

efit

s


legalsystem


outcomes


DomesticViolence

Pro-ActiveSupport

Service(DVPASS)

Makecontactandprovidesupportand

referraltopeoplewhohavehadcontactwith

policewhereDVwasidentifiedandtheclient

consentedtohavingdetailspassedonfor

furthersupportandreferralservices.

Telephoneassessmentofrisk,safetyand

needs.Provideinformationandreferraland

ensurethatclientisconnectedtoappropriate

services.

AuspicedbyMLCandbasedin3LACsinthe

InnerWestarea(Leichardt,Marrickvilleand

Newtown).

LiaisewithLACDVLOs(domesticviolence

liaisonofficers)andotherpoliceofficers.

Providebriefingsandeducationforofficersin

thestations.

CLEforcommunityworkers.

Sitoninteragencypanelsandcommittees.

ParticipateinDVCAS(domesticviolencecourt

advocacyservice)attwolocalcourtsonceper

month(BalmainLCandNewtownLC).

Tomaximizesafetyfor

women,childrenand

otherswhoarevictims

ofDV–andtohold

perpetratorsresponsible.

Toidentifyrepeatvictims

andprovidethemwith

additionalsupport.

Toengagethosewho

haveconsentedto

furthercontactand

improvetheirlevelof

safetyandputinplace

mechanismstoimprove

theirsafety.

Currently30-40%ofDV

call-outshaveconsent

grantedforfurther

contact.Typicallythe

servicecanonlymake

contactwith2/3rdsof

soofthereferralswe

receive.

Provideseamlesssupport

sopeopledonot‘fall

throughthecracks’

andrepeatthecycleof

violence.

Tofindabalance

betweentheneedsof

thevictimsandthe

needsofthecriminal

justicesystem.

ImpactonGovernment:

LocationwithinNSW

PoliceStationsisunique

andvitalforcontinued

liaison,relationship

buildingandcultural

changeamongstpolice.

ThereisnowaDV

codeofpracticeand

goodattendanceand

engagementwiththe

referencegroupforthis

program.Therehasbeen

animprovementand

changeinpoliceattitudes

andbehaviourregarding

DVwiththeprogram.

Morecommandsare

requestingthataDVPASS

belocatedwithinthem

andthatisasignthat

theserviceishavingan

impact.

Impactonthe‘legal

system’:

ParticipationintheDVCAS

secondeerostertosee

womeninthesaferoomat

localcourtsontheirAVO

mentiondate.

ThecostofDVacrossthenation

isastronomicalintermsofpolice

resources,mental/physical/

reproductivehealthimpactsand

criminaljusticeinterventions.

1inevery3policecalloutsinour

LACsinDVrelated.

Thisisaninexpensiveprogram

at$10

0kperyear,andwithoutit

womenwouldbecastadriftafter

contactwithpolice.Contactand

referralhopefullyintervenesin

thecycleofviolenceandreduces

impactsbyconnectingpeoplewith

services.Theserviceaimsfora

72hourcallback,asresearchhas

shownthatthereisawindowof

timeduringthecrisisperiodwhere

victimismorelikelytoaccept

assistance.

Interventionatcriticalpointin

violencecycletoreducerepeat

violenceandimprovesafetyof

womenandchildren.

Raisingawarenessaboutdifferent

formsofDV.Theremaynotalways

bephysicalinjuriesthatyoucan

see.

Source:BasedoninformationreceivedfrominterviewswithkeyMLCstafffromtheGeneralistLegalService,ChildrensLegalService,InnerWest

TenancyTeam,andDVPASSprogramon20/05/11andothercentredocuments.


-�4-

6.4.3 Assessment of economic benefitArandomsampleoftwentycasesandtwentyadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedcasesevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue,howevertheeconomicbenefitsofthesecasesweresimilartothoseintherandomsampleofcases,consequentlythesewerenotevaluated.




RandomAdvices 20 $0 $4,490 $6,850 $567

RandomCases 20 $0 $6,168 $1,140 $365


In2009-10MarrickvilleLegalCentrehadtotalexpensesofaround$877,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad425casesand5,328advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$3.2million,acostbenefitratioofaround4,andsufficientlyhightojustifytheexpenditureonthecentre.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.IfoneinfouroutcomeswasattributabletotheCommunityLegalCentre,costswouldstillexceedbenefits.


-��-

Appendix A: economic analysis of cases and advicesloddon Campaspe Community legal CentreArandomsampleoftwentycasesandadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedtwentycasesevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue,andtheeconomicbenefitsofthesecaseswerealsoestimated.




RandomAdvices 13 $12,120 $950 $1,228,915

$95,537($3,999excludingonebenefitestimatedat$1.19million).

RandomCases 7 $38,770 $540 $7,130 $6,634

SelectedCases 20 $118,750 $73,455 $1,348,000

$77,010($17,510excludingonebenefitestimatedat

$1.19million)


In2009-10theAdvocacyandRightsCentrehadatotalbudgetofaround$1.2million.TheCommunityLegalCentreprogramhadexpenditureof$531,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad1,043casesand2,272advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$224million,acostbenefitratioofover400howeverthisisinflatedbytheinclusionofoneveryhighvalueadviceinthedataset.Excludingtheveryhighvalueadvice,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$16million,acostbenefitratioofover30.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.Theuseofaveragecostsforserviceswillalsounderandoverestimatethebenefitassociatedwithaparticularoutcome.Howeverthereisconsiderablecomfortinthehighcostbenefitratio,suggestingthatifonlyoneinthirtyoutcomeswasattributabletotheCommunityLegalCentre,costswouldstillexceedbenefits.

Arangeofhighvaluecaseswereidentified,includingintherandomselection.Themaximumbenefitwas$1.19million,representingthebenefitofavoidinginstitutionalaccommodationandsupportforadisabledperson.IftheCommunityLegalCentrewasinstrumentalinonesuchoutcomeeverytwoyears,thiswouldjustifythecostofthecentre.

Theothermajorbenefitisintheareaofchildabuse.Theavoidanceofinstitutionalandothercostsinmattersofchildabusehasbeenassessedat$38,000.14suchcaseswouldjustifythecentreeconomically.

Followingthisassessment,adifferentmethodologywasfollowedinothercentreswhereby20randomadvicesand20randomcaseswereevaluated.Thiswasbecause:

• Thebenefitsoftherandomcasesandadviceswereconsiderable;• Casesandadviceswithhighvaluewereidentifiedintherandomprocess;• Casesidentifiedbythecentrewerenotnecessarilyofhigheconomicvalue;and• Alargerrandomselectionprovidesahigherdegreeofreliability.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. C

ase

Ahadanaccessagreementinplacewiththe

motherbuthadnotaccessedthechildren

forsometime.Inaddition,therewasan

interventionorderinplacewiththechildren’s

mother.Hewishedtomakecontactwith

thechildrenandtheCLCsentalettertothe

mother.Anegativeresponsewasreceived.

TheapproachforcontactbyAappearedto

beinresponsetothemother’sapplicationto

havetheinterventionorderextendedtocover

thechildrenaswell.Asoughttohavethe

interventionorderrevokedandwasadvisedby

theCLCthatthismaybeunsuccessfulbutifhe

wishedtoproceedheshouldgotocourt.

Thereisevidencethatchildreninjointcustody

(followingrelationshipbreakdown)arebetter

adjusted(acrossarangeofpsychologicaltesting

instruments)bycomparisonwithchildren

insolecustodyarrangements.1 Suchlackof

‘adjustment’mayhaveeconomicconsequences

withrespecttoemploymentandrelianceona

rangeofsupportandwelfareservicesandthis

isreflectedins6

5DAAoftheFamilyLawAct

1975(Commonwealth)wherejointparentingis

assessedinthecontextofthebestinterestsof

thechildandinpracticality.Atthesametime,

thereareconsiderablecostsassociatedwith

familyviolenceandwithchildabuse.2 ,

3

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tForabenefitfromtheoperationofthelawinthis

case,itwouldbenecessaryforaneconomically

inefficientoutcometoariseintheabsenceof

thelegalcentre.Inthiscase,itappearedthatthe

legalcentreassessedthatthecourtwouldfind

againsttherevocationoftheinterventionorder,

andthisoutcomewouldoccurintheabsenceof

interventionbythelegalcentre.Hencethereis

nobenefit.

IftheCLChadnotadvisedthefatherthenhemay

haveprogressedthematterthroughthecourtsasa

litigantinpersonatconsiderableexpenseandwith

smallchanceofsuccess.Hencetheremayhavebeen

reductionsincourttimeandcosts,withrespectto

themagistratescourtregardingtheintervention

order.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tThetotalannualbudgetfortheMagistrates’Court

ofVictoriawas$77million.

4 Duringthesameperiod,

therewere17

6,13

2criminalcasesfinalised,44,92

6civilclaimsfinalisedand68,01

1familylaw,family

violenceandafterhoursmattersgivingatotal

numberofmattersof 2

89,069,5 oranaveragecost

of$27

0permatter.Itislikelythemediancostper

matterissomewhatlessthanthis,butthereisno

dataavailableregardingtherangeofcomplexityin

themattersconsidered.Thereisalsoanadditional

costfromlitigantsinpersonwiththe20

04 A

nnua

l Re

view

of W

este

rn A

ustr

alia

n Co

urts

reportinga20%

increaseintimeforselfrepresentedlitigants.6

Hencethebenefitisassessedat$27

0plus20%,or

$320.

Noneidentified.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tNobenefit.

Rand

om sa

mpl

e of

case

s and

adv

ices


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

2. C

ase

B’srelationshiphadrecentlybrokendown.She

hadmovedfromherhomeandwasstaying

withafriend.ShecontactedtheCLCtoobtain

aninterventionorderagainstherformer

domesticpartner.Animportantconcernwas

herabilitytorecoverherpossessionsand

furniturefromthehome.TheCLCnegotiateda

‘withoutprejudice’agreementwithrespectto

householdfurnitureandvehiclesbetweenthe

partiesandobtainedaninterventionorderforB

fromthemagistrate.

Relationshipbreakdown,separationanddivorce

areafactofoursocietywithourlegalsystem

facilitatingseparation.Henceitiseconomically

efficienttofacilitateseparationatminimumcost.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tThisbenefitisidentifiedbelowunder

externalities.

TheCLC’sinterventionmayhavereducedtimeinthe

courtswithregardtoBobtaininganintervention

orderthroughacontestedprocess,perhapsasa

litigantinpersonorfundedbylegalaid.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tTheadditionalcostofalitigantinpersonis

estimatedtobe$6

0.

Inthiscase,theCLC’sfacilitationofseparation

islikelytohaveminimisedsocialcostssuch

aspoliceinterventions(collectingproperty,

interventionorderbreaches)anddamageor

lossofhouseholdgoods.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tThereislikelytohavebeenaconsiderable

benefitarisingfromtheapparentconciliation

roletakenbytheCLChoweverthisbenefitis

difficulttoestimate.Somepossiblebenefits

include:

Costoflosthouseholdgoods.Thiswouldonly

beacostif,forexample,thepartnerdisposed

ofthegoodstothetip,asatthewholeof

communitylevel,oneperson’slosswouldbe

another’sgain.Itisdifficulttoestimatethe

valueofhouseholdgoodsonaverage,however

in200

3-04,theaveragehouseholdspent

$52perweekonhouseholdfurnishingsand

equipment.7Assumingthelifeofhousehold

goodsis1

0years,thissuggestsreplacement

valuemaybeoftheorderof$

30,000,and

splitting50:50,thereplacementvalueofgoods

foronepersoncouldbeestimatedat$

15,000.

Alternatively,policemayhavebeeninvolved

inrecoveringgoods.In201

0theoperating

budgetfortheVictorianPolicewas$1,85

9million.

8 Inthesameperiodtherewere

795,00

0responsesrecorded,

9 givingan

averagecostperresponseofabout$2,34

0.This

islikelytobeanupperendestimate,asthe

costsincludesthecostoftheHighwayPatrol

andtrafficinfringementsarenotrecordedas

crimes.Budgetbreakdownbyprogramarea

wouldenableabetterestimatebutthisis

notavailable.Inadditionthereislikelytobe

amagistrate’shearing,estimatedpreviously

at$33

0.Additionalcostscouldarisefrom

custodialsentencing.In201

0theoperating

expensefor“enforcingcorrectionalorders”

was$56

7millionandthetotalnumberof

prisonerdayswas1.656million,givingadaily

costperprisonerof$

340.

10Atwodaycustodial

sentencewouldthencost$68

0,givingatotal

costofaround$ 3,350.

Thebenefithasbeenassessedat$

3,35

0.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

3. A

dvic

e

Chadsoughttoproposeanumberofrefugees

underAustralia.soffshorehumaniatarian

program.Oneofhisapplicationshadbeen

refused.HesoughtanFOIregardingthe

reasonsforrefusal.Adraftrequestforaccessto

documentswaspreparedbutnotsent.Hewas

advisedbytheCLCthatheshouldberealistic

regardingthenumberofpeoplehecould

realisticallypropose,andfocushiseffortson

thosepeople.

TheacceptanceofrefugeesintoAustraliawould

appeartobebasedonhumanitarianratherthan

economicreasons.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tNil

Thereisasocialcostassociatedwiththepreparation

andconsiderationofsponsorshipandvisa

applicationsandFOIapplications.Itislikelythat

appropriateadvicefromtheCLCledtoareductionin

applicationswhichmayhavehadlimitedlikelihood

ofsuccess.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tIn 201

0thegovernmentsubsidyoftheDepartment

ofImmigrationandCitizenshipwas$1,18

4million.

11

Inthesameperiod,4,322,710permanentand

temporaryvisasweregranted,

12givingacostper

visagrantedofabout$27

0.Applicationswillbe

moreorlessexpensivedependingonthedegreeof

assessment,andthereareactivitiescoveredbythe

Departmentthatdonotrelatedirectlytovisassuch

asbordercontrol.Nonethelesstheestimategives

someideaoftheorderofmagnitude.Ifitisassumed

thattheadviceoftheCLCledtoMnotmakingone

application,thenthebenefitisassessedat$27

0.

Noneidentified.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tNil

4. A

dvic

e

Dhadanintellectualdisabilityandwasthe

fatherofachild.Hehadseparatedfromthe

motherandhadregularcontactwiththechild.

Henolongerwantedtocontactthechildasthe

motherwasabusivetowardshimandacted

inappropriately.Hedidnotwishtoapplyforan

interventionorderandthoughtitwasbestto

nolongerseethechildrenbutwasconcerned

thathisbreachoftheaccessorderwould

resultinproblems.Hewasadvisedthatbynot

contactingthechildrenhewouldbeinbreach

oftheaccessorderbutthatthemotherwould

beunlikelytorespondtothisbreach.

Thereisevidencethatchildreninjointcustody

(followingrelationshipbreakdown)arebetter

adjusted(acrossarangeofpsychologicaltesting

instruments)bycomparisonwithchildren

insolecustodyarrangements.13Suchlackof

‘adjustment’mayhaveeconomicconsequences

withrespecttoemploymentandrelianceona

rangeofsupportandwelfareservicesandthis

isreflectedins6

5DAAoftheFamilyLawAct

1975(Commonwealth)wherejointparentingis

assessedinthecontextofthebestinterestsof

thechildandinpracticality.Atthesametime,

thereareconsiderablecostsassociatedwith

familyviolenceandwithchildabuse.14,15

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tForabenefitfromtheoperationofthelawinthis

case,itwouldbenecessaryforaneconomically

inefficientoutcometoariseintheabsenceofthe

legalcentre.Whilethereisalikelytobeacost

associatedwiththechildonlyseeingoneparent,

thiscostisdifficulttoquantifyandisprobably

offsetbyothercostsincurredifDwastocontinue

toseethechild.

Dreceivedappropriateadvicerelativelyeasilyby

accessingtheCLC.Duetohisintellectualproblems,it

islikelythathewouldhavehaddifficultyaccessing

aprivatelawyerorobtaininginformationthrough

otheravenues.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tNil

IfDhadcontinuedtoaccessthechildren,itis

likelyaninterventionorderwouldberequired

witharangeofcostsassociated.D’sdecision

appearstohaveavoidedthesecosts.

estim

ate

of b

enefi

tThecostofobtaininganinterventionorderhas

beenassessedat$33

0.Thisexcludesanycosts

arisingfrombreachorenforcement.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

5. C

ase

Ewashomeless(livingwithafriendorrelative)

andwishedtochangeherwillasaresultof

separatingfromherhusband.Anewwillwas

draftedupchangingtheexecutorfromher

husbandtoherdaughterandnamingher

childrenasherbeneficiaries.

Thereisabenefittosocietyfrompeoplehaving

willsinplaceinthatdisputes,withresultantcost,

regardingthedisposaloftheperson’sassets

areavoided.Thehusbandbeingnamedasan

executorcouldhaveledtocostsasbeneficiaries

mayhaveobjectedandacourtprocessand

appointmentofanadministratormayhavebeen

incurred.Alsothechildrenwouldhavehadto

contestthewilliftheywishedtobetreatedas

beneficiaries.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

ProbatemattersareheardintheSupremeCourt

ofVictoria.In 200

8-09therewereabout7,300

finalisationsintheSupremeCourtofVictoria.16

Overthesameperiodexpenditurewas$50

million.

17Thisisanetcostperfinalisation

ofabout$6,85

0.Themediancostislikely

tobethebestestimatehowevernodatais

availabletoestimatethisvalue.Theaverage

costperfinalisationof$6,85

0islikelytobean

overestimate.Itisalsonotedthatinthiscasethe

benefitislikelytooccursometimeinthefuture.

Assuming20yearsat7%,thenetpresentvalueof

$6,850isaround$1,770andthisistakenasthe

benefit.

Nobenefitsidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

6. C

ase

FsoughtanInterventionOrderagainst

herlandlordaspartofanongoingdispute

regardingtherentalpropertyanddamage

toherpersonalpropertyasaresultofthe

landlord’sactions.Shewascurrentlylivingwith

afriend.Thatapplicationwenttocourtwhich

waswhentheCLCbecameinvolvedaspartof

theirinterventionorderprogram.Anagreement

wasreachedthatthelandlordwouldclean

andreturnherproperty,andthatallelectrical

itemswouldbechecked.Theapplicationforan

interventionorderwasnotprogressed.

Generallyitiseconomicallyefficientforviolence

tobeavoided,howeverinthiscaseitisdoubtful

iftheInterventionOrderwouldhaveaddressed

theproblem.Itisalsoeconomicallyefficientfor

negligencetobeattributed.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

TheengagementoftheCLCledtoanegotiated

settlementinacrimoniouscircumstancesand

withoutfurthercourtaction.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nilasthematterhadgonetocourt.

Itisunlikelythattheinterventionorderwould

havesolvedtherealproblems,thesebeing

repairandreturnofpossessionsandadispute

regardingnonpaymentofrent,andthatthe

grantingoftheinterventionorderwouldhave

incurredadditionalcostsassociatedwith

enforcement.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofenforcementofanintervention

orderhasbeenassessedaboveat$

3,35

0.In

addition,additionalcourtortribunalcosts

wouldbeincurredtoresolvetheunderlying

dispute.In200

9/10,VCATfundingwas$36.8

millionand84,806caseswerefinalised.

18This

isabout$

430perfinalisation.Hencethetotal

benefitisaround$ 3,780.


-�0-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

7. A

dvic

e

GhadnotbeenissuedacertificatebyherTAFE

collegeasshehadnotcompletedaplacement

requirementofthecourseduetodifficultiesin

travel.Shebelievedshehadbeendiscriminated

against.Shewascounselledtousethecollege’s

grievanceprocedure.

Itcouldbeseenthatdiscriminationmaynotbe

economicallyefficient,insofarasdiscrimination

resultsinpeoplenotbeingallocatedtotheir

mostefficientuse.Howeverinthealternative,

legislationaimedtoavoiddiscriminationthrough

positivediscriminationmaynotbeeconomically

efficienttotheextentitprovideseconomicrent

toaparticularinterestgroup.Itcouldalsobe

consideredanequitymeasure.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytohavebeenasignificantreductionin

transactioncostsandadministrationcostsincurred

bySpursuingacasewithlittlemerit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Basedoncostsofadministrativereviewcalculated

above,thebenefitislikelytobearound$ 3-400.

Thisisaroundoneday’swagesforaprofessional

personandonthisbasisseemsreasonable.The

benefitistakenas$35

0.

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

8. A

dvic

e

Hhadtakenhisyoungsonfromhisexpartner

ashethoughtthechildwasindanger.Hewas

concernedthatthisactionwouldadversely

affecthispositioninanyfuturecustody

hearing.Hewasadvisedthatastherewere

noordersinplaceitisunlikelythathisactions

wouldprejudicefutureproceedings.

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereisasignificantsocialcostassociated

withabusedchildrenandwithfostercare.If

thefatherwasunsureofhisposition,hemay

haveleftthebabywiththemother,placing

itindanger.Itisnotedthatthebenefitcould

havebeenincreasedbyrecommending

mediationbetweenthefatherandthemother

asthiswouldbelikelytosavecostsdownthe

trackwithregardtofacilitatinganearlyfamily

lawoutcomeandavoidingopportunitiesfor

enmitytodevelopbetweentheparties.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Tayloretalestimatethat 177,300children

experiencedabusein200

7atalifetimecost

of$6,71

2million.

19Thisisanaveragelifetime

costperchildofabout$38,000andthiscould

betakenasthebenefitfromtheCLCadvice.

9. A

dvic

e

Ihadcrashedhercarandhadbeencharged

withdangerousdriving.Herlicensewas

suspendedpendingapsychiatricreport.As

shewasexperiencingacutementalillnessshe

soughttoappealthesuspension.Asshewas

eligibleforlegalaid,shewasreferredtothem.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

TheCLCfacilitatedtheefficientreferralofthe

filetolegalaid.Peoplewithmentalillnessesand

similarproblemscanhavedifficultynavigating

theirwaythroughbureaucracies,withconsequent

administrativecostsandlossoftime.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Assessmentofbenefit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

10. C

ase

J’spreviouspartnerissubjecttoanintervention

orderandiscurrentlyinjailforbreachesofthat

interventionorder.Hewillbereleasedshortly.

Afearsforhersafetyandthatofherchild.She

wasadvisedtoreportapreviousbreachofthe

interventionorderthatresultedincharges

againstherpreviouspartner.Shewasalso

givenadviceregardingaBsafekit,anotification

systemforthosewithaninterventionorder,at

riskoftheinterventionorderbeingbreached

andwhohavehadariskassessmentbyafamily

violenceservice.

Thereisapublicbenefitarisingfromtheproper

operationofthelegalsystem.Iftheintervention

orderisnotenforceditismeaninglessandwill

notserveitsfunctionofpreventingviolence.

Failuretoenforcetheinterventionordermay

haveresultedinfurthersocialcostsincluding

thepersonalsafetyofthemotherandchild,

andothercostssuchasthemotherneedingto

relocatetoavoidthepreviouspartner.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

AccessEconomics2

0 estimatethelifetimecosts

pervictimofdomesticviolenceat$43,285.21This

valueimproperlyincludes$5,97

5intransfers.

Deductingthis,thebenefitisestimatedat

$37,00

0.

Awasgivendirectiononhowtoproceed,facilitating

herengagementwiththelegalsysteminthemost

efficientway.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

11. A

dvic

e

Khadamentalillnessandwasaggrieved

regardinghisinvoluntarycommittal.Hewished

tosuethehospitalbutwasadvisedbytheCLC

thathehadnocourseofaction.

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

TimelyadvicefromtheCLCmayhaveavoided

furthercostselsewhereinthelegalsystemifKhad

pursuedthematterasalitigantinperson.Suchcosts

arelikelytobeexacerbatedbyhismentalillness.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Costshavebeenestimatedpreviouslyat$

330.

Noneidentified.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

12. A

dvic

e

HerintellectuallydisabledchildliveswithL

butthedaughterisviolentandLisconcerned

forthesafetyofherself,herhusbandandher

otherchild.Shewasadvisedtoseetheduty

lawyeratthemagistratescourtandapplyforan

interventionorder.

Thereisaconsiderablecostassociatedwith

familyviolenceandthepurposeofintervention

orders,amongotherthings,istoavoidthese

costs.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofassaultwasestimatedat$

1,80

0per

assaultin20

01,22orabout$2,40

0intoday’s

dollars.Thisdoesnotincludethecostofpolice,

courtactionorincarcerationwiththesecosts

estimatedpreviouslyataround$3,350,givinga

totallikelycostof$

5,75

0forasignificantassault.

Herunderstandingoftheprocesstobefollowed

throughtimelyadviceprobablyreducedpersonal

andadministrativecostsassociatedwithfindinga

solutiontoherproblem.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Ifcircumstancesdeterioratedsothatthe

daughtercouldnolongerlivewithher,thereis

likelytobeasignificantsocialcostinvolvedin

providingsupportedcareandaccommodation

forthedaughter.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 201

0DisabilityServicesintheVictorian

DepartmentofHumanServicesprovided

residentialaccommodationsupportto5,20

0clientsatanannualcostof$

584million,or

$112,300perclient.23Thisisequivalentto

$1.19millioninNetPresentValueover2

0yearsat7%.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

13. A

dvic

e

M’spropertybackedontothreetownhouses.

Herfenceneededrepairinghowevertwoof

threeneighboursrefused.Shewasadvisedto

usethe“NoticetoFence”processtoresolveher

problem.Theprocesswasoutlinedtoher.

Munderstoodwheretheresponsibilitylay,that

isthatitissharedbetweenthelandholders.This

avoidedaneconomicallyinefficientoutcome

wherebyshemayhavepaidforallofthefence,or

alternativelywentwithoutafence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Administrativeandpersonalcostswerealsoreduced

throughknowingthecorrectprocesstofollow.For

example,Mmayhavegonedirectlytocourtwithout

aproperbasisifshehadnotproperlyservednotice

ontheotherparties,incurringadditionalexpensefor

herandforsociety.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

14. A

dvic

e

N’sexpartnerhadbeenmakingpaymentsona

carfinancedandregisteredinN’snameinlieu

ofpayingchildsupport.Thepartneradvised

ofanintentiontodivorceandstoppedmaking

paymentsonthecar,whichwasrepossessed.

Nhadsomesavingsandwasadvisedtocome

toanarrangementwiththefinancecompany

regardingpayingofftheoutstandingamount.

Shewasadvisedshecouldrecoverthismoney

aspartofthepropertysettlementassociated

withthedivorce.Shewasalsoadvisedto

formalisechildsupportarrangements.

Theapportionmentofresponsibilityunder

contractisimportantforensuringfinance,for

example,continuestobeofferedatthelowest

possibleprice.IfNdefaultedonherloan,arange

ofcostswouldbeincurredbysocietyincluding

thecostsofrepossessionandsaleofthecar,with

thiscostprobablybornebyN.Anyshortfallin

valuewouldalsobebornebysocietyintheform

ofhigherinterestrates.Thesecostswereavoided

bytheproperapplicationofthelaw.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Arangeof‘deadweight’costswillbeincurred

withtherepossessionandsaleofacar.The

followingisbasedona 200

6HoldenCommodore

valuedatanaverageof$9,50

0.24

PicklesAuctionsinMelbournechargeafeeof

$770pervehicleforasuccessfulsale.25Vehicles

soldatauctionsellforawholesaleprice,and

sotherewouldbeexpectedtobeanotherloss.

Togivesomeidea,Redbook

26showsa25%

differencebetweentradeinpriceandprivate

saleprice.Ifthetradeinpricereflectswholesale

prices,thentheexpectedlossis$2,40

0.A

repossessionoperatorinMelbourneestimated

around$1,20

0forthisrepossessionincluding

towingchargestoMelbourne.Hencethetotal

costofrepossessionandsaleisestimatedat

$4,370withthiscostbornebythecarowner.

Nobenefitevident

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Formalisingarrangementsarelikelytoleadto

reducedcostsinthefuturearisingfrom‘back

dating’andrecoveryofoutstandingmoney.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thechildsupportagencyreportsacostper

caseof$

585.

27


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

15. A

dvic

e

OcontactedtheCLCregardinginitiationof

divorceproceedings.Hewasgivenanoverview

oftheprocessandprovidedwithacopyofthe

divorcekit.

Relationshipbreakdown,separationanddivorce

areafactofoursocietywithourlegalsystem

facilitatingseparation.Fromaneconomic

perspective,weappeartohavetakentheviewas

asocietythatthebenefitstochildrenfromnot

livinginahomewhereconflictexistsorwhere

parentsareunhappyexceedthesocialcostsof

familybreakdownsuchaswelfarepayments

tosingleparentsandtheeffectsofpovertyon

children.Inaddition,arangeofmeasures,such

assharingpropertyandmaintenance,arein

placetominimisethosesocialcosts.Henceitis

economicallyefficienttofacilitateseparationat

minimumcost.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Itislikelythathavingproperinformationand

understandingthestepstobefollowedledtoa

reductioninadministrativecostsincurredelsewhere

inthelegalsystemassociatedwithdealingwith

inquiriesfromO.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

16. C

ase

PcontactedtheCLCregardinganintervention

ordersoughtbyhisestrangedwife.TheCLC

facilitatedhisagreementtoanintervention

orderwithoutmakinganyadmissionstothe

allegations.Thematterwasresolvedatthe

mentionstage.

Generallyitiseconomicallyefficientforviolence

tobeavoided.Itisnotclearthatthiswasthe

casehere,astheinterventionordermayhave

beenastrategicmovebytheestrangedwifeto

improveherbargainingpositioninanydivorce

proceedingsandthisseemstohavebeenP’s

concern.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

IftheCLChadnotassistedtheman,thenthe

processmayhavegonetocontest,withanincrease

inadministrativecosts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Allow 50%savingonaverageselfrepresented

magistrate’scasecostestimatedaboveat$

330gives

abenefitof$

160.

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

17. A

dvic

e

QcontactedtheCLCregardinghisrejected

claimagainstcouncilfordamagetoacar

causedbyalimbfallingfromatree.Hehadnot

lodgedaclaimwiththeinsurer.Hewasadvised

tolodgeaclaimwiththeinsurancecompany

andtoseektheinsuranceexcessfromthe

council.

IftheCLChadnotassistedQmayhavebeenin

thepositionofpayinginsurancepremiumsand

incurringthecostsofdamageregardless.This

wouldleadtoamarketfailure,astheinsurance

companywouldnotseethefullcostofproviding

insurance.Properadministrationofinsurance

throughengagingthecontractiseconomically

efficient.Insofarascouncilwasresponsible

forthedamage,properallocationofriskis

economicallyefficient.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofrepairswasnotknown.Assuminga

repaircostof$

3,00

0andaninsuranceexcessof

$1,000,thebenefitisassessedat$2,00

0.

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�4-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

18. A

dvic

e

PcontactedtheCLCregardingsponsoringa

migranttoAustraliaunderaskilledmigrantion

visa.Hewasreferredtoanimmigrationlawyer

ashedidnotfittheCLCcriteria(theirfocusis

refugeesandfamilyreunification).

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thematterwasnotprogressedfurther

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

19. C

ase

Qhadlostherjobduetostressanddepression,

wasunabletomakeherhomepayments

andhadbeenstrugglingforsometime.She

wasadvisedtosellherhomeandpayouther

debts.Anagreementwasnegotiatedwiththe

bankwherebyshewouldpaytheoutstanding

payments($3,04

0)andplaceherhouseon

themarketratherthanhavethebankseize

possession.Unfortunately,theladydidnot

proceedwithplacingherhouseonthemarket

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobe

responsiblefortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Itwouldbeabetteroutcomeforherifshesold

thehouseratherthanbanksellingit,asany

expensesincurredbythebankcomeoutofher

equityinthehome.Ifthehomeissoldcheaply

thenthebuyerisbetterofftothedegree

thattheownerisworseoff,thatisthereisno

overallsocialcost,howevertransactioncosts

havealsobeenincurredwhichareofnobenefit

tosocietyandtheseshouldbeconsidereda

cost.Hencethenegotiatedsettlementwould

havebeenineverybody’sbestinterestsdueto

thereductionintransactioncosts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. A

dvic

e

Rwasconcernedastowhetheranorganisation

hadaliabilityifdefamatoryorincorrect

informationwaspostedonawebsite.Hewas

advisedthattherewouldbelittleornoliability

howeveranythingthatdoesnothaveapproval

shouldbecorrectedordeleted.Thecasewas

thenclosed.

Nobenefitidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thematterwasnotprogressedfurther.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. C

ase

Thasapsychiatricdisorderresultinginher

keepingalargenumberofcatsaspets.She

hasnotbeenhospitalisedforsomeyears

anditisthoughtthatherattachmenttoher

petshasplayedalargepartinthis.Dueto

thelargenumberofpetsandthestateofher

property,councilissuedheranoticetoreduce

thenumberofpetstotwo.TheCLCcontacted

councilandnegotiatedanarrangement

wherebyshewasabletokeepareasonable

numberofanimals.Shecleanedherproperty

andagreedtomaintaincleanlinessand

installedacatshelter.

Presumablythelawaroundlimitingthenumberofpetsistoensuretheyareproperly

lookedafterandarenotanuisancetoothers.Thisoutcomecouldbeexpectedtobe

economicallyefficienttotheextentthatcosttoothersisavoided,andthosecostsmight

benegativeratherthanpositive,inthesensethatpeoplewouldpayapricetoavoid

consumingthingssuchassmellandnoise.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Clearlythereisacosttoneighboursinreducedamenityfromnoiseorsmell,butthereis

littleornodataonwhichtoestimatesuchcosts.

Negotiatinganagreement

withcouncilprobably

reducedtransactioncosts,

forexampleifcouncilhad

toenforcetheorderfortwo

pets,expensewouldbe

involvedinremovingexcess

petsandhavingthemput

down.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofamagistrate’s

courthearingandpolice

enforcementhasbeen

estimatedpreviouslyat

$2,670.

IfTwasplacedunderstress

fromtheremovalofher

pets,thiscouldresultinher

hospitalisation,withhigh

resultantcostscomparedto

livinginherownhome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efits

In 200

9-10Psychiatric

DisabilityRehabilitationand

SupportServicessupported

13,383clientsatanoutput

costof$

90.3million.

28Thisis

$6,750perclient,or$

72,000

aspresentvalueover20

years.

2. C

ase

TheUsappliedforcustodyoftheirchildV

whocurrentlyresideswiththem.Hermother

hadcustodyofVhowevershewasfoundto

beatriskofharmarisingfromviolenceand

exposuretodruguse.TheCLCfacilitatedthe

grandparent’ssuccessfulapplicationforVtolive

withthem.

Thereisaconsiderablesocialbenefitassociatedwithchildrengrowinguptobeproductive

membersofsociety.Conversely,ifpeoplehave,forexample,psychologicalordevelopmental

problemsfrompoorparentingorparentalconflictinthehome,thiscanresultinsignificant

socialcostthroughsuchthingsaswelfaredependence,crimeorusageofarangeofsupport

services.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thelifetimecostofchildabuseandneglecthasbeenestimatedaboveat$

38,000perchild

anditislikelythiscosthasbeenavoided.

TheCLCensuredtheprocess

wasefficientcomparedto

thegrandparentsactingas

litigantsinperson.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asestimatedabove,this

benefitisoftheorderof$

60.

Ifthechildwasplacedin

temporaryorfostercareat

stateexpense,considerable

expensewouldbeincurred.

Inaddition,placementwith

thepaternalgrandparents

wasagoodoutcomefor

Vbecauseshecontinued

tohavecontactwithher

grandparentsandwithother

familymembers.Lossor

reductioninthiscostmay

haveledtoadditionalsocial

costsarisingfrompoor

developmentonthepart

ofV.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assessedabove.

3. C

ase

Wcurrentlyhascustodyofherchildwithher

previousdomesticpartnerhavingaccessrights.

Hehadpreviouslyhadcustodyoftheson

howeverhewasplacedwithXasthechildwas

consideredtobeatrisk.TheCLCassistedXin

obtaininganinterventionorderprotectingboth

herandherchild.

Thelifetimecostofchildabuseandneglecthasbeenestimatedaboveat$

38,000perchild

anditislikelythiscosthasbeenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thereisaconsiderablesocialbenefitassociatedwithchildrengrowinguptobeproductive

membersofsociety.Conversely,ifpeoplehave,forexample,psychologicalordevelopmental

problemsfrompoorparentingorparentalconflictinthehome,thiscanresultinsignificant

socialcostthroughsuchthingsaswelfaredependence,crimeorusageofarangeofsupport

services.Thereisalsoacostassociatedwithassault.

Asestimatedabove,this

benefitisoftheorderof$

60.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Wwasrepresentedtoa

contestedhearing.The

processwasmoreefficient

thanifshehadbeena

litigantinperson.

Noneidentified.

Nil.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Sele

cted

‘hig

h va

lue’

case

s


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

4. C

ase

Ylivesonapensionandsuffersfromanxiety

anddepression.Shewascalledbyher

doctor’ssurgerytocomeintoseethedoctor.

Sheconsideredthisurgentanddroveher

unregisteredcartothesurgery.Shewasissued

aninfringementnoticebypolicefor$

511

fordrivinganunregisteredcar.Yapproached

theCLCasthematterwasproceedingto

enforcement.TheCLCwasabletonegotiatea

diversionwherebyYmadea$1

00donationto

acharity.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforthetaxburdentobespreadacrossthecommunityandfor

vehiclestoberoadworthy.Hencedrivingunregisteredvehiclesispenalised.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

ThereisacosttosocietyinthatYdidnotpaythefineandthislowersthepriceofbreaking

thelaw.Conversely,shehaspaidsomepriceanditislikelythatthecourttooktheviewthat

inhercircumstancesthepriceshepaidexceededanybenefittoherfromherunlawfulact.

Hencethebenefitisassessedatnil.

Typicalcourtcostshave

beenassessedaboveat

$330.Inadditionthere

wouldbeenforcementcosts

butnoreadilyavailabledata

isavailable.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Theprocesswas

streamlinedcomparedto

anenforcementprocess

involvingcourttimeand

policetime.

Theadditionalstressand

expenseofpayingthe

finewouldbelikelytobe

displacedelsewherethrough

accessingotherservices.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

5. C

ase

Zisapensionerlivingfromweektoweekand

withlittleornoassets.Hewenttopurchase

newtyresforhiswife’scarandwasencouraged

totakeonacreditcardwith,eventually,a

$10,00

0limit.Itislikelyhedidnotproperly

understandthequantumandtermsof

repaymentofthearrangement.Heincurred

a$9,544debtagainstthecardandlackedthe

meanstomaketherepayments.Thecreditcard

companyissuedadefaultnotice.Zapproached

theCLC.Zwasessentially‘judgementproof’

duetohiscircumstances.Hisdetails,along

withdetailsofanother87casestotallingover

$600,000wereforwardedtothecreditcard

companybyanotherCommunityLegalCentre

undertakinga‘bulkdebtnegotiationscheme’.

Itappearsthat,actingonappropriateadvice

andfullinformation,thecreditcardcompany

madeacommercialdecisiontowaivethedebt,

probablybecauseoftheadministrativecosts

ofundertakingtheprocessandacertaintythat

theexpectedreturnwas$0.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletoberesponsiblefortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thedefaulthascostaround$ 1

0,00

0whichthecreditcardcompanywillrecoverfrom

increasedinterestrates.IftheactionbytheCLChadtheeffectoftighteningthecredit

cardcompany’slendingpoliciesleadingtoreductionsininterestrates,thentherewillbe

abenefittosociety.Thebenefitisdifficulttoquantify.InMarch 201

1,theReserveBankof

AustraliareportedinterestaccruingcreditcarddebtinAustraliaof$

36.4billion.

29A0.1

percentagepointreductionininterestrateswouldrepresentabenefittothecommunity

of$36.4milliondollars.Thiscalculationgivessomeideaofthemagnitudeofthepublic

benefitassociatedwithexcessiveinterestratesbecauseofhighriskprofilestakenby

lenders.

TheAustralianPrudentialRegulationAuthority(APRA)reported$1,64

0billionofgrossloans

andadvancesbyindividualbanksinAustraliaforApril20

11.TheCommonwealthBankof

Australiaprovides2

1.75%ofthisamount.30Forthe201

0financialyeartheCommonwealth

BankofAustraliareported$2,07

5millioninimpairmentexpense.Grossloanswritten

offfortheperiodwere$2,073millionandLendingAssetswere$5

00,760million,giving

adefaultrateof0.4%.ApplyingthisratetotheAPRAdata,annualimpairmentexpense

(takenasthecostofloandefault)forAustraliaisestimatedtobe$6.56billion(or$

328per

personannuallyacrossapopulationof20million)andthiscostisbornebytheAustralian

community.Thisdoesnotincludeloansheldbythenon-banksector.Again,ifmorejudicious

lendingpoliciesledtoa0.1%(areductionofonedefaultinonethousand)decreasein

default,thebenefittotheAustraliancommunitywouldbearound$7million.

Foranyonelender,itwouldbeexpectedthattheriskpositionwouldbeoneinwhichthe

marginalexpectedprofitfromaloanisequaltothemarginalexpectedloss.Astheloss

increases,thatistheprobabilityoflossmultipliedbytheexposure,somusttheprofit.

Differentpeoplehavegreaterorlesserriskprofiles,andarangeoflendingproductsareon

offerwithinterestratesreflectingtheriskofcustomers.Forexample,homeownersmay

borrowmoneyat 7%,whereashigh-riskborrowersmaybepaying15%interesttoafinance

companyor1

00%interesttoa“paydayloan”company.Thismeansthattheloanmarketis

highlydifferentiatedwithregardtorisk.

Analternativeviewisthathigherinterestratesareaformofinsurance,withthoseless

likelytodefaultpayingalowerinterestrate.Onthisview,thelendingmarketisefficient

becauseofdifferentiation,whicheachindividualriskpricedseparately,althoughinpractice

riskispricedingroups.Thisisthepreferredview,andsothebenefitisassessedaszero.

Tran

sact

ion

cost

sThecreditcardcompanyhasbeensavedaconsiderableadministrativecostiftheywent

throughadebtrecoveryprocessandwereunsuccessful.Thatsavingisanadditionalsaving

tosocietyastheadditionaladministrativecostswouldberecoveredthroughincreased

interestrates.Agooddealofcourttimeisalsolikelytohavebeensaved.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Ifthelenderpursuedtheirmoney,itwouldinvolveadministrativeeffortontheirpart,

acourthearingtoobtainjudgementandenforcementinvolvingthesheriff’soffice.No

informationisavailableontheVictorianSheriff’sOfficecosts,butthecostinNSWis

estimatedbelowat$

213permatter.Courtcostshavebeenpreviouslyestimatedat$

230,

givingatotalbenefitof$

440.

Itislikelythattheadditional

financialstressofattempting

torepaytheloanor

defaultingwouldhave

increasedrelianceonother

supportservices.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Ifthelenderhadsucceeded

inobtainingmoneyfrom

Z,itisquitelikelythatthe

moneywouldhavebeen

sourcedultimatelyfrom

thecommunity,throughfor

example,relianceoncharities

andotherhandouts.The

benefithasbeenassessed

asnilduetolackofdata.It

isalsonotedthattheseare

generallytransfers.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

6. C

ase

Awasinvolvedinamulticarmotorvehicle

accidentwherehewasatfault.Hisvehicle

wasnotinsured.Mhadregularcasualwork

whichherequiredhislicensefor,hadfewassets

andlivedinpublichousing.Hefacedlossof

hislicenseandadebtofaround$2

0,00

0.In

addition,hewasbehindinutilitybillsandowed

moneyforinternetservices.TheCLCwasable

tonegotiatewiththeinsurancecompanyand

twoofthecreditorsforawaiverofthedebt,

probablybasedontheircommercialassessment

thatthelikelyreturnofpursuingtheclaimwas

$0.Hewasrequiredtopayafine,enterintoa

goodbehaviourbondandundertakeadriving

coursebutnoconvictionwasrecorded,andhe

wasabletokeephislicense.

Thereisasocialcostinthatnonpaymentofthisdebtwillleadtoinsurancecostsbeing

higherthantheywouldbeotherwise.Thisisthesocialcostofthemoralhazardofnot

carryinginsurance,withAknowingthathecouldnotbeforcedtopayforhisactions.This

isacosttosociety,asinsurancepremiumsarehigherthantheywouldbeifeveryonewas

insured,therebyreducingtheconsumption(orpurchase)ofinsurance.Inthiscasethat

costappearstohavebeenaccepted,probablywithregardtotheperceivedquantumof

externalitieslikelytobegeneratedfromenforcement.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

Thereisabenefittothe

insurancecompaniesin

thattheydidnotexpend

administrativeeffort

seekingtorecovermoney

wheretheirchancesof

successwereclosetozero.

Thisisasocialbenefitin

thatsuchcostswillbeadded

toinsurancepremiums,

causingthemtobehigher

thantheywouldbe

otherwise.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,avalue

of$44

0hasbeenadoptedas

thecostofrecoveringdebt.

Inthiscasetherewerethree

creditorsandthebenefitis

assessedat$

1,32

0.

Themitigationofhisoffence

hadasignificantbenefit

toAinthatheretained

hislicense.Thismeanthe

couldcontinueworking,

andsocontributetothe

maintenanceofhimselfand

hisfamily,ratherthanliving

onCentrelinkpayments.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

IfAhadlosthisjob,almost

certainlyanotherperson

wouldhavetakenthejob,

therebyreducingtheranks

oftheunemployed,withthe

neteffectonemployment

zero.Hencethisbenefitis

assessedaszero.

7. C

ase

Bwasthesubjectofacommunitytreatment

orderfollowingherreleaseafterinvoluntary

hospitalisationforapsychiatricdisorder.The

episodecoincidedwiththebreakdownof

hermarriage.SheapproachedtheCLCwho

supportedherinahearingwiththeMental

HealthReviewBoard.Hertreatmentplan

wasrevisedandeventuallywithdrawn.Itwas

submittedthatheroriginaltreatmentplanwas

arrivedatbecauseundueregardwasgivento

theviewsofherestrangedhusbandandshe

hadlimitedEnglish.Sheiscurrentlyseeking

work.

Itisprobablethatthereisasignificanteconomicbenefitassociatedwithpeoplewith

psychiatricillnessmanagingtheirillnesswellandremainingsafeandhealthy.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nil

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nobenefitidentified.

Asarguedpreviously,ifshe

obtainedworkitwouldbe

asubstitutioninthatsome

otherunemployedpersondid

notobtainwork.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thereisasocialcost

associatedwiththe

implementationofthe

communitytreatment

ordercomparedto

casemanagementas

anoutpatient.Shehas

previouslyworkedand

thestigmaandside

effectsassociatedwith

thecommunitytreatment

ordermayhavereduced

herchancesofobtaining

employment,resultinginher

needingtoaccesswelfare

payments.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

8. C

ase

ItwasallegedthatChadenteredthehomeof

herformerpartnerandstolesomepersonal

property.Subsequentlybothobtained

interventionordersagainsteachotherwhich

shebreachedbysendinghimtextmessages.

TheCLCrepresentedher,negotiatingthe

withdrawalofeightoftencharges,withthese

chargesrelatedtotheallegedtheft.Cpleaded

guiltytobreachingtheinterventionorderand

themagistrateorderedcommunityservice

andagoodbehaviourbondwithnoconviction

recorded.

Thereisaneconomiccostassociatedwiththeftandwithviolence,andhencethereisan

economicbenefitassociatedwiththelawgeneratingapricefortheftandforviolencein

termsofsanctions.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Cmayhavebeen

unrepresentedatthe

hearing.Theprocessof

negotiationandpleading

guiltyprobablyleadto

reducedadministrative

andcourtcostsassociated

withthematter.Therewas

littlesubstantiationfor

thechargesoftheft.The

withdrawalofthesecharges

savedcourttimeandcosts

andshemayhavebeen

improperlyfoundguilty

whichwouldmeanthelegal

systemhadnotoperated

properly.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Jailtimemayhavebeen

avoided.Assumingtwodays

jail,thebenefitis$68

0.

Chadpreviouslyworkedas

achildcareworkeranda

criminalconvictionwould

havebeendetrimentalto

anyfutureemployment

prospects,increasing

herlikelihoodofbeing

dependentonCentrelink

paymentsinthefuture.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nilduetolikelysubstitution

ofemployment

9. C

ase

Ddroveoveracrestandcameacrossanother

carstoppedintheroadway.Shewasunable

tostopintimeandstrucktheothercar.It

appearedthatDwasselfinsured.Theinsurer

oftheothercarsoughttorecoverthecostsof

damageofaround$1

0,00

0.TheCLCassistedD.

Thecircumstancesweresuchthattherewas

likelytobecontributorynegligencefromboth

parties,andsotheinsurerwithdrewtheirclaim.

Theattemptbytheinsurancecompanytoshifttheirliabilitytoanotherpartyconstitutes

moralhazard,inthatitislikelythatiftheinsurancecompanywasdealingwithanother

insurancecompany,theywouldprobablyhaveagreedquitequicklytocontributory

negligence.Theresultingmarketdistortionisthatthosepayinginsuranceobtaintheir

insurancemorecheaplythanwouldotherwisebethecasetotheextentthattheinsurance

companyisabletoshifttheirliabilitytoothers(needtothinkaboutthissomemore).The

enforcementofanefficientmarketisinthepublicinterest.Againstthismustbesetthe

moralhazardofapersonoflimitedmeansdrivingacaroflittlevalueandnotcarrying

insuranceintheanticipationthattheirexpectedcostinthecaseofanaccidentisrestricted

tothevalueoftheircar.Generallyspeaking,thebenefitsofhavingincome,assetsandaline

ofcreditfaroutweightheadvantagesofbeingdebtproof.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Iftheinsurancecompany

hadpursuedtheclaim,

additionaladministrative

costswouldbeincurred,

bothinternallyandwithin

thecourtsystem.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asassessedpreviously,court

costswouldbeoftheorder

of$33

0,andtherewouldbe

additionaladministrative

coststotheinsurance

company.Thebenefithas

beenassessedat$33

0.

Noneidentified.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

10. C

ase

Ehadstolenatotalof$

520fromheremployer

onnumerous.Shewasunder18andneeded

moneyforamedicalprocedure.Shedidnot

useherownmoneyasherparentstrackedher

accountandshedidnotwantthemtoknow.

WiththeassistanceoftheCLC,sheadmitted

guiltandmaderestitution.Shewasgivena

diversionorder,requiringa$ 1

50donation,with

noconvictionrecorded.

Byoneview,theeconomicpurposeofthecriminaljusticesystemistoensuretheexpected

costofcrimeexceedstheexpectedbenefitofcrime.Hencethereisasocialcostiftheprice

paidbyEwastoosmalltoserveasadisincentivetoothers,meaningthatothersmaybe

morelikelytocommitsimilarcrimesinthefuture.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

PresumablythepricepaidbyEwassufficienttoactasdisincentivetowardsfuturetheftby

herandbyothers.Thebenefitisdifficulttoquantifyandisassessedasnil.

Ifthematterhadprogressed

toacontest,itislikelythat

courtcostswouldhavebeen

muchhigher.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Itseemsthatconsiderable

courttimehadgonetothe

matter,howeverthereis

likelytohavebeensome

saving.Againthisisdifficult

toquantify.

Ifacriminalconvictionwas

recorded,Emayhavehad

futuredifficultyinfinding

workandmayhavebecome

awelfarerecipient.Thereisa

costassociatedwithpeople

enteringthecriminaljustice

system,includingthecostof

incarcerationandthedanger

ofbecomingahabitual

criminal.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,

employmentislikelytobe

asubstitutionandsothe

benefitisassessedaszero.

11. C

ase

Bsufferedfromamentalillnessandhad

difficultymanagingherownaffairs.Shewas

duetobedischargedfromhospitalandwas

infinancialdifficulties.Hercaseworkerhad

appliedtohaveanadministratorappointed

toassistwithB’saffairs.Shepreferredthe

administratortobeapersonalfriendrather

thanStateTrustees.TheCLCfacilitatedthe

executionofapowerofattorney(whichisless

restrictive)andarrangedwiththecaseworker

fortheVCATapplicationforanadministratorto

bewithdrawn.

Thereisaneconomicbenefittosocietyifpeople’saffairsareproperlymanaged.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thebenefitisdifficulttoquantifyandhasbeenassessedaszero.

Settlingthematterby

negotiationreduced

expenditureinconducting

theVCATdetermination,

albeitattheexpenseof

additionalcostsbytheCLC.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,the

costofaVCATfinalisationis

about$

430

Administrationbyafriend

ratherthanthepublictrustee

reducedthepubliccostof

administrationmarkedly,

notingthatthefriendis

likelytoincursomecostsin

administeringheraffairs.

Thereislikelytobeabenefit

inencouragingsomeone

toremainasselfsufficient

aspossibleandavoiding

institutionalisation.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 200

8-09,TheOfficeof

thePublicAdvocatespent

$2.6millionproviding

guardianshipservicesto636

clients,3

1 orabout$4,09

0per

clientperyear.Overatwenty

yearlifeat7%,thisisanet

presentvalueof$

43,000for

oneperson.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

12. C

ase

Cwasfightingwithafriendandsoughtan

interventionorder.TheCLCnegotiatedwiththe

friendtosignanundertaking,withThavingthe

righttore-instatetheoriginalapplicationat

anytime.

Thereisacommunitycostassociatedwithviolence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thematterwasmostlikely

resolved.Itdidnotproceed

tocourt(withadditional

costs)andtheinstitution

ofaninterventionorder

mayhaveledtoescalation

withadditionalsocialcosts

associatedwithpolice

interventionsandcourt

hearings.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,thecost

ofobtaininganintervention

order(unrepresented)has

beenassessedat$33

0,with

alikelycostof$

3,35

0if

enforcementisrequired.

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

13. C

ase

Dhadachild,Ewhoisdevelopmentally

delayedandhasaseriesofbehaviourproblems

leadinghimtoactviolentlyattimes.F’sorthe

neighbour’sresponsetoviolenceoutbursts

hasbeentocallthepolice.Duetothenumber

ofcalloutsandbecauseofconcernsforthe

safetyoftheyoungerchild,policesoughtan

interventionorder,howeverFwantedEto

stayathome.TheCLCfacilitatedarangeof

negotiationsresultinginEprovidingalimited

undertakingandanumberofsupportsbeing

putinplace.

Thereisacommunitycostassociatedwithviolence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofassaultwasestimatedat$

1,80

0perassaultin200

1,32orabout$2,40

0in

today’sdollars.Thisdoesnotincludethecostofpolice,courtactionorincarcerationwith

thesecostsestimatedpreviouslyataround$3,350,givingatotallikelycostof$

5,75

0fora

significantassault.

Thecourtcostsofobtaining

theinterventionorderhave

beenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thishasbeenassessed

previouslyas$

330.

Thereislikelytobea

significantsocialcost

associatedwithboththe

gainingandenforcementof

theinterventionorder,such

aspoliceandcourtcosts

andthecostofthecriminal

justicesystem(escalation,

incarceration),andifEwere

requiredtoliveoutside

thefamilyhome,withthis

requiringsignificantlevelsof

support.Thiscosthasbeen

avoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 201

0DisabilityServices

intheVictorianDepartment

ofHumanServicesprovided

residentialaccommodation

supportto5,20

0clientsatan

annualcostof$

584million,

or$11

2,30

0perclient.Thisis

equivalentto$1.19million

inNetPresentValueover2

0yearsat7%.Thiswouldneed

tobediscountedtosome

degreeasarangeofsupport

serviceswereengaged.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

14. C

ase

Fwasservedwithawarrantrelatingtoa

relativelyminoroffence,involvingbreakinga

windowwhichoccurredmanyyearspreviously.

AtthattimeF’slifewasinsomedisarray

howeversincethenhercircumstanceshave

changedmarkedly.TheCLCapproachedthe

policetodropthechargesbuttheycontinuedto

pressthecharges.Themagistratedismissedthe

chargessubjecttoarestitutionorder.

Byoneview,theeconomicpurposeofthecriminaljusticesystemistoensuretheexpected

costofcrimeexceedstheexpectedbenefitofcrime.Hencethereisasocialcostiftheprice

paidbyFwastoosmalltoserveasadisincentivetoothers,meaningthatothersmaybe

morelikelytocommitsimilarcrimesinthefuture.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thepolicehavelimited

resourcesanditisinthe

publicinterestforthose

resourcestobecommitted

wheretheyobtainthe

greatestvalue.Testcases

suchasthisassistthepolice

innotcommittingresources

pursuingmattersoflittleor

novalue.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

15. C

ase

Gisamiddleagedmanwithaphysical

disability.Over1

0yearsprior,hisfatherH

arrangedforStateTrusteestobeappointedas

G’sadministratorashewasawarethatHmay

notbeabletoassisthissonashadbeenhis

practice.Gsoughttohavetheadministration

orderliftedonthebasisthatitwasnolonger

requiredandwassuccessful.

Thereisaneconomicbenefittosocietyifpeople’saffairsareproperlymanaged.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Gisnowabletomanage

hisownaffairsandthecost

ofpublicadministration

hasbeenavoided.There

isasecondarybenefitin

empoweringsomeoneto

managetheirownaffairs,

withthisperhapsbeinga

growthopportunityforG

inmakinghimlessreliant

onothersocialsupports

generallyinhislife.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 200

8-09,TheOfficeof

thePublicAdvocatespent

$2.6millionproviding

guardianshipservicesto636

clients,orabout$4,10

0per

clientperyear.Overatwenty

yearlifeat7%,thisisanet

presentvalueof$

43,000for

oneperson.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

16. C

ase

Hhadpaidchildsupportforhischildand

wasuptodateuntilhewasseriouslyinjured

inamotorvehicleaccident,resultinginH

beingunabletowork.Duetohischanged

circumstances,hisonlyincomesincethen

hasbeenwelfarepayments.Hehasaccrued

asignificantdebtwiththeChildSupport

Agency,muchofwhichwaspenalties,and

whichheisunabletopay.Itisnotedthatif

hehadcontactedtheChildSupportAgency

regardinghischangedcircumstances,itislikely

hispaymentswouldhavebeenreducedandhe

wouldnothavebeeninthesecircumstances.

TheCLCappliedtohavethedebtwaivedand

wassuccessful.

Ifchildrenareseenasacommodityofmarriage,aneconomicallyefficientoutcomeinterms

ofthenumberofchildrenonehasrequiresbothpartiestopaythepriceofchildrearing.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Zero.

Thereisapubliccost

associatedwithongoing

attemptsbytheChild

SupportAgencytorecover

themoneywhichisno

longerbeingincurred.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,thechild

supportagencyreportsa

costpercaseof$

585.

Therewerepositivehealth

outcomesforH,ashehas

clinicaldepressionand

thestressexacerbatedhis

condition.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

17. C

ase

IwasamigrantwithlimitedEnglish.Hewas

dismissedfromhisjobandapproachedtheCLC

regardingunfairdismissal.Duringconciliation,

itbecameapparentthatmuchoftheproblem

relatedtopoorcommunicationarisingfrom

I’slackofEnglishandtheemployer’sfailure

torespondtoappropriatelytothis.Iwas

reinstated.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobeallocatedtotheirbestuse.Atthesametime,

labourlawsmaynotbeeconomicallyefficientinsofarastheyencouragerentseekingby

certaingroupsinsociety.Alternatively,theymaybeconsideredanequitymeasure.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Ihasregainedhisjobrather

thanbeingreliantonwelfare

payments.Hisemployer

hasretainedaskilledand

trainedworker.Theemployer

revieweditscommunication

strategywithitssignificant

Sudaneseworkforce

whichislikelytoleadto

improvedproductivityofthe

enterprise.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,

lossofemploymentisa

substitution.Theemployer

hassavedthecostoftraining

anewemployeebutthereis

nobasisonwhichtoassess

thisbenefit.


-�4-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

18. C

ase

Jhasanintellectualdisability.Heenteredintoa

mobilephonecontractandincurredsignificant

debtwhichhewasunabletopay.Following

CLCrepresentationandconsiderationbythe

TelecommunicationsOmbudsman,thedebt

waswaivedbythephonecompany.Atthesame

timeanotherpartofthecompanypursuedthe

debtandthistooksometimeandefforttosort

out.

Thereisasocialcostwithdefaultbydebtorsinthatthecostofdefaultisaddedtotheprice

paidbyothersandconsequentlythecostofservicesisgreaterthanitwouldbeotherwise.

Thereisaninherenttensionbetweenthemoralhazardassociatedwithpeopleincurring

debtthattheyneverintendtorepay,therebyplacingacostontherestofsociety,and

misrepresentationorunconscionabilitybysalesman,wherebypeopleunderestimatethe

costofservicesandhenceconsumemorethantheywouldotherwise.Bothoutcomesare

inefficient.Thequestionthenbecomeswhethertheeconomicallyefficientoutcomeisbest

achievedbyplacingtheresponsibilitywiththecreditororthedebtor.Asasocietyweappear

tohavetakenasharedview,withthecreditorhavingsomeresponsibilityduetotheir

exposuretoloss,henceleadingtocreditchecksandthelike,andwiththedebtorhaving

someresponsibilityduetotheirexposuretoloss,suchaslossofassetsandgarnishee

orders.

Thephonecompanymayhaveunlawfullyrecoveredsomeoralloftheirlossbynegotiating

individuallywithuninformeddebtors,therebyrewardingthecompanyforrecklessly

contractingwiththoseunlikelytobeabletopay.Hencetheincurringofthelossbythe

phonecompanyplacesresponsibility(inthesecircumstances)wheretheinefficiencycanbe

bestaddressed,suchasthroughmorestringentvettingofcontractapplications.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Zero.

Thephonecompanycould

havesavedaconsiderable

administrativecostif

theywentthroughadebt

recoveryprocessandwere

unsuccessful.Thatsaving

isanadditionalsavingto

societyastheadditional

administrativecostswould

berecoveredthrough

increasedcostsofphone

rentals.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedabove,thecost

ofdebtrecoveryhasbeen

assessedat$

540.

Noneidentified

19. C

ase

KenteredAustraliaonaspousevisa.Sincethat

timeshehadhadachild.However,hermarriage

hadbrokendownduetodomesticviolence.As

shedidnothavepermanentresidency,shewas

indangeroflosinghervisa.TheCLCsuccessfully

appliedforpermanentresidencyforK.

Thereislikelytobeasignificantsocialcostassociatedwithsituationswhere:

•apersonstaysinasituationofdomesticviolenceduetoconcernsregardingthethreat

ofdeportation

•achildisleftinasituationofdomesticviolenceduetooneparentbeingdeportedor

forcedtoleaveAustralia

•anAustralianchildbeingdeniedthebenefitsofcitizenship.

Thesecostswereavoidedinthiscase.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofdomesticviolencehasbeenassessedaboveas$

37,000.

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Zero

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Zero


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

20. C

ase

L’sfamilyhadfledhiscountryoforiginand

travelledtoaneighbouringcountry,wherehe

livedformanyyearsasarefugee.Hethencame

toAustraliausingforgedIDandagainlived

hereasassylumseeker,andworkinginfulltime

andcasualpositions.HeapproachedtheCLC

toregularisehisstatus.Hisapplicationfora

protectionvisaduetohisrefugeestatuswas

successful.

Theeconomicbenefitsofacceptingrefugeesarenotapparent.Itislikelythatsuch

programsareexplainableinhumanitarianterms.Howeverthisviewalsosuggeststhat

acceptingrefugeesisapublicgood,thatisthatasasocietywearepreparedtopaysome

pricetoacceptrefugees.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Zero

IfLhadbeendetectedbythe

immigrationauthority,costs

wouldhavebeenincurredin

detainingorindeportingL.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

TheDepartmentof

Immigrationand

Citizenshipdoesnot

provideexpendituredata

onaprogrambasis.Using

otherdataabove,the

costofincarcerationhas

beenassessedataround

$340perday.Assuming

sixmonthsincarceration,

thebenefitisassessedat

$62,00

0.Thisislikelyto

beanunderestimate,as

itdoesnotincludecosts

ofassessingapplications

andanyjudicialreview

notingthattheDepartment

spent$

30milliononlegal

expenditurein200

9-10.33

Lisauseful,skilledand

productivememberof

Australiansocietyandhis

outputwouldhavebeen

lost,withanothermigrant

requiredtoreplacehim.

Noneidentified


-��-

geraldton Resource CentreArandomsampleoftwentycasesandtwentyadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedonecaseevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue,andtheeconomicbenefitsofthiscasewasalsoestimated.




RandomAdvices 20 $0 $2,860 $600 $173

RandomCases 20 $168,000 $8,820 $68,000

$12,241($4,241ifatrainingcoursewithanassessedbenefitof$160,000isexcluded)

SelectedCases 1 $224,000 $0 $0 $224,000


In2009-10theAdvocacyandRightsCentrehadtotalexpensesofaround$520,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad684casesand2,645advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$8.8million,acostbenefitratioofabout17.

AlargebenefithasbeenassociatedwithatrainingsessioncarriedoutbytheCLCforanotherorganisation.Itisdebatableastowhetherthisbenefitshouldbeascribedtothelegalcentreratherthantotheotheragency.Excludingthistrainingsession,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$3.4million,acostbenefitrationofoversix.

Theaveragecostovercasesandbenefitsis$137,suggestingthecostbenefitratioonadvicesis1.3.Ascasesarelikelytotakemoreresourcesthanadvices,theeconomicreturnonadvicesislikelytobemarginal.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.Howeverintheworstcase,theCLCwouldneedtobeinstrumentalinoneinsixcasestobreakeven,henceitislikelythatapositivecostbenefitratioisachieved.

Onehighvaluecasewasidentified.IftheCommunityLegalCentrewasinstrumentalinfivesuchoutcomesintwoyears,thiswouldjustifythecostofthecentre.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. C

ase

AhadfourchildrenwithherpreviouspartnerB.They

haddivorcedandtwochildrenlivedwiththefather

whiletheotherchildrenlivedwiththemother.Bwas

chargedwithsexualabuseofthreeyounggirlsliving

inneighbouringhouses.Thechildrenwereremoved

totheirmother’scare.Followingcounselling,the

eldestdaughterrevealedshehadbeensexually

abusedbyherfather’sfriend,C.Cwaschargedand

pleadedguilty.Athenlearntthatherdaughtershad

beensexuallyabusedbytheirfatherfromanearly

age.Bwaschargedwithadditionaloffencesand

alsopleadedguilty.Theepisodehadasignificant

impactonAandherdaughterswithonesuffering

fromdepressionandveryaggressive.Awasunableto

workduetoongoingpersonalandfamilystress.The

CLCassistedAinherapplicationforCriminalInjuries

Compensation(underWAlegislation)forherselfand

forherchildren.Theapplicationwassuccessfulanda

numberofpaymentsweremade,including$6

2,00

0toonechild,$33,000toanotherand$29,000tothe

mother.

Theeconomic,andindeedthegeneral,rationaleforvictim’s

compensationisnotclearlyevident.Anumberofbasesareput

forward.O’Connor3

4 forexampleidentifiesarangeofrationales

includinganincentivetovictimstoparticipateinthecriminaljustice

system,themoralobligationonthestatetorecompensevictimsof

crime,thestate’smonopolyoncrimecontrol,socialcontracttheory,

sharedriskandsocialwelfaretheoryandthehumanitarianrationale.

Fromaneconomicperspective,theeffectofcompensatingvictims

ofcrimeistoplacethepriceforfailuretopreventcrimewiththe

widercommunitythroughgovernment.Againstthisargument,the

approachisunlikelytobeparticularlyuseful,asthecostisnotseenby

thosewhoprovidethecriminaljusticesystem,exceptatahighlevel.

Alternatively,compensationcanbeseenasanequitymeasure.Often

theprovisionofpublicgoods,suchasthecriminaljusticesystem,is

justifiedbyapositivecostbenefitratio,withreferencetotheKaldor-

Hicksprinciple,thatisthatthewinnersonlytheoreticallycompensate

thelosers.Howeverinmanyareas,wherewinnersorlosersareeasily

identifiable,itispossibletousethemorepowerfulParetoprinciple,

withthewinnerscompensatingtheloserstotheextentthatthe

winners,orthelosers,canbeidentified.Thewidercommunityreceives

abenefitfromthecriminalpreventionsystem,butduetolackof

resourcesonthepartofthecommunity,thatbenefitisnotexhaustive

anditiscosteffectivetoacceptsomeleveloffailure.Whileoverallthe

communityarewinners,thelossesarenotspreadevenlyacrossthe

community.Criminalinjurycompensationisonewayofspreading

thoselossesacrossthecommunity.Bothapproachesaresimilar,in

thattheplacethepriceforfailureofthecriminaljusticesystemwith

thecommunity,ratherthansomefinitenumberofindividualswithin

thatcommunity.Fromanalternateperspective,therecanbemoral

hazardassociatedwithsuchanapproach.Ifthevictimcontributed

tothecrimeinsomewaybytheiractions,itisnoteconomically

efficientforthemtoberewardedbythecommunityasthiscouldlead

totheperverseoutcomeofanincreaseincrime.Thisreportadopts

theuntestedviewthatthetribunalassessingclaimsgivesregard

tosuchconsiderations,andthatthepricepaidtothevictimisafair

assessmentofthecosttothevictim,discountedforanycontributory

negligenceonthepartofthevictim,notinghoweverthatadetailed

reviewofavictim’scompensationsystemmaynotinfactfindthis

tobethecase.Inthisregard,victim’scompensationisconsideredto

beanequityconsideration,and,assuchprobablyperformsalimited

functionwithregardtoeconomicefficiency.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Assistancewiththeproper

preparationofapplicationsforVictim’s

Compensationislikelytoreduce

administrativecosts,forexamplein

requestingadditionalinformationand

inrevisitingdecisions.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Theremaybesomebenefits

withmoneyprovidingaccessto

counsellingandthelike.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Rand

om sa

mpl

e of

case

s


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

2. C

ase

Dwasapsychologistinthenongovernmentschool

sector.Shebecameawareofaninstanceofalleged

sexualabusebetweenamaleteacherandafemale

student.Thematterwasdisclosedtothegirl’sparents

andDhadsomediscussionswithboththealleged

victimandtheperpetrator.Theschoolsystempolicy

requireddisclosureofanyallegationsofsexualabuse,

howeverD,inherprofessionaljudgement,believed

thelegalresponsibilityfordisclosurelaywiththe

parents.Theschoolbecameawareofthealleged

abuse.Theallegedperpetratorwascharged,and

wasdismissedfromtheschool.Dwasaskedforher

resignationanddulyresigned.Dthentookaction

forunfairdismissal.Theschoolmadeacomplaint

ofunprofessionalconducttothePsychologyBoard

regardingD’sactions.TheCLCassistedDwithher

response.Theboardfoundtherewasnobreachof

theAct(HealthPractitionerRegulationNationalLaw

(WA)Act),RegulationsorCodeofEthicsalthough

therehadbeenaconflictbetweenprofessionaland

organisationrequirements.Nofurtheractionwas

taken.

Withregardtothiscase,thelawandtheprofessionalbody

appearedtoplacetherightsoftheindividualabovetherightsofthe

organisation.Fromaneconomicperspective,theappropriateaction

wouldbeonethatminimisedfuturecosts.Theframeworkusedin

thisstudyassumesthattheoperationofthelaw,thatischarging

peoplewithcrimes,leadstoaneconomicallyefficientoutcome.In

thiscaseitcouldbearguedthattheactionsofDmeantthatthelaw

didnotoperate.Usingthemodelofcriminalpunishmentbasedon

makingtheexpectedcostofcriminalactivitiesexceedtheexpected

benefit,theorganisation’spolicyofdisclosurewaslikelytobecost

effectivewithpeoplebearingtheconsequencesoftheiractionsand

thoseconsequencesbeingseenpublicly.Thealternativestrategy

couldleadtomattersbeingcoveredupandnopricebeingpaidfor

acrimecommitted.Whilethemattersraisedbythepsychologist

indefenceofheractions,suchasthebestinterestsofthestudent

andresponsibilityfordisclosurebeingwiththeparentsseem

reasonableandarenotcontrarytothelawortothecodeofethics,

thereisevidencethatstrategiesrelatedtointernalmanagementof

complaintsofsexualabusehave,inthepast,fosteredaninstitutional

climatethatfacilitatessuchabuse.Clearlytheorganisationwasof

thisview.Itisinterestinginthisregardthattheresponsefromthe

professionalbodyisnotanendorsementofD’sactions,butrather

statestheactionswerenotcontrarytotheAct,RegulationsorCodeof

Ethics.Thiscaseseemstodemonstratetheimportanceofperspective

as,fromawholeofsocietypointofview,theoperationofthelegal

systeminthereportingofcrimeisinthebestinterestsofsociety.

Howeverfromtheviewpointoftheindividual,reportingofthecrime

mayleadtoincreasedcostssuchaspublicshame.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefitsidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Afindingofprofessional

misconductislikelytohave

reducedD’sfutureabilitytoearn

alivingasapsychologist.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asarguedpreviously,suchlossis

likelytobeasubstitution.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

3. C

ase

Eownedahouseandotherpropertywithher

husbandinSouthAustralia.Theyhadbeenmarried

threeyearsandhadason.Therewasanalleged

historyofdomesticviolenceandErelocatedwith

heryoungsonandteenagedaughtertoWestern

Australia.Hwasalsoingenerallypoorhealth.She

wasreferredtotheCLCbyasexualassaultand

familyviolencesupportservice.Shewasassisted

witharangeofmattersoveratwoyearperiod

relatingtothesettlementofhermaritalaffairs.These

includedadviceregardingasuccessfulapplication

foraViolenceRestrainingOrder;anapplicationfor

childsupportpayments;applicationsforlegalaid

relatedtocustodyissuesandtopropertysettlement

issues;obtainingpriorityhousingandacomplaint

regardingabreachoftheViolenceRestraining

Order.LegalAidapplicationswerecomplicatedby

jurisdictionalmattersbetweenthestates,however

aidwasobtainedforthecustodymattersandan

arrangementwasbrokeredwithaprivatesolicitorto

manageherpropertysettlementwithpaymenttobe

madeonpropertysettlement.

Therearearangeofmattersinthiscase.Violenceisnotinthe

economicinterestsofsociety,forexampleitincurscoststhroughlost

productiononthepartoftheinjuredpersonandcostsassociated

withmedicaltreatment.Furthermore,preventionofviolenceis

likelytoresultinlowercoststhanthepunishmentofviolencealone.

Accordingly,applicationandenforcementofViolenceRestraining

Ordersarelikelytoresultinaneconomicallyefficientoutcometo

society.

Ifchildrenareseenasacommodityofmarriage,aneconomically

efficientoutcomeintermsofthenumberofchildrenonehasrequires

bothpartiestopaythepriceofchildrearing.

Thereisaconsiderablesocialbenefitassociatedwithchildren

growinguptobeproductivemembersofsociety.Conversely,ifpeople

have,forexample,psychologicalordevelopmentalproblemsfrom

poorparentingorparentalconflictinthehome,thiscanresultin

significantsocialcostthroughsuchthingsaswelfaredependence,

crimeorusageofarangeofsupportservices.Forthesereasonsour

legalsystemfacilitatesaccesstochildrenbybothparentsinthe

caseofseparation,appearingtotakeaviewthathavingaccessto

bothparentswillleadtothebestdevelopmentaloutcomeforthe

child,howeveritalsorecognisesthatsometimesaccessbyparents

canresultinharmtothechildren.Hencethelegalsystemhasan

importantroleinbalancingbetweentheseconsiderations.

Relationshipbreakdown,separationanddivorceareafactofour

societywithourlegalsystemfacilitatingseparation.Froman

economicperspective,weappeartohavetakentheviewasasociety

thatthebenefitstochildrenfromnotlivinginahomewhereconflict

existsorwhereparentsareunhappyexceedthesocialcostsoffamily

breakdownsuchaswelfarepaymentstosingleparentsandthe

effectsofpovertyonchildren.Inaddition,arangeofmeasures,such

assharingpropertyandmaintenance,areinplacetominimisethose

socialcosts.

Itisnotedthatgenerallyacrossthesebenefits,theCLCplayeda

brokeringrole,enablingEtocarryoutwhatfunctionsshecould,

obtainingalegalaidgrantwhereappropriate(itselfanequityconcern

andperhapsmadescarcebyrationingratherthanbyindividual

price)andobtainingprivateassistancewiththepropertysettlement,

therebyinternalisingthecostswiththeparties.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

TheCLCprovidedHwithguidance

throughthelegalsystem,witha

probablereductioninadministrative

costs,forexampletimewiththecourt

registryorwithinlegalaid.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thisbenefitisdifficulttoquantifyand

isassessedatnil.

Thefacilitationofpriority

housingforEmeantthatcosts

associatedwithhomelessness,

suchasemergencyhousingand

disruptionofschoolingwere

minimised.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thisbenefitisdifficulttoquantify

andisassessedatnil.


-�00-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

4. C

ase

Fwasemployedasakitchenhandataminesite.

Shecutherthumbandreceivedfirstaidtreatment,

howevertheinjurywasquitesevereandtheinjury

eventuallyrequiredplasticsurgeryinPerth.Inthe

meantime,andpriortotheplasticsurgery,shehad

obtainedotheremploymentasafirstaidofficeron

anotherminesite.Shewasconcernedthatshehad

beenunderpaidwhileworkingasakitchenhand

andthatherworker’scompensationpayments

ceasedwhensheresigned.Shewasadvisedthather

compensationpaymentsappearedtobeappropriate.

Acopyofheremploymentcontractwasobtained

fromherpreviousemployer,anditappearedshehad

beencorrectlypaid.

Itisintheinterestsofsocietythatcontractsbeupheldandthat

insuranceclaimsbeproperlyadministeredtoensurethatriskis

appropriatelypriced.Inthiscasethisoutcomeoccurredconsequently

therewasnobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Properadviceislikelytohave

minimisedadministrativecosts

elsewhere,forexampleifFhad

pursuedaclaimwithnomerit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

5. C

ase

GhadreceivedaCriminalInjuriesCompensation

Claim.Shefelttheamountassessedwasinadequate.

TheCLCobtainedacopyoftheAssessor’sReasonsfor

DecisionanddiscussedthiswithG.Gdecidednotto

progressherclaim.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Appropriateandtimelyadviceislikely

tohavesavedfurtheradministrative

costsarisingfromanadministrative

appealagainstthedecision.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Costsassociatedwithadministrative

reviewhavebeenestimatedelsewhere

asoftheorderof$

350.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

6. C

ase

TheCLCundertookasubmissiontomodelprovisions

regulatingResidentialTenancyDatabases.Theproject

didnotproceedduetoresignationofastaffmember.

AsubmissionwasmadebytheNationalAssociation

ofCommunityLegalCentresortheNational

AssociationofTenancyOrganisations.

Suchdatabasesaresubjecttoabuseandcanseriouslylimitatenant’s

accesstohousing.Therearecostsandbenefitsonbothsides.Where

tenantshaveapoorhistory,furtherdamageornonpaymentofrent

canleadtoanincreasedcosttosociety.Rentsmayincrease,orthe

supplyofrentalaccommodationmaydecrease,asaresponseto

effectiveaveragerentsbeinglowerthantheapparentmarketrate.

Atthesametime,thereisasocialcostassociatedwithhomelessness,

suchasthecostofemergencyhousing,overcrowding,disruptionof

schooling,inabilitytocookmealsandrelianceoncharitiesoronpublic

institutions.Theislikelytobeaconcernthattenancydatabases

undulyfavourtheinterestsoflandlordsinminimisingcosts,butcan

dosoattheexpenseofgeneratingexternalities,therebyincreasing

publiccosts.Onthisbasis,regulationofTenancyDataBaseswould

appeartobeeconomicallyefficienttoensureanoptimumtradeoff

betweenthesetwoareasofsocialcostleadingtoaminimisationof

overallsocialcost.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

7. C

ase

H’sdaughterwasterminallyillandthedaughter

wishedHtohavethecareofherchildrendueto

concernsregardingthechildren’sfather.TheCLC

assistedHinobtainingagrantoflegalaidwith

regardtoparentingorders.Duetothefather’s

imprisonment,theparentingorderscouldnotbe

finalised,andtheCLCassistedHwithafurther

applicationforagrantoflegalaidtosupportan

applicationforaViolenceRestrainingOrder.


growinguptobeproductivemembersofsociety.Conversely,ifpeople

have,forexample,psychologicalordevelopmentalproblemsfrom

poorparentingorparentalconflictinthehome,thiscanresultin

significantsocialcostthroughsuchthingsaswelfaredependence,

crimeorusageofarangeofsupportservices.Forthesereasonsour

legalsystemfacilitatesaccesstochildrenbybothparentsinthe

caseofseparation,appearingtotakeaviewthathavingaccessto

bothparentswillleadtothebestdevelopmentaloutcomeforthe

child,howeveritalsorecognisesthatsometimesaccessbyparents

canresultinharmtothechildren.Hencethelegalsystemhasan

importantroleinbalancingbetweentheseconsiderations.Inthis

case,theCLCfacilitatedthisprocess.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thelifetimecostofchildabusehasbeenassessedelsewhereas

$38,00

0.Thereappeartobeatleasttwochildrenandsothebenefitis

takenas$76,000.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

8. C

ase

TheCLCassistedIinobtaininghisdeceasedwife’s

superannuationbycompilingdocumentationand

preparingandforwardingcorrespondencetothe

insurancecompany.Thematterwasfinalisedwithout

Ineedingtoapplyforprobate.

Thenotionofconsumersovereignty(intheabsenceofmarketfailure)

isaxiomatictoeconomicallyefficientoutcomes,thatiseconomically

efficientoutcomesareaboutmaximisingutilityacrosssociety,and

thisisbestachievedbysummingindividualtransactiondecisions.

Usingthismodel,thetradeoffbetweenconsumingone’sassetsand

divestingthemtoone’sheirscanbeseenasawayofmaximising

one’sutility,withtheultimatedivestmentofassetsreflectingone’s

values.Givingsomethingawayisthesameasspendingit,althoughit

isdifficulttoseewhatutilityapersonmaygetfromsomethingwhen

theyaredead.Perhapsthebestviewisthatonegetsutilityfromthe

promiseofexpenditure.Henceensuringthatassetsaredisbursedin

accordancewithawillmaybeseenasawayofensuringconsumer

sovereigntyismaintained.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Becausethematterwasfinalised,

therewasnoneedtoincurthecostsof

obtainingprobate.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

TheSupremeCourtofWAdoesnot

providefinancialinformationintheir

AnnualReview.HencetheVictorian

costof$

6,85

0perfinalisationhasbeen

adoptedasthebenefit.

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

9. C

ase

Jsustainedaseriousworkplaceinjurywhileworking

asanapprentice.Theinjurywaspoorlymanaged,

withtheemployeroriginallyclaimingJwasa

subcontractorratherthananemployee.Theinjury

occurredinFebruary,howeverpaymentswere

notreceiveduntilOctober.Atreatmentprogram

commencedandheunderwentsurgeryinJuneofthe

followingyear.Jwasseverelydepressedasaresult

oftheinjury.Theinsurancecompanythenwroteto

JofferingasettlementandJsoughtadvice,through

hisfather,astowhethertoaccepttheoffer.Theoffer

appearedquitelowasJ’sfutureearningcapacitywas

uncertainfollowingtheinjury.TheCLCarrangedforJ

toberepresentedbyacommercialfirminfurthering

thematterwiththeinsurancecompany.Therewere

anumberofconcernswiththeinsurancecompany’s

managementofthecasewithsomesuggestionthey

mayhavebeenattemptingtotakeadvantageofJ’s

relativeinexperience.

Insuranceisabouttheproperallocationofrisk.Inthecaseofworkers

compensation,theprincipleisthattheemployerisbestsituatedto

ensureasafeworkenvironment,andthattheimpositionofcoston

theemployerthroughinsurancepremiumswillensurethatitisin

theinterestsoftheemployertoprovideasafeworkplaceatthemost

economicallyefficientprice.Atthesametime,thenotionofinsurance

allowsthespreadingofriskacrossanindustry.Forexample,an

individualemployermaynotbepreparedtoundertakeanenterprise

iftheyweretobefullyliableforanyworkplaceinjuriessufferedby

theirworkersassuchinjuriescouldalwaysoccur,andmaynotbe

reasonablypreventableormayhaveanexpectedcostthatsocietyis

preparedtoaccept.Finally,workerscompensationactstointernalise

costs.Intheabsenceofworkerscompensation,theemployermayget

thebenefitsofanunsafeworkplace,whilethewidersocietypaysthe

priceoftheunsafeworkplace.Forthesereasonstheproperoperation

oftheworkerscompensationsystemislikelytobeeconomically

efficient.

Itappearsthattheemployerandtheinsurancecompanysought

totakeadvantageofJ’srelativelevelofinexperiencetoobtainan

outcomethatwasintheirinterestsbutwasnoteconomicallyefficient

acrossthecommunity.Iftheyhadavoidedorreducedtheircosts,then

workerscompensationwouldbeincorrectlypriced,oralternatively,

wageswouldneedtobehighertoincludetheriskofworkers

beingeffectivelyselfinsuredagainstinjury.Byarrangingforproper

representation,theCLCincreasedthelikelihoodthataneconomically

efficientoutcomewouldbereachedthroughtheemployerand

insurancecompanyproperlypayingtheirliability,andwithJproperly

compensatedenablinghimtomanagehisownaffairs,ratherthan

beingforcedtorelyonwelfarepaymentsandthelike.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Theeconomicbenefitinthiscaseisdifficulttoestimateasany

economicbenefitfromtheproperinternalisationofcostsarising

fromasinglecasearelikelytobemarginal.Withregardtopayment

ofWorkersCompensationinaparticularcase,suchpaymentis

effectivelyatransferandisbestseenasaredistributionofbenefits

fromthosewhoeitherdonotexperienceindustrialinjuriesorwho

takeadvantageoflowerpricedgoodsandservicesfromlower

levelsofworkplacesafety.ThecostofworkplaceinjuryinAustralia

wasestimatedat$

38billionin200

5-06.35Thiswasaround3.8%of

AustralianGDPfortheperiod.

36Attheeconomicallyefficientpoint,

itisexpectedthattosave$1inworkplaceinjurywouldrequirethe

expenditureofmorethan$1inworkplaceprotection,sothatsociety

asawholewouldbeworseoffbyprovidingahigherlevelofsafety

thencurrentlyexists.Atthesametime,amarketwillonlyreach

thispointifcostsarefullyinternalisedandsothereisanimportant

economicfunctioninensuringthatcostsareproperlyinternalised.

InthiscasetheCLChasfacilitatedthisfunction,buttheeconomic

benefitisdifficulttoestimateduetothemarginalnatureofthe

impactofasingleincident.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�04-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

10. C

ase

KapproachedtheCLCanumberoftimesoveraseven

yearperiodregardingaCriminalInjuryCompensation

claimrelatingtoinjuriesandsexualabuseshe

sufferedasafosterchildwhileunderthecareofDCP.

Kwasitinerant,andwasinandoutofprisonand

women’srefugesmakingregularcontactdifficult.

Therewasnorecordofcriminalproceedingsrelated

totheallegedabuse,andKdidnotsignandreturna

formrequestinghermedicalrecords.Thematterdid

notprogressfurther.

Asdiscussedpreviously,suchcompensationislikelytobeatransferin

responsetoequityconsiderationsratherthaneconomicallyefficient

inandofitself.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Itappearstherewasinsufficientbasis

toprogressaclaim.ByadvisingKof

therequirementstosubstantiate

aclaim,theadministrativecostof

assessingaclaimthatmaylackmerit

wasavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofadministrativereviewhas

beenestimatedelsewhereataround

$350.

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

11. C

ase

LcontactedtheCLCinfinalisingherdeceased

husband’sestate.TheCLCadvisedherthat

superannuationpaymentswerenotpartofthe

estate,butratherweretobepaidtoherasa

beneficiary.Theyassistedherwithcorrespondence

andnegotiationswiththethreeinsurancecompanies

andshereceivedthevarioussuperannuation

payments.Theestatewasinsolventandthey

preparedcorrespondencetovariouscreditors

advisingofthis.UnderWAlaw,funeralexpenseshave

priorityinsettlingtheestate,consequentlyLcould

receivetheonlyassetoftheestate,arefundcheque

fromtheAustralianTaxationOffice,asapartialoffset

forfuneralexpensesshehadincurred.

Withregardtobankruptcy,thereareanumberofareasofeconomic

consideration.Ifpeopleundertakeconsumptionandthendefault

ontheirdebt,theeffectwillbetoincreasethepriceofcredit,either

throughhigherinterestratesorhigherpricesforgoods.Henceitis

economicallyefficienttoensurepeopleareresponsiblefordebtsthey

incur.Atthesametime,circumstancescanoccurwheresomeone

isunabletopaytheirdebts.Lawsaroundbankruptcythenseemto

havetwoeffects.Firstly,theprocessofwindingupassetsasagroup

andpayingeachcreditorashareislikelytoreducetransactioncosts

significantlycomparedtoeachcreditorindividuallysuingthedebtor

andthenattemptingtocollecttheirdebt.Thecostofthebankruptcy

isspreadacrossalldebtors,notingthatsecuredcreditorshavepriority,

whichhastheeffectofspreadingrisk.Secondly,comparedtothe

alternative,saydebtorsprison,externalitiesareavoidedinthesense

thatthepersoncancontinuetoworkiftheyhaveemploymentand

maycontributetothewealthofsociety.

Inthiscontext,theeconomicefficiencyofsuperannuationgoingto

beneficiariesordependentsratherthantotheestateisnotclear.Itis

alsonotclearwhyfuneralexpensesaretreatedsimilartoasecured

creditorunderWesternAustralianLaw.Suchmattersarelikelytobe

equityconsiderations.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

12. C

ase

TheCLCconductedaDITaccreditedmediation

coursetoTheDepartmentofCorrectiveServices

(DoCS)forAboriginalCommunityMediators.Four

peoplereceivedtraining.Thepurposewastoavoid

aboriginalcommunityviolence(familyfeuding).DoCS

hasaprogramofengagingrespectedaboriginal

communitymemberstoactasmediatorswhen

violenceeruptstoavoidviolenceandescalation.Costs

ofviolenceincludeassaults,injuries,criminaljustice,

propertydamageincludingbystandersanddamage

topublichousing.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytobesavingsincourt

timeandpoliceactionfromearly

mediationofdisputes.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofpoliceaction,courtaction

andincarcerationassociatedwithone

assaulthasbeenassessedpreviously

at$3,35

0.Thebenefitislikelyto

dependheavilyonoutcomeandthere

isnodataonwhichtoformaview.

Assumingthateachmediatorhasone

successfuloutcomeperyearoveraten

yearperiod,thevalueofthebenefitat

7%is$23,000overfourmediators,or

$92,00

0.

Itislikelythatproperlytrained

mediatorscanreducecostsinthe

legalandenforcementsystems

byresolvingdisputesatan

earlystageandhencethereare

likelytobesignificantsavingsin

externalities.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efits

Thecostofassaulthasbeen

assessedpreviouslyat$

2,40

0.

Againassumingeachmediator

hasonesuccessfuloutcome

peryearoveratenyearperiod,

thevalueofthebenefitat7%is

$17,00

0overfourmediators,or

$68,00

0.

13. C

ase

M’sfriendhadagreedtoprovideMwithaninterest

freeloanof$

10,000toberepaidat$

20perweekand

askedMtosignastandardformofloanagreement

coveringtheloan.TheCLCreviewedtheloan

agreementforMandproposedsomeamendments,

anumberofwhichwereagreedtobythelender.The

agreementwasthensignedbybothparties.

Thebasiceconomicpurposeofcontractsistoensurethatexchanges

arehonouredwhentheydonotoccursimultaneously.Alternatively,

ifcontractlawdidnotexist,partiestoatransactionwouldneedto

buildasurchargeintothepricenegotiatedtoallowfortheaverage

probabilityofdefault.Finally,contractsallocateriskandresponsibility,

soeachpartyisclearontheirrelativeposition.IfMhadsigned

theoriginalcontract,hemayhavebeentakenadvantageofsome

timeinthefuture,andhencepaidmorethanexpected.Thecaseis

complicatedbythefactthattheloanwasinterestfreeandbetween

friends,howeveritcouldbethatatsometimetherelationshipsoured

andthelenderthenusedthecontracttohisadvantage.Similarly,if

therewasnocontractandAdefaulted,thelendermayhavehadlittle

recoursetorecoverhismoney.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Whilethereislikelytobeabenefit,anybenefitascribedtoa

particularcaseislikelytobemarginalasitwouldbeexpectedina

properlyfunctioningsystemthatthemarginalcostsareequaltothe

marginalbenefits.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

14. C

ase

Nwasapartaboriginalchildwhowastakenfromhis

mother,and,alongwithhisbrother,placedunderthe

guardianshipofaMrWhite.Thetwochildrenworked

asunpaidagriculturallabourersuntil19

58when

themattercametotheattentionofDepartmental

WelfareOfficers.Theboysreceivednoschoolingand

Nisilliterate.TheCLCassistedNwithhisapplication

forcompensationundertheRedressSchemesetup

bytheWAgovernmenttoin 200

8toacknowledge

andapologisetoadults,whoaschildren,wereabused

and/orneglectedwhiletheywereinthecareofthe

State.Redressalsoprovidesaccesstosupportand

counsellingservicesand,foreligibleapplicants,anex-

gratiapaymentofbetween$5,000and$45,000.

Theeconomicpurposeofthepaymentisnotevident,aspayment

undertheschemewasex-gratia.Thereisnoacceptanceofnegligence

onthepartofgovernment,andthepaymentisnotassessedinterms

ofdamages.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Someoftheseclientscouldhave

broughtnegligenceclaimsagainstthe

governmentsotheredressschemewas

probablycosteffective.Alternatively,it

wasastreamlinedprocessforsettling

anumberofmattersoutofcourt.Itis

notclearthateitherofthesebenefits

canbeascribedtothiscase.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

15. C

ase

O’sbiologicalfatherwasrecentlydeceased.His

biologicalfatherhadtwochildrenfromamorerecent

relationshipandoneofthesechildrenhadadvertised

herintentiontoapplyforLettersofAdministration

overthefather’sestate.Ounderstoodhewasnot

namedasabeneficiaryinhisfather’swill.TheCLC

assistedOinpreparationandsubmissionofacaveat

againstthemakingofagrantorresealintheestate,

andassistedOinobtainingprobonoassistancefrom

theNTLawSocietywithregardtohisclaim.

Thereappeartobesomecaseswhereoverridingtheintentionsofa

person’swillmightbejustifiedeconomically.Thesearelikelytobe

areaswheretheperson’sestateincludesassetsthatanotherperson

mayhavecontributedtoinonewayandanother,andsoiftheassets

arelefttoathirdperson,thesecondpersonhaspaidforsomething

andnotreceivedabenefit.Asanexample,aperson’sspousemaybe

leftoutoftheirwillhowevertheassetsoftheirestatemayincludea

significantcontributionfromtheeffortsoftheirspouse.Presumably

thereisatransactioncostassociatedwithcontinuallycalculating

andprotectingeachperson’sshareoftheassetsofamarriage,or

alternatively,acostassociatedwitheachpersonmaintainingtheir

personalassetsandaffairs.Ifthelawoverridesawillinsuchcases,

partnerstoamarriagewillnotfeelcompelledtoincursuchcosts.

SuchconsiderationsdonotappeartobeapplicableinthiscaseasO

hadhadlittleornocontactwithhisbiologicalfather.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

16. C

ase

Plivedwithherpartnerfromtheageof13untilthe

ageof19.Duringthattimeshehadtwochildren,

oneattheageof14andoneattheageof17.She

wassubjectedtodomesticviolenceonanumberof

occasions,sufferinginjuriesincludingbruisingand

brokenbones.In200

1thepartnerwasfoundguilty

ofanassaultonherandwasjailed.Prelocatedand

islivingwithhermother.Asaresultofthehistoryof

violence,P’sschoolingwasinterrupted.Onanumber

ofoccasionssheobtainedemployment,buthadto

leaveherjobbecauseofcontinuingviolencefromher

partner.TheCLCassistedPwithasuccessfulapplicant

forCriminalInjuryCompensationandsheobtained

$19,00

0.

Asdiscussedpreviously,victim’scompensationislikelytobeanequity

consideration,and,assuchprobablyperformsalimitedfunctionwith

regardtoeconomicefficiency.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Assistancewiththeproper

preparationofapplicationsforVictim’s

Compensationislikelytoreduce

administrativecosts,forexamplein

requestingadditionalinformationand

inrevisitingdecisions.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assuming20%savingfora

selfrepresentedlitigantonan

administrativecostof$

350,thebenefit

isassessedat$

70.

Itisnotclearthatthemoneyhas

hadaparticularimpactonJ’s

lifeorhasoffsetthedamageshe

hassufferedtoanyextent.She

reportedinfollowupthatthe

moneyhasbeenspentandsheis

feelingdepressed.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

17. C

ase

Q’schildRwasinvolvedinanallegedmishandlingof

incidentsinvolvingassaultandbullyingatthechild’s

HighSchool.TheCLCprovidedQwithwrittenadvice

regardingtherequirementstomakeasuccessful

claimforpersonalinjuriescompensationinvolving

demonstrationofnegligenceandestablishinga

quantum(oramount)ofcompensationthatRwould

beentitledtoreceive.Theseincludedpain,suffering

andlossofenjoymentinlife;medicalexpenses;travel

expenses;andgratuitousservicesreceived.

Theattributionofnegligenceaddressesmarketfailurearisingfrom

externalities,wherebyonepartyreceivesabenefitinsomeway,but

thecostispaidbyothers.Alternatively,theremaybeasocialcost

fromexternalitiesandnobenefit,howeverbytheCoasetheorem,the

attributionofpropertyrights(inthiscaseownershipoftheproblem)

willleadtoaneconomicallyefficientoutcome.Foreffectiveness,itis

importantthattheresponsibilitybeplacedwiththepartybestable

tomanageit.Hencetheattributionofnegligenceincasesofbullying

andthelikewillensurethattheschoolwillallocateresourcesto

managesuchproblems,andthecommunitywillbesavedarangeof

othercosts,suchascostsassociatedwithinjury,depressionorthelike.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Qreceivedtimelyadvice,wasmade

awareoftheappropriateprocess

andwasabletoformaviewasto

whetherornottoprogressaclaim.If,

asappearstobethecase,shedecided

hercasehadinsufficientmerit,then

thereislikelytohavebeenasignificant

savingoftransactioncostsincluding

correspondence,inquiriesandcourt

time.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedpreviously,thecost

ofadministrativereviewhasbeen

assessedat$

350.

Noneidentified.

Assessmentofbenefit

Nil

18. C

ase

Sjointlyrentedaresidentialpropertywithher

partnerfortwoyears.Therelationshipbrokedown,S

couldnolongeraffordtherentanddecidedtomove

out.Therealestateagent,onbehalfoftheproperty

owner,claimedthatthepropertywasnotleftinthe

sameconditionthatthetenantfounditandmadea

claimtotheLocalCourtforanorderthatSmakeall

paymentforallrepairs,wateraccountsandunpaid

rent.TheCLCwrotelettersonbehalfofStothereal

estateagentregardingherpositionagainsttheclaim.

Smadeandpaidformanyoftherepairs,butdisputed

others.Thepartiescouldnotcometoacompromise

withthecourtapplicationandthecostsassociated

withtheorder.Thematterwasreferredtothe

MagistratesCourtandadjudicated.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpartiestobearthecostoftheiractions

sothatpricesarenotdistortedtherebyincurringaneconomiccost

througheitherreducedconsumptionorexcessivesupply.Inthecase

oftenancylaw,thecostofdamagetothepropertyisplacedwith

thetenantastheyareinthebestpositiontocontroldamage.Ifit

laywiththelandlord,rentswouldbegenerallymuchhigherthan

otherwise,astheywouldincludeanadditionalamounttocover

likelydamageorunpaidrentandfewerpropertieswouldbeoffered

forrent.Atthesametime,iflandlordsarbitrarilyseizedbonds,the

rentpaidwouldactuallybehigherthanthatnegotiated,andpeople

wouldrentfewerpropertiesthantheywouldotherwise.Herrentwas

$180perweekoveratwoyeartenancyandthedisputedamountfor

damageswas$3,50

0.TheassistanceoftheCLCallowedStoproperly

preparehercaseandprovideappropriatedocumentationtomaximise

thelikelihoodofthecostsofdamagebeingproperlyapportioned

betweentheownerandthetenant.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedpreviously,inaproperlyfunctioningsystemthemarginal

costoflandlordsincorrectlyseizingbondswouldbeexpectedtobe

equaltothemarginalcostassociatedwithanincreasinglevelofproof.

Hence,whilesuchcasesarevaluable,thebenefitofanindividualcase

islikelytobelow

Assistanceprobablyreducedcosts

associatedwithselfrepresented

litigants.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assuminganadministrativereview

costof$

350,thesavingfromaself

representedlitigantis$

70,although

theactionoftheCLCislikelytohave

onlyoffsetsomeofthiscost.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

19. C

ase

Tmaintainedatenancyforsevenyears.Theproperty

wassoldandT’stenancyterminated.Trequested

assistancefromtheCLCtoreclaimaportionofher

rentalbonddisputedwiththenewowner.TheCLC

actedonbehalfofTtorequestcopyofBondDisposal

FormfromBondAdministratorattheDepartmentof

Commerce,whichshowedthatTallowedthebond

tobetransferredtothenewowner.TheCLCactedon

behalfofTtorequestacopyofrentalpaymentspaid

duringthetenancytothenewowner.Theserecords

showedthatoutstandingrentwasowed.Thenew

owneragreedtorefundthebondifTcouldproduce

bankstatementstoshowthattherenthadbeenpaid.

Thebasiceconomicpurposeofcontractsistoensurethatexchanges

arehonouredwhentheydonotoccursimultaneously.Alternatively,

ifcontractlawdidnotexist,partiestoatransactionwouldneedto

buildasurchargeintothepricenegotiatedtoallowfortheaverage

probabilityofdefault.Finally,contractsallocateriskandresponsibility,

soeachpartyisclearontheirrelativeposition.Inthiscaseitappears

thatthepartiesactedinaccordancewiththecontractandthetrue

pricewaspaid.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

Anegotiatedsettlementwas

obtained,therebysavingarangeof

administrativecostsandcourtcosts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofreview,basedonVCATdata,

isassessedat$

430

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. C

ase

UsoughttomakeaCriminalInjuriesClaimfora

numberofoffencesbymultipleperpetrators.TheCLC

actedonbehalfoftheclienttorequestinformation

foreachoftheoffencesfrommultipleagencies

includingtheDepartmentforPublicProsecution,

DistrictCourtHouse,GeraldtonCourtHouse,

GeraldtonPoliceStation,GeraldtonRegionalHospital,

CarnarvonCourtHouse,VictimsSupportServicewith

Centacare.Limitedinformationwasreceivedfromthe

letterssent.Theapplicationwasnotprogressed.

Asdiscussedpreviously,victim’scompensationislikelytobeanequity

consideration,and,assuchprobablyperformsalimitedfunctionwith

regardtoeconomicefficiency.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Itisprobablethatanapplicationwith

limitedmeritwasnotprogressed,

therebysavingadministrativecosts

associatedwiththeclaim.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Itislikelyanadministrativecost

estimatedataround$ 3

50hasbeen

saved

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�0�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

Vhadbeenchargedwithanumberofsexual

offencesrelatedtochildren.Heismentally

impairedandsohasbeenfoundunfittoplead

tothecharges.Consequently,hewasdetained

undertheCriminalLaw(MentallyImpaired

Defendants)Actin200

3.Areleaseplanwas

preparedin200

5withtheassistanceofthe

CLCandapre-releaseprogramagreedbythe

reviewboardin 200

6.Theprogressofthatpre

releaseprogramhasbeenslow,principally

relatedtofindingpeopleandservicestoprovide

thenecessarysupportstoV.In201

1,Vhadnot

yetbeenreleasedandhaseffectivelybeenheld

injailwithouttrialfortenyears.Duringthat

period,theCLChascontinuedtoadvocateon

V’sbehalf,includingensuringthathereceived

alldocumentationrelatedtocasereviewand

ongoingbrokeragewithsupportservices.

Theeconomicviewofcriminallawisthattheexpectedpriceofcrime(theprobabilityof

convictionmultipliedbythepenalty)exceedstheexpectedbenefits.Thereareanumberof

caveatsaroundthis.Firstly,thereisanargumentthatpunishmentshouldbegraduated,as

otherwisethereisnoincentivenottocommitamoreseriouscrime,astheseriouscrimewill

attractthesamepunishmentasthelessseriouscrime.Secondly,thereisapubliccostoflaw

enforcementandpunishment,sothataslevelsofcrimeenforcementandpunishmentgoup,the

marginalpubliccostwilleventuallyexceedthemarginalpublicbenefitoftheincreasedlevelof

enforcementandpunishment.Someofthosepubliccostsincludethecostofincarceration,loss

ofproductivityfromimprisonedpeopleandthecostofmaintainingapoliceforceandjudicial

system.Henceitcouldbeexpectedthattherewillbeanoptimumlevelofpunishmentacross

arangeofcrimes.Thirdly,weacceptthattherewillbesomepubliccostofcrimeasaresultof

adecisiontoselectaneconomicallyoptimumlevelofcrimeenforcementandpunishmentand

thatthatcostwillbedifferentiallydistributed,thatisitwillbebornebyvictimsofcrime.

Withrespecttothiscasethereappeartobeanumberofmatterswhichdonotreflectan

economicallyoptimumoutcome.Byoneview,theprimarypurposeoftheprovisionsoftheActis

toprotectamentallyimpairedpersonfromanunfairtrial.Howeverinthiscasetherehasfirstly

beennotrial,fairorunfair,andsecondlyiftherehadbeenatrialandtheallegationswerefound

proven,thesentencemayhavebeenfiveyears.Hencetheeconomicallyefficientpunishment

islikelytohavebeenexceeded,particularlyifthematterwenttocourtandMwasnotfound

guilty.Thishasanumberofeffectswithrespecttocommunitycostsandthemattersdiscussed

previously.

Theprincipleofgraduatedpunishmenthasbeenexceeded,asbyoneview,ifonewasmentally

impairedandcommittedasexualoffence,onemightdecidetothengoonarampageofsexual

offencesasthepunishmentwouldnotincrease.

Aconsiderablecostofincarcerationhasbeenincurred,withthepublicsupportingMinprison

overaperiodoftenyears.Furthermore,heisunderstoodtobecapableofworking,andsosociety

haslostwhateverproductiveoutputhemayhaveproducedintheperiod.

Whileitmightbearguedthathiscontinuedincarcerationwillpreventthepossibilityofany

furthercrime,thisisatoddswithoursystemofjustice,whichfromaneconomicpointofview,

appearstoacceptanoptimalleveloffailure.

HenceactionbytheCLCthatresultsinanoutcomethatalignswiththisviewofaneconomically

efficientoutcomeislikelytobecosteffective.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofincarcerationhasbeenassessedpreviouslyat$

340perday,or$

124,00

0peryear.

Othercostsincludethecostofongoingadministrativereview.Usingthenumbersabove,andif

fiveyearsistakentobetheeconomicallyefficientsentence,thecosttothecommunityfromthe

continueddetentionhasbeen$6

20,000.Whiledifficulttoestimatetheimpactwithrespectto

time,iftheCLCactionbroughtforwardhisreleasebytwoyears,thesavingwouldbe(asPresent

Valueat7%)$22

4,00

0.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

A st

rate

gic c

ase


-��0-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. A

dvic

e

Whadrecentlybeenretrenched.Hewassufferingfromsevere

Parkinson’sDiseaseandrequiredassistanceinfillingoutaclaim

formunderhisUnemploymentProtectionPolicyinrelationto

hiscreditcarddebt.

Ifthecontractwasnothonoured,therewouldhavebeenan

economicallyinefficientoutcomeinthatWhadpaidtoohigha

priceforsomethingandhenceconsumedmorethananoptimal

amountoralternatively,toomuchoftheproductwassupplied.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

2. A

dvic

e

Xhasrecentlyseparatedfromhiswifeandiscaringfortheir

twochildren.Hiswifehasaproblemwithalcoholabuse.The

CLCprovidedhimwithadviceregardingpropertysettlement

proceduresincludinganinformationpack,custodymatters

includinganinformationpackandinformationonhowtoaccess

aprivatelawyer.

Ifchildrenareseenasacommodityofmarriage,aneconomically

efficientoutcomeintermsofthenumberofchildrenonehas

requiresbothpartiestopaythepriceofchildrearing.


growinguptobeproductivemembersofsociety.Conversely,if

peoplehave,forexample,psychologicalordevelopmentalproblems

frompoorparentingorparentalconflictinthehome,thiscan

resultinsignificantsocialcostthroughsuchthingsaswelfare

dependence,crimeorusageofarangeofsupportservices.For

thesereasonsourlegalsystemfacilitatesaccesstochildrenbyboth

parentsinthecaseofseparation,appearingtotakeaviewthat

havingaccesstobothparentswillleadtothebestdevelopmental

outcomeforthechild,howeveritalsorecognisesthatsometimes

accessbyparentscanresultinharmtothechildren.Hencethe

legalsystemhasanimportantroleinbalancingbetweenthese

considerations.

Relationshipbreakdown,separationanddivorceareafactof

oursocietywithourlegalsystemfacilitatingseparation.From

aneconomicperspective,weappeartohavetakentheviewas

asocietythatthebenefitstochildrenfromnotlivinginahome

whereconflictexistsorwhereparentsareunhappyexceedthe

socialcostsoffamilybreakdownsuchaswelfarepaymentsto

singleparentsandtheeffectsofpovertyonchildren.Inaddition,a

rangeofmeasures,suchassharingpropertyandmaintenance,are

inplacetominimisethosesocialcosts.

Xreceivedcleardirectionsonhow

tonegotiatethelegalsystemandto

accessaprivatelawyer,andthisis

likelytohaveledtoadministrative

savings,bothinhisowntimeandin

timetakenincourtsandtribunals.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 201

0,theFamilyCourtofWestern

Australiareported12,88

7finalisations

againstexpenditureof$

20.0million,

37

or$1,55

2perfinalisation.Usingthe

figureof20%forthecostimpostfrom

alitigantinperson,theadvicefromthe

CLCmayhavesaved$3

10compared

tothepersonbeinganunrepresented

litigant.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

3. A

dvic

e

Yhadboughtacarforcashfromherpreviouspartnerfollowing

thebreakdownoftherelationship.Theregistrationonthe

carwasduehoweverthepreviouspartnerhadnotsigned

theregistrationtransferpaperssoSwasunabletopaythe

registration.ShewasadvisedtocontacttheRTA,advisethemof

thecircumstancesandseektheiradvice.

Therearelikelytobeanumberofeconomicbenefitsfromvehicle

registrationincludingtheabilitytotraceownershipwithregardto

trafficinfringements,insuranceandthelike.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytohavebeensome

savingofY’stime.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Rand

om S

ampl

e of

Adv

ices


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

4. A

dvic

e

AHUGS(hardshiputilitygrantsscheme)applicationwasmade

toenableZtopayhergasbill.

Nobenefitasthisisatransfer.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Acorrectassessmentandproperly

filledoutapplicationislikelytoresult

insomeadministrativesavings.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Similarbenefitshavepreviouslybeen

assessedat$

70

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

5. A

dvic

e

Ahadboughtitemscosting$1,845onacreditcardwitha40

monthinterestfreeperiod.Hehadmademinimumpayments

butwhentheinterestfreeperiodended,thepaymentwas

insufficienttocovertheinterestof2

9.49%perannum.His

currentdebtwas$42

94.20.Hewasadvisedthattheminimum

paymentwasinsufficienttocovertheinterestandthatlate

paymentincursadditionalcosts.Adecidedtocontinuepaying

theminimumamount.

Thereisasocialcostwithloandefaultinthatpartofthe

interestratepaidbysocietyingeneralwhenborrowingincludes

acomponentfordefault.Theconsequenceofdefaultthen

isthatpeoplepaymoreforloansthentheywouldifdefault

neveroccurred.Thereisaninherenttensionbetweenthemoral

hazardassociatedwithpeopleincurringdebtthattheynever

intendtorepay,therebyplacingacostontherestofsociety,and

misrepresentationbylenders,wherebypeopleunderestimatethe

costofloansandhenceconsumemorecreditthantheywould

otherwise.Bothoutcomesareinefficient.Thequestionthen

becomeswhethertheeconomicallyefficientoutcomeisbest

achievedbyplacingtheresponsibilitywiththeborrowerorthe

lender.Asasocietyweappeartohavetakenasharedview,with

thelenderhavingsomeresponsibilityduetotheirexposuretoloss,

henceleadingtocreditchecksandthelike,andwiththeborrower

havingsomeresponsibilityduetotheirexposuretoloss,suchas

lossofassetsandgarnisheeorders.

Howeverinterestratesarehighlydifferentiated,andbythis

viewreflectthelendersassessmentoftheriskassociatedwitha

particularborrower.Bythisview,inaproperlyoperatingmarket,

eachpersonwouldpayapremiumequaltotheirprobabilityof

default,andinthiswayhigherinterestratescanbeseenasaform

ofinsurance.Consumerprotectionlegislationisthenseenasan

equitymeasureratherthananefficiencymeasure.

Itisnotclearthathisdecisiontokeeppayingtheminimum

amountwillleadtothebestoutcome.Ifthecreditorstookactionto

recoverthedebt,hiscircumstancesaresuchthatitislikelythecost

ofrecoverywouldgreatlyexceedanymoneytheycouldlawfully

recover.Thiswouldplacetheresponsibilitywiththelender,and

theyarethepartymostabletotakeactiontoensureanefficient

outcomebynotrecklesslylendingmoneytopeoplewhoareunable

topay.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Aisanagedpensioner

withnoassetsandliving

insocialhousing.His

incomegoestorental,

foodandutilities.His

attemptstopayoffthe

debtarelikelytoresult

inconsiderablehardship

tohimandrelianceon

widersocialservices.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Anycostsarelikelyto

beatransferandsoare

assessedatzero.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

6. A

dvic

e

BhadreceivedarentalincreaseonherHomesWesthome.She

wasadvisedthattherenthadincreasedasshehadhergrandson

andgreatgrandsonlivingwithher.Shehadsomeconcernswith

regardtomaintenanceandrepairsthathadbeencarriedouton

herproperty.TheCLCcontactedHomesWestonherbehalfto

requestmaintenance.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

7. A

dvic

e

Cwasadisabilitypensioner.Hewasoneweekbehindinhisrent

andhadarrearswithregardtoaccounts,owing$5

15intotal.

TheCLCnegotiatedwiththeRealEstateAgentforCtopayan

extra$6

0perfortnightandarrangedwithCentrelinktotakean

additionalamountfromhispaymentsuntilthedebtwaspaid

off.

Economicallyefficientoutcomesareachievedbypeoplepaying

theirdebtsandforcontractstobeenforced.Thiswasachievedin

thiscase.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Anegotiatedprocessislikelytohave

savedsignificanttransactioncosts

onthepartofthelandlord,including

recoverythroughthecourtsand

possiblelostrentalincome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Administrativereview,suchasbythe

rentaltribunal,hasbeenestimated

elsewhereat$

430.

IfCwasevicted,he

mayhavehaddifficulty

findinganothertenancy,

leadingtoadditional

costssuchasemergency

housingandrelocation

fees.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Emergencyandsocial

housingisatransferand

soisnottreatedasa

cost.Typicalremovalist

feesarearound$ 6

00for

alocalmoveinvolving

limitedfurnitureand

withpackingdonebythe

tenantandthisistaken

asthebenefit.38

8. A

dvic

e

Dhasconsentordersinplaceregardingaccessarrangements

withherpreviouspartner,E,tohertwochildren.Duetolackof

compliancebyEandchangedcircumstancesonthepartofEshe

wishestochangetheconsentorders.Shehastriedtonegotiate

privatelywithEbuthasbeenunsuccessful.TheCLCsuggested

thebestapproachmaybetohaveanindependentthirdparty

drawupparentingplanandreferredhertoFamilyDispute

Resolutionservice.










outcomeforthechild.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Amediatedprocesswillreducecourt

timeinDpursuingactionforabreach

ofconsentordersandvaryingconsent

orders.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofafinalisationinthe

WAFamilyCourtisestimatedat

$1,552notingthisisanaverage

cost.Mediationservicesarefunded

byFASCHIAbutnoinformationis

availableonfundingoroutcomesin

theirannualreport.Consequentlythis

benefitcannotbeestimated.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

9. A

dvic

e

Fhadseparatedfromherhusband.Shesoughtadviceregarding

propertysettlementandcustodyfurthertoadviceshehad

obtainedfromLegalAid.TheFamilyLawAdvicesheetand

PropertySettlementAdviceChecklistwerereviewedwithher,

andanumberofothermattersdiscussed.Itappearedshehad

preparedadraftlettertoherhusbandregardingcustodyand

propertysettlementhowevertheletterwasnotdiscussed

anditseemedshemightreconsiderthecontentinthelightof

discussions.










outcomeforthechild.

Relationshipbreakdown,separationanddivorceareafactof

oursocietywithourlegalsystemfacilitatingseparation.From

aneconomicperspective,weappeartohavetakentheviewas

asocietythatthebenefitstochildrenfromnotlivinginahome

whereconflictexistsorwhereparentsareunhappyexceedthe

socialcostsoffamilybreakdownsuchaswelfarepaymentsto

singleparentsandtheeffectsofpovertyonchildren.Inaddition,a

rangeofmeasures,suchassharingpropertyandmaintenance,are

inplacetominimisethosesocialcosts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

ItappearedthatFwasseekinga

secondopinion.Itmaybethatproper

advicewillleadtoareductionin

disputeinfinalisingtheseparation

arisingfromunrealisticexpectations

onthepartofF.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thisisdifficulttoassess,asthe

availabledatadoesnotallow

discriminationbetweenlevelsof

dispute.

Litigiousdisputes

arelikelytoleadto

considerablefamily

resourcesbeing

expendedonlegalcosts,

therebyincreasingthe

likelihoodthatpeople

mayneedtodependon

thewelfaresystem,for

examplepublichousing,

howeversuchcostsare

transfers.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

10. A

dvic

e

Gwasconcernedshewasabouttoreceiveanevictionnotice

fromDoHandhadbeencalledtoameetingattheiroffice.She

hadputbackapropertyinspectionduetoattendingafuneral

inPerth.Duringthattimethepoliceraidedherhomeandfound

hersoninpossessionofstolengoods.Shecurrentlyhasanotice

tocleanupheryardandintendedtodothatnextweekbutit

waslikelytoputherinfinancialhardship.Gwasreferredtothe

service’sindigenoustenancyadvocate.DoHwascontactedand

advisedthatGwouldnotattendameetinguntilshehadmet

withthetenancyadvocate.AfoodvoucherwasprovidedtoG.

Itisimportantforeconomicallyefficientoutcomesthatpeoplebear

theconsequencesoftheirdecisions.Inthiscase,thereisariskto

thelandlordfrompoormaintenanceordamagetotheproperty.

Henceregularinspectionsareallowable,tradedoffagainstthe

tenant’sinterestinquiteenjoyment,asanoverzealouslandlord

mighteffectivelyincreasetherentpaid(forexamplebywastingthe

tenantstime)oralternativelyreducetheamenityofthepropertyto

thetenant.Thisreportassumesthatpositionofthelawreflectsthe

optimumtradeoffbetweenthesetwocompetinginterests.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

IfGwasevicteditcould

resultinarangeof

problemsforherandfor

herson,includingsharing

housingwithothersor

homelessness.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.


-��4-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

11. A

dvic

e

Hwasfinalisingherdivorcefromherhusband.Shewaspregnant

andintendedtoremarryandrelocatetotheUSAwithher

otherthreechildren.Shehassoldherhouseandhasnowhere

elsetolive.Duetoherpregnancy,itwasalsoimportantthat

herdivorcebefinalisedwithintwomonthssothatshecould

remarryandrelocate.Herhusbandiscurrentlynotcontactable.

Shewasadvisedthattherearearangeofproceduralmatters

thatneedtobedealtwith,includingtheneedforherhusband’s

agreement,oralternativelyarelocationorderfromthecourt,

ifshewishestorelocatethechildrenoverseas.Similarly,the

divorceneedstobefinalisedifshewishedtoremarry.TheFamily

Courtwascontactedandthenextavailablecourtdatesand

circuitdateswerearoundthreemonthsaway.Shewasadvised

thatshewouldhavetodemonstrateurgencytobringmatters

forward,howeverservice,orsubstitutedservicewillberequired

toherhusband.

Thisreportassumesthatoneofthefunctionsofthecorrect

operationofthelawistoprovideeconomicallyefficientoutcomes.

Conversely,ifthelawdoesnotoperatecorrectly,forexampleby

makinganincorrectdecision,asocialcostisincurred.Itwould

seemaxiomaticthatthelessinformationisavailable,themore

likelyitisthatanincorrectdecisionwillbemadeandasocialcost

incurred.Inthecurrentcasesuchsocialcostsmightincludetheless

thanoptimumdevelopmentofthechildrenduetolackofcontact

withtheirbiologicalfather.Thelawappearstooperateinthisway,

givingbothpartiestoadisputethechancetobeheard.Thelaw

alsorecognisesthatthecostofobtainingevidenceneedstobe

limited,thatistherearediminishingreturnsandeventuallythe

costofobtainingadditionalevidencewillexceedthebenefitfrom

theincreaseincertainty,orthatnodecisionoradelayeddecision

mayalsoresultinaneconomicallyinefficientoutcome,andthe

longerthedelay,thegreatertheimpact.

WhileHappearstoincuracostfromthedelayinhousingcostsand

relocationcosts,anincorrectdecisionmayalsoleadtoasocialcost.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

12.

Adv

ice

Ihadappliedforadisabilitysupportpensioncitingdepression

andanxiety.TheCLCcontactedCentrelinkandwasadvised

thatI’sapplicationhadbeenrejectedasamedicalassessment

saidtheconditionwasnotpermanentandshewasassessed

ascapableofworking15hoursperweek.I’scaseworkerwas

contactedandundertooktoarrangeapsychiatricassessment.

Themajordifferencesbetweenadisabilitysupportpensionand

unemploymentbenefitsisthatthelatterrequirestherecipient

tobeactivelyseekingworkandunemploymentbenefitsare

around$10

0perweekless.Whileunemploymentbenefitsarea

transferandsoeconomicallyneutralexcepttotheextentthat

administrativecostsareincurred,thereisacosttosocietyfrom

aperson’slostproductivitywhentheyarenotintheworkforce,

howeversuchbenefitisdependentontheunemploymentrate.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

13. A

dvic

e

Jwasfinalisingherdivorcefromherhusband.Shecurrentlyhad

solicitorsrepresentingherwithregardtocustodymattersunder

agrantfromlegalaid.Theyhadadvisedhertoapplyforanother

grantwithrespecttopropertysettlement.TheCLCassisted

herwithpreparationofherapplicationandgaveheradvice

regardingAlternativeDisputeResolution.

Bothpartiesarelikelytohavecontributedtotheassetsofa

marriage,howeveronepartymayhavecontributedearnings

withtheotherpartyfacilitatingtheirabilitytoearn.Effectively

economicefficiencyisexpectedwhenpeoplereceivethebenefits

oftheirlabour.Consequently,divorcetypicallyinvolvesaproperty

settlement.Aproperengagementofthelegalsystemwouldbe

expectedtoleadtoaneconomicallyefficientoutcome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Itislikelythatacorrectapplication

savedsomeadministrativecosts

elsewhere.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

14. A

dvic

e

Kwishedtochangehereldestson’ssurnametoincludeher

currentfamilynamehyphenatedwithhissurname.Shewas

advisedthatshewouldneedtoseekherpreviouspartner’s

agreement,oralternatively,ifshesoughtanorderfromthe

familycourt,shewouldneedtodemonstratethatshehadtaken

allreasonablestepstoobtainhisagreement.Shewasprovided

withaLegalAidfactsheetregardingchangingachild’sname.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

IfKhadappliedforcourtorders,itis

likelyherapplicationwouldberejected

withsomeadditionaladministrative

cost.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofafamilycourtfinalisation

hasbeenestimatedpreviouslyat

$1,550.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

15. A

dvic

e

Lisasingleparentwithtwochildrenandinreceiptofa

parentingpayment.Shehasarangeofdebtsamountingto

around$12,000withbothabankandwithafinancecompany

andsheisunabletoservicethesedebts.Herassetsconsistofa

carvaluedataround$5,000.Shehastriedtonegotiatewiththe

bankregardingapaymentplanbuttheywerenotresponsive.

Shewasadvisedthatloanconsolidationwasunlikelytobe

anoption,asshehadnoincomeotherthanherpension.Her

alternativewasbankruptcy.

Thereisasocialcostwithloandefaultinthatpartofthe

interestratepaidbysocietyingeneralwhenborrowingincludes

acomponentfordefault.Theconsequenceofdefaultthen

isthatpeoplepaymoreforloansthentheywouldifdefault

neveroccurred.Thereisaninherenttensionbetweenthemoral

hazardassociatedwithpeopleincurringdebtthattheynever

intendtorepay,therebyplacingacostontherestofsociety,and

misrepresentationbylenders,wherebypeopleunderestimatethe

costofloansandhenceconsumemorecreditthantheywould

otherwise.Bothoutcomesareinefficient.Thequestionthen

becomeswhethertheeconomicallyefficientoutcomeisbest

achievedbyplacingtheresponsibilitywiththeborrowerorthe

lender.Asasocietyweappeartohavetakenasharedview,with

thelenderhavingsomeresponsibilityduetotheirexposuretoloss,

henceleadingtocreditchecksandthelike,andwiththeborrower

havingsomeresponsibilityduetotheirexposuretoloss,suchas

lossofassetsandgarnisheeorders.

Inthiscaseitseemssomewhatsurprisingthatthebankwasnot

preparedtonegotiate.Itislikelythatthefinancecompanyhad

alienoverheronlyasset,thecar,sotherewouldbenoassets

forthebanktogetaccessto.Ifshedefaultedonpayment,her

circumstancesaresuchthatanyrepaymentordersreceivedwould

bemuchlessthanthecostofpursuingtheclaimagainsther,and

inanyeventwouldbelikelytobesimilartoanyarrangementthey

couldnegotiatewithher.

Fromaneconomicperspective,economicefficiencywouldappear

tobebestachievedbyhavingthebankbeartheexpenseof

recklesslylendingmoneytosomeonewholackstheabilitytorepay.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Ifthebankchaseddebts,theywould

beunlikelytorecovertheirmoney.

Negotiationwouldseemtobe

warrantedanditisnotclearwhythe

bankdidnotdoso.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Lossofhercarislikelyto

haveasignificantimpact

onher,butitmaybethat

shewouldbebetteroff

withoutitasthecostof

repaymentsandrunning

costsmighteasilyexceed

thecostofusingpublic

transport.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

16. A

dvic

e

M’sdefactopartnerpassedawayfromnaturalcausesanddied

intestate.Thedeceasedhadasuperannuationpolicyworth

$23,00

0ofwhichtheclientwasnamedasthesolebeneficiary.

Thedeathcertificatealsolistedtwochildrenasbeneficiariesof

theestate.TheCLCadvisedtheclientthattheywereentitledto

claimonthesuperannuationpolicy,althoughthetrusteecan

makeadiscretionarydecisionifthereareotherpartieswithan

interestintheestate.TheCLCadvisedtheclientwouldrequire

lettersofAdministrationfromthesupremecourtinPerthand

wouldhavetosatisfyrequirementstodemonstratetheirde

factomarriage,includingobtainingStatDecsfromfriendsand

familytosupportherclaim.

Therulewhenpeopledonotmakeawillseemstobetoleavethe

estatetoclosefamilymembers.Theeconomicjustificationmaybe

thatwheretheperson’sestateincludesassetsthatanotherperson

mayhavecontributedtoinonewayandanother,andiftheassets

arelefttoathirdperson,thesecondpersonhaspaidforsomething

andnotreceivedabenefit.Asanexample,aperson’sspousemay

beleftoutoftheirwillhowevertheassetsoftheirestatemay

includeasignificantcontributionfromtheeffortsoftheirspouse.

Presumablythereisatransactioncostassociatedwithcontinually

calculatingandprotectingeachperson’sshareoftheassetsof

amarriage,oralternatively,acostassociatedwitheachperson

maintainingtheirpersonalassetsandaffairs.Ifthelawoverrides

awillinsuchcases,partnerstoamarriagewillnotfeelcompelled

toincursuchcosts.Extendingthisapproach,itmaybethatthose

closesttothepersonaremostlikelytohavecontributedinsome

waytotheassetsoftheestate.Onthisbasis,ifYhadcontributedto

theassetsoftheestate,itisnoteconomicallyefficientforhertobe

deprivedofhershareofthoseassets.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

17. A

dvic

e

Nhadcounselledacouple,bothindividuallyandseparately,

regardingtheirrelationship.Duringcounsellingthehusband

hadmadeadmissionstoNregardingasexualassaultalleged

bythewife.Thewifehadreferredthemattertothepoliceand

wishedNtoprovideevidenceregardingthesessionswiththe

husband.Shewasadvisedthatthehusband’spermissionwould

berequiredtoreleaseinformationregardingthesession.Ifthe

policerequestedtheinformation,sheshouldaskthemtoadvise

theirauthorityforrequestingtheinformation.

Theeconomicbenefitofclientconfidentialityprincipleswould

appeartobethatthebenefitsoffullinformationintreatingor

assistingsomeoneingeneraloutweighthecostsofwithholding

thatinformation.Inthisrespect,thereappeartobecategories

wherethepublicgoodoutweighstheprivategood,forexample

whenrevealingaconfidentialtransmissionmightprotectothers

fromimmediatedanger.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

18. A

dvic

e

O’shusbandpassedaway.Hiswillmadebequeststohisson

anddaughter,withOreceivingthebalanceoftheassets.Her

step-sonhasmadeaclaimonthesuperannuationclaimworth

$65,94

9.14,althoughtheclientanddaughterarelistedasthe

solebeneficiaries,and,accordingtoO,therelationshipbetween

herhusbandandhissonhadbrokendown.Thecasehadanon-

bindingdeathnomination,thusthetrusteehaddiscretionary

powersregardingthewishesofthedeceased.Shewasadvised

thatthesoncouldmakeaclaim,andthatitwouldbeinherbest

interesttobepartytothecomplaintinordertohaveavoiceat

thetribunalregardingherhusband’srelationshipwithhisson.

Thereappeartobesomecaseswhereoverridingadeceased

person’sintentionsmightbejustifiedeconomically.Thesearelikely

tobeareaswheretheperson’sestateincludesassetsthatanother

personmayhavecontributedtoinonewayandanother,andsoif

theassetsarelefttoathirdperson,thesecondpersonhaspaidfor

somethingandnotreceivedabenefit.Asanexample,aperson’s

spousemaybeleftoutoftheirwillhowevertheassetsoftheir

estatemayincludeasignificantcontributionfromtheeffortsof

theirspouse.Presumablythereisatransactioncostassociatedwith

continuallycalculatingandprotectingeachperson’sshareofthe

assetsofamarriage,oralternatively,acostassociatedwitheach

personmaintainingtheirpersonalassetsandaffairs.Ifthelaw

overridesawillinsuchcases,partnerstoamarriagewillnotfeel

compelledtoincursuchcosts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

19. A

dvic

e

Pwasrentingapropertywhichwascondemnedduetofaulty

electricalwork.Hethenhadtorelocate.Hewasoftheviewthat

hehadsufferedstressandmentalstrainfromlivinginproperty

forapproximatelysixmonthsindangerousconditionsandwas

forcedtomovewithshortnotice.Hewasthenseparatedfrom

hissonformanyweeksuntilappropriateaccommodationfound.

Hewasadvisedtherewaslittlebasisonwhichtoprogresshis

claim.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytobeasavingin

administrativeandcourttimefroma

personnotprogressingaclaimwith

littlemerit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Tribunalcostshavebeenpreviously

assessedat$

430.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. A

dvic

e

Qwasassaultedbyherex-partnerandherex-partner’scurrent

partner.Shesufferedsignificantinjuriesfromtheassault

includingbrokenarmrequiringmultipleplatestobeinserted,

multiplebrokenribs,stabbingwoundtotheleg,afractured

cheekrequiringplasticsurgery,adamagedeyesocketand

otherheadinjuries.SheiscurrentlyintheWomen’sRefugefor

herpersonalsafetyandisseparatedfromherchildren.TheCLC

providedtheclientwithinformationregardingtheprocessof

makingaclaimforCriminalInjuriesCompensationandthe

necessaryinformationtheclientwillneedtoprovide.

Asdiscussedpreviously,suchcompensationislikelytobeatransfer

inresponsetoequityconsiderationsratherthaneconomically

efficientinandofitself.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Properpreparationofaclaimislikely

toleadtoareductioninadministrative

costsassociatedwiththeassessment

oftheclaim.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Previouslyassessedat$70

Noneidentified

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

Consumer Credit legal CentreArandomsampleoftwentycasesandtwentyadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedcasesevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue.Typicallytheeconomicbenefitsofthesecasesweresimilartothoseintherandomsampleofcases,consequentlythesewerenotevaluated.




RandomAdvices 20 $0 $54,047 $17,850 $3,595

RandomCases 20 $0 $11,670 $35,910 $2,379


In2009-10theConsumerCreditLegalCentrehadtotalexpensesofaround$1,378,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad619casesand12,410advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$46.1million,acostbenefitratioofaround33.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.Howeverthereisconsiderablecomfortinthehighcostbenefitratio,suggestingthatifonlyoneinthirtyoutcomeswasattributabletotheCommunityLegalCentre,costswouldstillexceedbenefits.

Noparticularhighvaluecaseswereidentified,howeverthereisabenefitassociatedwithmostmatters,theaveragebenefitisquitehigh,andaverylargenumberofadvicesareprocessed.Ofparticularinterest,particularlywithregardtomortgagedispute,theearlierthecentrewasinvolvedparticularlypriortolegalaction,thegreaterthebenefit.Theoverallimpressionisthatthecentredealswitharangeofpeopleandmattersanddoesthisinaveryefficientway,particularlynotwastingpeople’stimeandthecentre’sresourceswherethereisnocase,andstrategicallyfollowingthroughonselectedmattersforarangeofreasons.Thisisaneffectiveuseofcommunityresourcesandisreflectedinthehighbenefitcostratio.

Theeconomicbenefitsoftheproperprocessofthelawwithrespecttocontractsaredifficulttodetermine.

Theeconomicbenefitofcontractlawlargelycomesfromallowingpeopletoconducttransactionsovertimebymakingsurethatcustomersgetwhattheypayfor,andsuppliersprovidenomorethantheyhavebeenpaidfor,thatisthatpricesreflectaccuratelyreflectservices.Theeconomiccostsifsocietydidn’thaveaproperregulatorysystemaroundcontractscouldbeenormous,butbecausesocietydoeshavesuchasystem,it(probably)functionsatalevelwherecostsjustequalbenefits.Itisexpectedthatonaverage,themarginalcostsofpursuingaclaimwouldbeequaltothemarginalbenefitshoweverthiswillnotalwaysbethecase,particularlywherethereisasymmetricinformation.TheConsumerCreditLegalCentreperformsanimportantfunctioninthisregard,byprovidingexpertadviceatlowcosttooffsetthehighcosttoindividualsinobtainingsufficientinformationtoreachaninformedview.Insurancecompaniesandfinanciersaredealingwithclaimsandthecourtsallthetime,andsowouldbemuchmorelikelytoknowthelawthananindividualwhomayhaveoneortwomattersinalifetime.Thisprovidesanopportunityformoralhazard,whereacompanymayrejectaclaimwithoutappropriatesupport,buttakingadvantageofthecustomer’slackofsophistication.Thisbenefitisbestassessedintermsofwillingnesstopay,thatiswhatpriceisthecommunitypreparedtopaytohaveaccesstogoodlegaladviceatnocost.

Bywayofexample,thecostofthecentreperadviceis$111.Thismayrepresentgoodvalueintermsofthecommunity’swillingnesstopay,asa“flagfall”withaprivatesolicitorislikely


-��-

tobearound$300,andthecentrehasaveryhighlevelofexpertiseastheydealwiththesemattersallthetime.OnapercapitabasisandtakingtheadultpopulationofNSWas4.9million,57thecostofthecentreperadultis$0.30peryear.Inthisregard,eventhoughtheaveragebenefitassociatedwithcasesisabouthalfthebenefitassociatedwithadvices,thecasesprobablyserveatrainingorcurrencypurpose,ensuringthatsolicitorsinthecentreareuptodatewiththelaw.Moreimportantly,thereisanadditionalbenefitarisingfromcaseworkasmatterscanoftenbesettledquicklyascreditorsandinsurersknowthattheCLCispreparedtoruncasesthroughcourtorexternaldisputeresolutionandarethereforemoreinclinedtosettlethaniftheCLCofferedadviceonlywithnoopportunitytoengagethelegalsystem.

57 ABSCensus2006


-��0-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. C

ase

A’shousehadbeenpartiallyburntin200

8.Theinsurance

companyhadpaidtheestimatedcostofrepairsandthe

insuredamountforcontents.Abelievedhewasentitledto

paymentforactualvalueofcontents,costsoftemporary

accommodation,costsofremovalofdebrisandthe

differencebetweentheestimatedcostofrepairsand

theactualcostexpendedbythenewownerofthehome

inrepairs.Asubsequentlyreceivedadecisionfromthe

FinancialOmbudsmanService.ThatdecisionfoundAhad

generallyreceivedhisentitlements,howeverhewasadvised

hewasentitledtothecostofremovalofdebrisandsome

accommodationcosts,subjecttoprovidingproofofpayment

fortemporaryaccommodationandforremovalofdebris.

TheCLCadvisedAtoacceptthedeterminationandprovide

copiesofreceiptswithregardtodebrisandtemporary

accommodation.

Theproperoperationofcontractsandrisksharingunder

insuranceisimportantforarangeofreasonsrelatedto

economicefficiency.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Themarginalbenefitassociatedwithasinglecaseis

difficulttoestimate.Itisexpectedthatonaverage,the

marginalcostsofpursuingaclaimwouldbeequaltothe

marginalbenefitshoweverthiswillnotalwaysbethe

case,particularlywherethereisasymmetricinformation.

TheConsumerCreditLegalCentreperformsanimportant

functioninthisregard,byprovidingexpertadviceatlow

costtooffsetthehighcosttoindividualsinobtaining

sufficientinformationtoreachaninformedview.Insurance

companiesaredealingwithclaimsandthecourtsallthe

time,andsowouldbemuchmorelikelytoknowthelaw

thananindividualwhomayhaveoneortwomattersin

alifetime.Thisprovidesanopportunityformoralhazard,

whereacompanymayrejectaclaimwithoutappropriate

support,buttakingadvantageofthecustomer’slackof

sophistication.

TheCLCmayhavereducedadditional

administrativecoststhroughproviding

externaladviceandifhehadgonetocourt

itwouldhavecostbothpartiesandhemay

havelostthesettlement.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Notclear.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

Rand

om sa

mpl

e of

case

s


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

2. C

ase

Breceiveda“NoticebyMortgageerequiringPossession”

duetoarrears.TheCLCcontactedthelenderadvisingofB’s

hardshipduetoastrokeandproposingapaymentplan.

TheCLCcanvassedanumberofoptionswithB,including

refinancingthroughIndigenousBusinessAustralia.Bdecided

tosellherhouseandobtainaccommodationthroughthe

localaboriginalcorporation.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Brokeredagoodoutcome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Possessionbythemortgagee

islikelytohaveresultedin

considerablelosstoS,both

intermsofsalepriceand

intermsofadministrative

costsdeductedbythelender.

Enforcementcostssuchas

thecourtandsheriffarealso

incurred.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Financialdataisnotprovided

intheNSWSupremeCourt

AnnualReview.Thenet

costpersettlementinthe

VictorianSupremeCourthas

beenestimatedelsewhere

at$6,85

0andthisistaken

asthecostofobtaining

appropriatejudgements.

In201

0theNSWSheriff’s

Officeprocessed445,191

operationalmatters.39Court

SupportServiceshadtotal

expensesof$

94.9million

notingthatthisincludes

otherservices.4

0 Thisgivesa

costpermatterof$

213.

Thetotalbenefitisassessed

at$7,06

0.

3. C

ase

Cwasapensionerondisabilitysupport.Chadenteredinto

amortgageforsixmonthswitha‘predatorylender’and

hadsubsequentlybeenissuedwithapossessionnotice.

Thatpossessionnoticewassetasideonthegroundsof

unconscionabilitywiththesettlementallowingCtimeto

refinance,reducingthelegalcostsandreducingthedefault

interest.Thatrefinancingwashinderedbyadefaultlisting

relatedtoacreditcarddebt.TheCLCnegotiatedwiththe

creditcardprovidertopayoutstandingamountsandthen

negotiatedfortheremovalofthedefaultlistingwiththe

creditagency.TheCLCsubsequentlycomplainedtoASIC

regardingthelicensingoftheoriginallender.

Theproperoperationofcontractsandrisksharingunder

loancontractsisimportant.Creditagenciesareimportant

inavoidingmoralhazard.Withrespecttothe‘predatory

lender’,consumerprotectionlegislationislikelytoservean

equityoutcome,ratherthananefficiencyoutcome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thecreditcardmatterwassettledoutof

courthencesavingalargeamountofcourt

time.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assessedaboveat$

540

Thearrangedsettlementhas

allowedAtostayinhisown

home,probablyatalower

costtohimself.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

4. C

ase

Dwasindefaultonamortgageandhadbeenissuedwitha

possessionnotice.TheCLCnegotiatedpaymenttermswith

thelendertoaddressthearrears.

Theproperoperationofcontractsisimportant.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

TheCLCislikelytohavereduced

administrativecostsassociatedwith

mortgagedefault,suchasappealingtothe

FOS,howeverexpensesofaround$ 6,000

hadbeenincurredincourtandlegalcoststo

generatethepossessionnotice.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Theclientwouldprobably

havebeensomewhatworse

offifshehadlostherhome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Amortgageesaleislikely

toinvolvearangeofcosts

whichwereavoided.

Theseincludeagents

andauctioneerscosts.In

December 2

010,themedian

salespriceforahousein

NSWwas$44

0,00

0.41Typical

agentsfeesinNSWare2.5%,

givingacostof$

11,000for

amedianpriceddwelling.

42

Thisistakenasthebenefit.

5. C

ase

Ewasafiftyyearoldilliteratemanwhohadsufferedthree

heartattacksandcouldnolongerworkasacleanerandwas

receivingtheDisabilitySupportPension.Hecontactedthe

CLCashewasinfinancialhardshipregardingacreditcard

debtwhichhewashavingdifficultyrepaying.Arepayment

planwasnegotiatedwiththecreditcardcompany.The

CLCresearchedhissuperannuationanddiscoveredhehad

eightseparatepolicies,threeofwhichhadcoverforTotal

andPermanentDisability(TPD).TheCLCassistedWwith

thevariousapplicationsandprovisionofsubstantiating

documentationrequiredtomakeTPDclaims.Henegotiated

withdoctorstopaythemfollowinghispayout.He

subsequentlyreceivedpaymentsforaround$1

30,000.

ThelawworkedinthiscaseandWreceivedhisentitlement.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asdiscussedpreviously,benefitsarelikelytobemarginal

withrespecttocosts.Benefitnotquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Wwasdepressedasaresult

ofhisfinancialsituationand

thismayhavehadacost.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

6. C

ase

Fhad10unsecuredloanswithpaydaylenders.Hehadno

assets.Onelenderwenttocourttorecoverthedebt.TheCLC

negotiatedarepaymentschemewiththelenderandthis

wasagreedtoatapretrialreview.Thelenderhadlentthe

moneytoFovertheinternetandtherewereanumberof

irregularitieswhichtheCLCadvisedtoASIC.Theseincluded

thecompanynotbeingregisteredwithASIC,havingacredit

licenceorbeingamemberofanexternaldisputeresolution

scheme.TheCLCusedthiscase,andothers,asabasisfor

lobbyingforchangestolegislationtoaddressproblemswith

paydaylendingincludingindependentdisputeresolution,

licensing,responsiblelendingpracticesandaninterest

ratecap.Thefirstthreehavenowbeenaddressedthrough

legislativechanges.

Variationininterestratesisaneconomicallyefficient

outcomewitheachborrowerpayinganinterestrate

commensuratewithhislikelylevelofdefault.Government

regulationoflendingismostlikelyanequitymeasure,or

perhapsintendedtoavoidmarketfailureassociatedwith

asymmetricinformationwherebylendersknowmoreabout

thetruecostthanborrowers.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Anegotiatedsettlementisabetteroutcome

thanonethroughthecourts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit.

Nobudgetaryinformationisavailable

fortheNSWLocalCourt.Thecostofan

unrepresentedmatterintheVictorian

MagistratesCourthasbeenpreviously

assessedat$

330.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

7. C

ase

Ghadpurchasedamathslearningprogramonhirepurchase

fromadoortodoorsalesmaninanticipationthatthere

wouldbeanimprovementinherchildren’sgrades.The

computerandprogramsuppliedstoppedworkingaftersome

monthsandwerenotrepairedbythesupplier.Thedebtwas

subsequentlysoldtoadebtcollectionagencywhoobtained

judgementfor$10,000andanordertohaveG’shousesold

torecoverthedebt.GwasonCentrelinkpaymentsand

wasunabletorepaythedebt.TheCLCwassuccessfulin

applyingtosetasidethejudgementonthegroundsthat

Gwasdisadvantagedduetoherlackofunderstanding

andliteracyandasshehadnotobtained,orindeedhad

notbeencounselledtoobtain,legaladvice.TheCLCthen

negotiatedwiththedebtcollectionagencyandtheyagreed

nottopursuethedebt,probablybecauseofconcernsraised

regardingtheoriginalcontractandthehighpressuresales

tacticsused.

ConsumerLawismostlikelyanequitymeasure,or

perhapsintendedtoavoidmarketfailureassociatedwith

asymmetricinformationwherebylenders/suppliersknow

moreaboutthetruecostthanborrowers.

Anegotiatedsettlementisabetteroutcome.

Thealternativewouldbethecostsof

enforcementincludingtransactioncosts

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thishasbeenassessedpreviouslyat$

6,85

0in

courtandenforcementcostsand$11,000in

agentsfees,givingatotalbenefitof$

17,850.

.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

8. C

ase

Hhadbeeninvolvedinaworkplaceaccidentandwas

receivingworkerscompensation.Asaresulthewasbehind

inhismortgagepaymentsandwasissuedwithadefault

notice.Hehadaccessedhissuperannuationinordertopay

offarrearsandexpectedtoreceivealumpsumworkers

compensationpaymentinthefuturewhichhewoulduseto

reducehishomeloan.Hehadaskedthebankforadditional

hardshipreliefbutthebankrefusedonthegroundsthat

hiscircumstanceswereunlikelytochange.Thematterwas

referredtotheFinancialOmbudsmanServiceandwas

pursuedbytheclient.

Thereisaeconomicbenefitintheproperenforcementof

contracts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

9. C

ase

Iwasa79yearoldnonEnglishspeakerwithslightdementia.

Hehadacarcrashandmadeasuccessfulclaimagainsthis

insurancecompany.Onfurtherinvestigation,theinsurance

companyconcludedtheclaimmayhavebeenfraudulent,

asMhadprovidedadifferentaccountofeventstoan

investigator.Theinsurancecompanysoughttorecoverthe

moneypaidforrepairsandthecostofinvestigations.TheCLC

referredthemattertotheFinancialOmbudsmanServiceand,

subsequenttoCCLCmakingsubmissionsonbehalfofI,the

insurancecompanydroppedtheirclaim.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforcontractstobeproperly

enforced.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

CostsofrecoverythroughtheCourtshave

beenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thesecostshavebeenpreviouslyassessedat

$330forthemagistratescourtand$21

3for

theSheriff’sOffice,givingabenefitof$

540.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��4-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

10. C

ase

Owingtoachronicillness,Jwasnolongerabletowork.She

wasunabletopayhermortgagerepayments,andduetoa

dropinvalueofherhome,therewaslikelytobeamortgage

shortfall.JapproachedtheCLCforadviceregarding

accessinghersuperannuationandmakingatotaland

permanentdisabilityclaim.Shewasadvisedifsheaccessed

hersuperannuationandmadetheclaim,themoneycould

beaccessedbyhercreditorsintheeventofbankruptcy,

howeverifsheaccessedsuperannuationafterbankruptcy

themoneywouldbeprotected.Shedecidedtoaccessher

superannuationtoassistwithherlivingexpenseswhileshe

finalisedhermortgagethroughsaleofherhouse.CCLCdid

notassistwiththisprocessbutgavehertheinformationshe

needed.

Theeconomicpurposeofmakingsuperannuationimmune

frombankruptcyisnotclear,howeveritmaybeaway

ofshiftingthecostofretirementfromgovernment(via

pensions)tocreditors(viaprotectingsuperannuation).

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

11. C

ase

K’shusbandhadreceivedadefaultnoticefromhiscredit

cardproviderwithregardtobeingbehindinpaymentsand

approachedtheCLCtoprovideadvice.Herhusbandhad

beenilltwoyearsearlierandhadreceivednoincomefor

threemonths.Hehadrecentlylosthisjobandhadbeen

reemployedatalowerincome.Hewasreferredtoafinancial

counsellor.TheserviceassessedK’sfinancialpositionand

concludedsheandherhusbandwereinsolventasthey

couldnotpaytheirdebtsastheyfelldueandtheirassets

weresimilartotheirliabilities.Theyhadaround15creditors.

Theywerefurtheradvisedthatahardshipapplicationwas

unlikelytobesuccessfulastherewaslittleevidencethat

theircircumstanceswerelikelytochangeforthebetter

intheforeseeablefuture.Kwasreferredtoaface-to-face

financialcounsellingservicetoassistinnegotiatingpayment

arrangementsandtoexplorebankruptcy.

Itiseconomicallyefficientthatpeoplebeheldliablefortheir

debts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Itwaslikelytobebettertoprogress

bankruptcythantodelaytheinevitable.If

thecoupledidnotgobankrupt,thevarious

creditorswouldpursuetheirdebtsseparately

atconsiderablecostandwithnolikelyreturn.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

$540(estimatedpreviously)multipliedby15

creditorsgivesatotalbenefitof$

8,10

0.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

12. C

ase

Lwasnolongerworkingandwasinreceiptofacarer’s

pension.Shewasinfinancialdifficulties.Herlenderhad

foreclosedonherloanandherhousehadbeensoldwitha

shortfall.Shehadarangeofotherdebtsandonecreditor

hadservedherwithastatementofclaim.TheCLCadvised

shehadlittlebasisforahardshipvariationorotherclaims

againstherlenders.Ldecidedtoapplyforbankruptcy.As

aresultofinvestigationscarriedoutaspartofthecase,

theCLCfoundthatarepresentativeofoneorganisation,a

majorlender,providedmisleadinginformation.Inaddition,

thecontactdetailsfortheorganisationontheFinancial

OmbudsmanServicewereoutofdate.Asaresultofa

complaintbytheCLC,thelenderprovidedfurthertrainingfor

staffandupdateditsdetails.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletoberesponsible

fortheirdebts,howeverthereisconsiderableexpensein

pursuingdebt,especiallywheretherearenoassets.Hence

thelawfacilitatesbankruptcy.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Timelyadvicetoseekbankruptcyislikelyto

savetransactioncostsasthevariouscreditors

chaseuptheirdebtsindividuallyand

eventuallyseekbankruptcyorgetpayment

ordersthatareunenforceable.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thenumberofcreditorsisnotknown,but

assumingtwo,thebenefitisassessedat$54

0times2,or$

1,08

0.

Noapparentbenefit.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

13. C

ase

M’shomehadbeendamagedinfloods.Shewasadvised

bytheinsurancecompanythatdamagefromfloodingwas

notcoveredbyherpolicyandthattheywereawaitinga

hydrologyreportpriortofinalisingherclaim.Thematterwas

takenoverbyLegalAidQueensland.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforcontractstobeenforced.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

TheCLCwasinvolvedinthesemattersto

assistLegalAidQueenslandwithalargecase

loadarisingfromflooding.

Assessmentofbenefit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

14. C

ase

Nhadmadeaclaimagainsthisinsuranceasaresultofflood

damagetohishome.Nwasconcernedabouttheprogress

ofhisclaim.TheCLCcontactedtheinsurancecompany

andremindedthemoftheirobligationsundertheGeneral

InsuranceCodeofPracticetoprovidetimelyinformation.N

receivedacompassionatepaymentfromtheinsurerwhich

wasinlinewithwhathebelievedhisentitlementtobe.


Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Nil

15. C

ase

O’sinsuranceclaimforherstolenanddamagedcarhadbeen

rejectedbytheinsurancecompanyasinvestigationsrevealed

anumberofinconsistencieswhichledthemtosuspectfraud.

TheCLCadvisedherofanumberofareaswhereshemaybe

inbreachoftheInsuranceContractsAct198

4andconfirmed

thelegalbasisoftheinsurersactions.


enforcedandthatmoralhazardisavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Courtactionmayhavebeenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assessedpreviouslyat$

540.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

16. C

ase

Pbelievedthathewasincorrectlylistedasdefaultingwith

acreditagency.UponreviewofdocumentstheCLCadvised

himthatthedefaultlistingappearedtobeappropriateand

thatactionbythecreditortorecovertheunpaiddebtwould

alsoappeartobesupported.

Creditlistingsareimportantastheyprovideinformation

toinformtheproperallocationofrisk,itselfeconomically

efficient.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

17. C

ase

Qhadmadeaclaimforstormdamagetoherhomewith

herinsurer.Theinsurancecompanyassessedthedamage

claimedasbeinglongtermdamageasaresultofpoor

buildingpractices.TheCLCadvisedherofthecontractual

basisfortheinsurancecompany’sdecisionandadvisedher

whatactionwouldberequiredtosubstantiateherclaim.The

matterwasnotprogressed.


enforcedandthatmoralhazardisavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

TheCLCadviceavoidedcorrespondenceanda

rangeofadministrativecostswithinsurerand

possiblecostsofmediationorcourtaction.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit


0.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

18. C

ase

Rhadsufferedaworkplaceinjurythatlefthimunableto

work.HewasreceivingtheDisabilitySupportPensionand

wasawaitingaworkerscompensationsettlement.Hehad

receivedadefaultnoticeonamortgageforapropertyowned

byhim.Thepropertyhadbeenofferedforsalebutprices

offeredwerenotsufficienttopayofftheoutstandingdebt.

Hishardshipapplicationhadbeenrejectedasthelender

wasoftheviewthathiscircumstanceswerelikelytobe

permanent.Avariationtopaymenttermswasnegotiatedto

provideadditionaltimeforRtosellhishome.Duetoafailure

tosellthepropertyanddifficultyinservicinganumberof

otherdebts,Rdecidedtohandovervacantpossessiontothe

lenderandthenfileforbankruptcy.


fortheirdebts,howevertherecanbeconsiderable

administrativeexpensepursuingdebtswherethereareno

assets.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Voluntaryhandoverprobablyreduced

administrationcoststosomeextent,

howeverthiswasmostlikelyoffsetbyother

negotiations.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

19. C

ase

Sandhispartnerhadrentedarangeofhouseholdfurniture

fromasupplier.TheywerereceivingCentrelinkpayments.

Duetofinancialdifficulties,theyterminatedthelease

agreementandwererequiredtopayanoutstanding

amountof$

290,orifnotpaid,totalcostsof$

825.Therewas

someevidencethatthesuppliermayhaveenteredintoan

unsuitableleasecontractasitwaslikelytheleasepayments

wouldhaveinvolvedsubstantialhardship.Sdidnotprogress

thematter.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobeliablefortheir

debts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. C

ase

Thadresignedfromherpreviousjobasaresultofpersonal

stress.Shehadfallenbehindinherloanpaymentsandher

applicationforahardshipvariationhadbeendeclined.She

wasexpectingtorecommenceworksoonwithadifferent

employer,andappealedtotheFinancialOmbudsmanService.

AmediationsettlementwasreachedhoweverTdecidednot

toacceptthatsettlementanddecidedtoseeklegaladvice

elsewhereregardingthesettlement.

Theprocessworkedbutitappearedthatshewasunhappy

withtheoutcome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. A

dvic

e

Aisonworkerscompensationandhadreceivedadefault

noticefromhishomeloanlender.Hehadbeenadvisedbythe

banktoconverthisloantofixedinterest,butwasnotableto

paythehigherpaymentsandsowasissuedadefaultnotice.

Hechangedbacktoavariableloanbutwasrequiredtopay

abreakfee.Thebankdidnotadvisehimoftheoptionofa

hardshipvariationwhentheysuggestedhefixtheinterest

rate.TheCLCadvisedtheclienttolodgeinFOSandwhat

toargueoveraseriesoftelephoneadvices.Theclientwas

successfulinhavingthebreakfeerefunded.Thelikelybasisof

thebank’sdecisionwastheirfailuretoadviseAofthehardship

variationoption.


perhapsintendedtoavoidmarketfailureassociated

withasymmetricinformationwherebylendersknow


Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Therewaslikelytobeconsiderableexpense

associatedwithdefaultandenforcement.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assessedasexternality.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thishasbeenassessed

previouslyat$

6,85

0incourt

andenforcementcostsand

$11,00

0inagentsfees,givinga

totalbenefitof$

17,850.

2. A

dvic

e

Bownedarentalpropertywhichhadburntdownwhile

unoccupied.Theinsurerrefusedtheclaimonthebasisthatthe

propertywasnotstructurallysound.Followingadvicefromthe

CLC,BarguedthatBhadmetherdutyofutmostgoodfaithas

Bhadregularlymaintainedthepropertyandwasnotaware

ofproblemswithsecurityattheproperty.Theinsureroffered

$50,00

0insettlementagainstherclaimof$

70,000whichshe

accepted.


Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Inaproperlyoperatingsystem,marginalcostswouldbe

expectedtoequalmarginalbenefits,consequentlythe

benefitisnotquantified.

Ifthematterhadbeenpursuedthrough

thecourtstherewouldbeaconsiderable

administrationcost.

Asse

ssem

ent o

f ben

efit

Courtandrecoverycostshavebeenpreviously

assessedat$

6,85

0.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

3. A

dvic

e

Chadmultipledebtsincludinga$9

0,00

0shortfallona

propertyhehadsold.Hiswifehasstoppedworkingdueto

medicalproblemsandtheyareunabletoservicetheirdebts.

Therewasnoequityintwootherpropertiesheowneddueto

apoorhousingmarket.Hewasadvisedthat,consideringhis

circumstances,avoidingbankruptcywasunlikelyandheshould

considerearlybankruptcyratherthandrawingdownsuper,as

thiswouldbeprotectedfrombankruptcy.


fortheirdebts,howevertherecanbeconsiderable

administrativeexpensepursuingdebtswherethereare

noassets.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efits

Notquantified.

Voluntarybankruptcymaybealowcost

optionallaround,ascourtactionisavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thisbenefithasbeenpreviouslyassessedat

$6,850.Acrosstwoproperties,thisisabenefit

of$13,700.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

4. A

dvic

e

Dhadguaranteedaloanforanotherpropertywithher

home.Theotherpropertywasoccupiedbyhersonandinher

husband’s,son’sandhername.Thesondefaultedonpayment

andthelenderobtainedpossessionofthepropertybuthas

beenunabletosellit.Shewishedtorefinanceandsubdivide

herhomebutisunabletodothatbecausethereisacaveat

onthepropertyarisingfromtheguarantee.Shewasadvised

thattheactionsofthebankappearedtobewithintheirrights

(givenherinstructions)butshewasalsoreferredtoaprivate

solicitorforfurtherassistanceshouldshewishtopursuethe

matterfurther,ortrytonegotiatewiththebank.


enforced.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Rand

om sa

mpl

e of

Adv

ices


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

5. A

dvic

e

Ewasinfinancialdifficultiesoverunpaidratesandloan

repayments.Hehadnoequityineitherhishomeorhis

investmentproperty.Hisapplicationforhardshipprovisions

wasrefusedastherewasnolikelihoodthathiscircumstances

wouldchange.Hehasmadeapplicationtopaybyinstalments,

takenmatterstotheFinancialServicesOmbudsmanand

discussedbankruptcyoptionswiththeCLC.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

6. A

dvic

e

Fwaspursuedbyapolicecarwhilespeeding.Thepolicecar

struckhim,incurringdamage.Theinsurerhassoughtto

recoverthemoneyfromhim.Hewasadvisedthathewaslikely

tobeliableforthemoney,thatheshouldmakeanofferto

settleandofthestepsheshouldtakeifhewishestodispute

thequantumofthedamage.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobeliablefor

theirownnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Itislikelythatcourtrecoveryactionhasbeen

avoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit


0.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

7. A

dvic

e

Gwasunabletoworkduetomedicalproblems.Shewas

unabletopayhercreditcarddebts.Shehadsoughtahardship

concessionhowevershewasrefusedasherproblemwaslong

term.Shewasadvisedtoreferthemattertoindependent

disputeresolutionandtomakeaclaimagainstherincome

protectionpolicyattachedtohersuperannuation.Shewas

alsoreferredtoaface-to-facefinancialcounsellingservicefor

furtherassistance.


fortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

8. A

dvic

e

Hwasinvolvedinacarcrashandhasnotworkedsince.Heis

ontheDisabilitySupportPension.Hehasreceivedajudgement

againsttheotherside’sinsurer,howevertheinsurerhas

appliedforaninjunctionagainstenforcingthejudgement.He

hasengagedinindependentdisputeresolutionwithanother

creditorandtheyhaveofferedtoacceptanirrevocableorder

guaranteeingpaymentfromthecarcrashpayment.Hewas

advisedtoseriouslyconsidertheoffersubjecttoobtaining

furtheradvicefromhiscompensationsolicitorregardingthe

quantumofthecarcrashsettlementandthelikelihoodofthe

injunctionbeingsustained.Hewasalsogiveninformation

aboutfacetofacefinancialcounsellingandbankruptcy.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

9. A

dvic

e

IcontactedtheCLCregardinganenforcementmatterin

Queensland.TheCLCwasunabletoadviseandhewasreferred

toQueenslandLegalAid.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

10. A

dvic

e

Jhadlostherjobandwasinfinancialhardship.Shehad

consolidatedherdebtand,ontheadviceoftheCLC,had

successfullysoughtahardshipvariation.Howeverattheend

ofthehardshipperiod,hercircumstanceshaddeteriorated

furtherduetoillhealth.TheCLCadvisedagainstrefinancing

withahighcostlenderandrecommendedthatsheput

herhomeonthemarketasitappearedinevitablethatshe

wouldlosethehome.Bysellingitherself,shewouldbe

likelytomaximiseherreturnandminimiselegalcosts.Jdid

notprogressthematterandwasthenissuedwithadefault

notice.Shewasadvisedwhatstepsshewasrequiredtotake

inresponsetothedefaultnoticeandwascounselledto

makesomedecisionsregardingherfuturecomparedtothe

alternativeofbeingovertakenbyevents.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

11. A

dvic

e

Khasenteredintovoluntarybankruptcyoveradebtof

$80,00

0.Toavoidlosinghishome,hewantedtonegotiate

withthetrusteetoaccept$

35,000putupbyfamilymembers

andannulthebankruptcy.Hewasadvisedthatheshould

demonstratetothetrusteewhythetrusteeandcreditorswill

bebetteroffacceptinghisofferthanbysellinghishome.Itis

likelythereturnonsaleofthehomewillbearound$35,000

howevertherewillbeothercostsassociatedwithrecovering

thisamount.

Itappearshehascalculatedtheminimumhecanoffer

thetrusteetoretainhishome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Anegotiatedprocessislikelytobeagood

outcomehoweverinthiscasetheoutcomeis

unknown.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

12. A

dvic

e

Lhasbeenrecentlypursuedbyadebtcollectionagency

regardingadebtdatingtosomeyearsago.Thetwelveyear

periodtoenforcethedebtpursuanttoajudgmentexpires

soon.Lwasadvisedtoconfirmwhethertherewasajudgement

regardingthedebt.Ifnotheshouldlodgeanappealwiththe

FinancialOmbudsmanServicearguingthatthedebtisstatute

barred.Ifthereisajudgement,thecreditorcanapplyforan

extensionoftimetoenforcethedebt.


forpayingtheirdebts.Theeconomicbenefitsof

limitationsontimearenotclear,howeveritmay

relatetotheextendedcostsindealingwithmatters

thataremanyyearsoldandthedifficultyinobtaining

information.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��0-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

13. A

dvic

e

MwasworkinginAustraliabutintendedtoreturnoverseas

soon.Shewasinvolvedinamotorvehicleaccidentwhereshe

wasatfault.Shewasuninsuredandtheinsurancecompany

soughtthecostofrepairstotheothervehicle.Mcanvasseda

rangeofoptionsincludingleavingthecountrywithoutpaying

thedebt.OntheadviceoftheCLCshemadeanoffertothe

insurancecompanywhichwasaccepted.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletopaytheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Thereislikelytohavebeenasavingin

recoverycostsbytheinsurancecompany

includingcourttime.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecosthasbeenpreviouslyassessedat

$540.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

14. A

dvic

e

Nwasoutofworkandhadaccrued$2

5,00

0inarrearson

hismortgagethroughenteringintohardshiparrangements.

Hehadsincereturnedtoworkandthelenderwasseeking

paymentofthearrears.Hewasadvisedhisoptionswereto

capitalisethearrearswiththeagreementofthelenderorsell

hishometopayoffhisdebt.Hewasalsoadvisedtolodgea

complaintwiththeFinancialOmbudsmanServiceintheevent

thatthelenderissuedastatementofclaimbeforeasolution

couldbenegotiated.


perhapsintendedtoavoidmarketfailureassociated

withasymmetricinformationwherebylendersknow


Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


outcome,asisengagingtheFinancial

OmbudsmanService.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

15. A

dvic

e

Ohasbeenoutofworkduetoillnessbutisnowrecovering.

Shehasanumberofdebtswithpaymentarrangements

inplace.Shehadrecentlyreceivedanoticefromadebt

collectionagencyfor$

450andastatementofclaimfromher

homelender.Shewasadvisedtoprepareahardshipcasefor

alternativedisputeresolutiononhermortgageproposing

capitalisingarrears,extendingthelifeoftheloan,reducing

repaymentsandthelike.Shewasadvisedtomakeanofferto

thedebtcollectionagency.


fortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.


outcome.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thisbenefithasbeenpreviouslyassessed

at$54

0forthesmallclaimand$17,850for

theavoidanceofmortgagedefaultandthe

retentionofherhome,givingatotallikely

benefitof$

18,390.

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

16. A

dvic

e

Phadincurredcostswhenherholidayaccommodationwas

cancelledduetoinsolvencyonthepartofhertravelagency.

Thecancelledaccommodationhadbeenpaidwithhercredit

card.Whenshecontactedhertravelinsuranceprovider,she

wasadvisedthatdefaultbythetravelagentwasexcludedby

thepolicy.Shehadbeenadvisedbytheliquidatorsthatthe

travelagencyhadnoassets.ShewasadvisedbyCCLCtohave

thedebitchargedbackunderthetermsandconditionsofher

creditcardinstead.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletogetwhatthey

payfor.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

17. A

dvic

e

Duetoreductionsinincome,Qhadfallenbehindinpayments

onhisinvestmentproperty.Thelenderhadobtained

judgementandwasinpossessionoftheproperty.Qexpected

therewouldbeashortfallonthedebtifthepropertywassold.

Qhopedtogetthepropertybackandnegotiateanextended

loanwhichhecouldafford.Hewasadvisedthathehadlimited

optionsapartfromnegotiatingwiththelender.


fortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

18. A

dvic

e

Rhadadebtof$

100,00

0onhisfarmandhome,withboth

valuedataround$1,000,000.Duetoinjurieshecannolonger

operatethefarmasabusiness.Hehadapaymentplanin

placeandhasthepropertyforsale,howeverthebankwas

threateningtotakeactiontorecovertheirdebt.Ontheadvice

oftheCLC,hewassuccessfulinnegotiatingtimewiththebank

toenablehimtoselltheproperty.


fortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Arangeofrecoverycostshavebeenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Courtactionbythebankisassessedat

$6,850.

Seizurebythebankislikelyto

haveresultedincoststoP.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil.

19. A

dvic

e

Shadincurredadebtofsomehundredsofdollarsinunpaid

tollroadcharges.Shehashaddifficultyinnegotiatingwiththe

provideroverthephone.Shewasadvisedtocommencepaying

byinstalmentsandtomakeanofferinwriting.


fortheirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Anofferofsettlementislikelytoleadto

reducedadministrationcostsonbehalfofthe

tollroadcompany.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Assessedpreviouslyas$

540.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. A

dvic

e

T’svehiclehadbeendamagedinacarcrash.Shewasuninsured

andtheothervehiclewasacompanyownedcar.Shewas

advisedtoforwardaletterofdemandalongwithquotes

supportingherclaimtotheotherparty.Shewasadvisedthat

negotiationsareusuallybetterthantakinglegalactionand

wasadvisedoftimelimitsregardingherclaimintheevent

thatlegalactionshouldbenecessary.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobearthecostof

theirnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Notquantified

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

Marrickville legal CentreArandomsampleoftwentycasesandtwentyadviceswereselectedandtheeconomicbenefitsevaluated.Inaddition,staffprovidedcasesevaluatedbythemasbeingofhighvalue,howevertheeconomicbenefitsofthesecasesweresimilartothoseintherandomsampleofcases,consequentlythesewerenotevaluated.




RandomAdvices 20 $0 $4,490 $6,850 $567

RandomCases 20 $0 $6,168 $1,140 $365


In2009-10MarrickvilleLegalCentrehadtotalexpensesofaround$877,000.Inthatperiod,thecentrehad425casesand5,328advices.Usingtheaveragesfortherandomsampleabove,thetotalbenefitisestimatedat$3.2million,acostbenefitratioofaround4,andsufficientlyhightojustifytheexpenditureonthecentre.

ThemajoruncertaintyisthedegreetowhichthebenefitwouldnothavebeenachievediftheCommunityLegalCentredidnotexist,thatiswhethertheoutcomemayhavebeenachievedbyotherprocesses.IfoneinfouroutcomeswasattributabletotheCommunityLegalCentre,costswouldstillexceedbenefits.


-133-

Deta

ils

the

law

the

pro

cess

exte

rnal

itie

s

1. C

ase

A, a

n 18

year

old

on

Cent

relin

k pa

ymen

ts, h

ad e

nter

ed in

to a

n ag

reem

ent w

ith a

mob

ile p

hone

pro

vide

r. She

exc

eede

d th

e ca

p on

her

initi

al p

lan

and

so e

nter

ed in

to a

mor

e ex

pens

ive

plan

whi

ch sh

e w

as u

nabl

e to

affo

rd. S

he h

ad a

ccru

ed a

deb

t of

$1,800

whi

ch th

e co

mpa

ny so

ught

to re

cove

r. The

re w

ere

som

e irr

egul

ariti

es in

her

orig

inal

pla

n ap

plic

atio

n, a

s she

wou

ld n

ot

have

bee

n el

igib

le u

nder

the

prov

ider

’s gu

idel

ines

due

to h

er

low

inco

me.

The

CLC

succ

essf

ully

neg

otia

ted

with

the

prov

ider

to

hav

e th

e de

bt w

aive

d du

e to

E’s

inab

ility

to p

ay.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

peo

ple

to b

e re

spon

sible

for

thei

r deb

ts. A

t the

sam

e tim

e, m

arke

t fai

lure

can

arriv

e fr

om a

sym

met

ric in

form

atio

n w

hich

may

be

the

case

in

this

mat

ter.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Ther

e is

likel

y to

hav

e be

en a

n ad

min

istra

tive

savi

ng, a

s the

com

pany

wou

ld h

ave

incu

rred

re

cove

ry co

sts,

with

thos

e co

sts a

lso in

clud

ing

cour

t tim

e.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

This

bene

fit h

as b

een

prev

ious

ly a

sses

sed

at

$540

.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

No

bene

fit.

2. C

ase

At t

he a

ge o

f 15,

B h

ad b

een

invo

lved

in a

car c

rash

whi

le

driv

ing

a fr

iend

’s fa

ther

’s ca

r and

a fe

nce.

He

curr

ently

has

no

inco

me.

The

CLC

neg

otia

ted

for a

redu

ctio

n in

the

debt

and

for

a pa

ymen

t pla

n, h

owev

er B

did

not

agr

ee to

the

paym

ent p

lan.

It

appe

ared

his

pref

erre

d st

rate

gy w

as vo

lunt

ary

bank

rupt

cy.

Subs

eque

ntly

the

owne

rs o

f the

car a

nd o

f the

fenc

e ob

tain

ed

defa

ult j

udge

men

t aga

inst

him

for $

21,000

.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

peo

ple

to b

e lia

ble

for t

heir

debt

s.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

3. C

ase

C re

nted

a p

rote

cted

pre

mise

s und

er th

e La

ndlo

rds a

nd

Tena

nts A

ct fr

om th

e RT

A. T

he R

TA so

ught

to e

vict

her

whe

n sh

e re

ques

ted

repa

irs, c

laim

ing

imm

unity

from

the

Act a

s a

repr

esen

tativ

e of

the

crow

n. T

he C

LC a

ssist

ed C

in a

ppea

ling

to

the

tena

ncy

trib

unal

, how

ever

the

trib

unal

foun

d fo

r the

RTA

. Th

e m

atte

r the

n w

ent t

o th

e N

SW S

upre

me

Cour

t and

fina

lly to

th

e H

igh

Cour

t of A

ustr

alia

, whi

ch fo

und

for t

he te

nant

. The

CLC

as

siste

d C

in o

btai

ning

a n

umbe

r of g

rant

s for

lega

l aid

thro

ugh

the

proc

ess.

Law

s aro

und

cont

rolle

d te

nanc

y ar

e lik

ely

to b

e ba

sed

on

cons

ider

atio

ns o

f equ

ity ra

ther

than

on

cons

ider

atio

ns o

f ec

onom

ic e

ffici

ency

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

4. C

ase

D h

ad b

een

assa

ulte

d w

hich

resu

lted

in h

er b

eing

seve

rely

in

jure

d an

d re

quiri

ng su

rger

y. Th

e CL

C as

siste

d he

r in

prep

arin

g he

r suc

cess

ful c

laim

for v

ictim

’s co

mpe

nsat

ion

in th

e am

ount

of

$18

,000

.

As d

iscus

sed

prev

ious

ly, v

ictim

s com

pens

atio

n is

mos

t lik

ely

an e

quity

mea

sure

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Ther

e m

ay b

e so

me

redu

ctio

n in

adm

inist

ratio

n tim

e fr

om a

pro

perly

pre

pare

d ap

plic

atio

n.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Sim

ilar b

enefi

ts h

ave

prev

ious

ly b

een

asse

ssed

at

$70

.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

5. C

ase

The

pro

pert

y oc

cupi

ed b

y E

had

rece

ntly

bee

n so

ld. T

he n

ew

owne

r ini

tially

offe

red

a six

mon

th le

ase,

how

ever

late

r sou

ght

poss

essio

n of

the

prop

erty

. An

agre

emen

t was

reac

hed

durin

g co

ncili

atio

n fo

r a th

ree

mon

th le

ase

with

a re

ntal

incr

ease

.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

cont

ract

s to

be p

rope

rly

enfo

rced

.A

trib

unal

hea

ring

was

avo

ided

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 200

9-10

, the

CTT

T fin

alise

d 62

,068

ap

plic

atio

ns fo

r a to

tal b

udge

t of $

26.6

m

illio

n,43

or $

429

per a

pplic

atio

n. T

he b

enefi

t is

asse

ssed

at $

430

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Rand

om sa

mpl

e of

case

s


-134-

Deta

ils

the

law

the

pro

cess

exte

rnal

itie

s

6. C

ase

F w

as ch

arge

d w

ith b

eing

an

unlic

ense

d dr

iver

and

driv

ing

negl

igen

tly. T

he C

LC a

ssist

ed h

er w

ith h

er co

urt a

ppea

ranc

e w

here

she

plea

ded

guilt

y an

d re

ceiv

ed a

redu

ced

fine

of $70

0.

She

agre

ed to

pay

the

fine

by in

stal

men

ts d

educ

ted

from

her

Ce

ntre

link

paym

ents

.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

peo

ple

to b

ear t

he co

st o

f th

eir n

eglig

ent b

ehav

ior.

The

cost

s of a

litig

ant i

n pe

rson

wer

e av

oide

d,

as w

ere

reco

very

cost

s fro

m e

nfor

cing

the

judg

emen

t.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

No

budg

etar

y in

form

atio

n is

avai

labl

e fo

r th

e N

SW Lo

cal C

ourt

. The

cost

of a

mat

ter

in th

e Vi

ctor

ian

Mag

istra

tes C

ourt

has

bee

n pr

evio

usly

ass

esse

d at

$27

0, a

nd 20%

(the

ad

ditio

nal c

ost o

f a li

tigan

t in

pers

on b

ased

on

WA

info

rmat

ion)

is $56

. The

cost

of a

ctio

n by

the

Sher

iff’s

Offi

ce h

as b

een

prev

ious

ly

asse

ssed

at $

213,

giv

ing

a to

tal b

enefi

t of $

270.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

7. C

ase

G h

ad li

mite

d En

glish

and

was

a re

cent

mig

rant

with

no

inco

me.

He

had

incu

rred

aro

und

$1,300

in fi

nes f

rom

trav

ellin

g on

trai

ns w

ithou

t a ti

cket

. The

CLC

repr

esen

ted

him

at C

ourt

. He

plea

ded

guilt

y, th

e fin

e w

as re

duce

d an

d a

paym

ent p

lan

was

en

tere

d in

to.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

peo

ple

to b

e lia

ble

for t

heir

debt

s.Pl

eadi

ng g

uilty

and

ent

erin

g in

to a

pa

ymen

t pla

n ha

s pro

babl

y sa

ved

a ra

nge

of

adm

inist

rativ

e an

d co

urt c

osts

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Asse

ssed

abo

ve a

t $27

0.

No

bene

fit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

8. C

ase

H re

nted

a p

rope

rty

from

a C

omm

unity

Hou

sing

Prov

ider

. As

a re

sult

of ch

ange

s in

the

way

of c

alcu

latin

g in

com

e hi

s ren

t w

as in

crea

sed

how

ever

he

had

not p

aid

the

incr

ease

d re

nt. T

he

prov

ider

had

writ

ten

to h

im re

ques

ting

the

outs

tand

ing

rent

. Th

e CL

C ad

vise

d hi

m th

at th

e re

ntal

incr

ease

was

app

ropr

iate

an

d w

ithin

curr

ent g

uide

lines

.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

cont

ract

s to

be e

nfor

ced.

Tim

ely

advi

ce is

like

ly to

lead

to re

duce

d ad

min

istra

tion

cost

s bot

h by

the

prov

ider

and

in

the

tena

ncy

trib

unal

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

CTTT

cost

s hav

e be

en a

sses

sed

at $43

0.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

9. C

ase

I had

wor

ked

as a

casu

al cl

erk

for t

en ye

ars w

hen

she

was

di

smiss

ed. S

he b

elie

ved

she

had

been

unf

airly

dism

issed

, and

th

e CL

C ne

gotia

ted

an o

utco

me

with

her

form

er e

mpl

oyer

in

clud

ing

thre

e w

eeks

’ pay

and

a w

ritte

n re

fere

nce.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

cont

ract

s to

be p

rope

rly

enfo

rced

. How

ever

ther

e is

unlik

ely

to b

e an

eco

nom

ic

effic

ienc

y as

soci

ated

with

unf

air d

ismiss

al la

ws,

with

th

ese

likel

y to

be

an e

quity

mea

sure

.

Neg

otia

ted

outc

ome

save

d tim

e an

d ad

min

istra

tive

effo

rt b

y al

l par

ties a

nd b

y th

e In

dust

rial R

elat

ions

Com

miss

ione

r.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Data

is n

ot a

vaila

ble

for t

he In

dust

rial R

elat

ions

Co

mm

issio

n, h

ence

the

bene

fit h

as b

een

take

n as

sim

ilar t

o th

e CT

TT, t

hat i

s $43

0.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

10. C

ase

J had

pre

viou

sly b

een

a De

part

men

t of H

ousin

g te

nant

, but

was

ev

icte

d du

e to

non

pay

men

t of r

ent.

She

has s

chiz

ophr

enia

and

is

in p

rivat

e re

ntal

acc

omm

odat

ion.

Her

app

licat

ion

to b

e pl

aced

on

the

DoH

hou

sing

list h

ad b

een

refu

sed.

The

CLC

ass

isted

her

in

bei

ng p

lace

d on

the

gene

ral h

ousin

g w

aitin

g lis

t and

ass

isted

he

r with

a su

bmiss

ion

for p

riorit

y ho

usin

g.

Publ

ic h

ousin

g is

an e

quity

mea

sure

and

is n

ot su

ppor

ted

by n

otio

ns o

f eco

nom

ic e

ffici

ency

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-135-

Deta

ils

the

law

the

pro

cess

exte

rnal

itie

s

11. C

ase

K w

as a

schi

zoph

reni

c who

had

a su

stai

ned

a se

rious

inju

ry

durin

g a

sexu

al a

ssau

lt in

her

DoH

flat

. The

CLC

ass

isted

her

w

ith a

succ

essf

ul cl

aim

for v

ictim

’s co

mpe

nsat

ion

for $

29,000

. Th

e CL

C th

en a

ppea

led

and

obta

ined

$45

,000

.

As p

revi

ously

disc

usse

d, v

ictim

’s co

mpe

nsat

ion

is an

eq

uity

mea

sure

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Prop

er a

pplic

atio

n w

ith su

ppor

ting

pape

rwor

k is

likel

y to

hav

e sa

ved

adm

inist

rativ

e co

sts b

y th

e as

sess

or.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

This

bene

fit h

as p

revi

ously

bee

n as

sess

ed a

t $7

0.

No

bene

fit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

12. C

ase

L was

a D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousin

g te

nant

. Due

to a

leak

ing

roof

, his

flat h

ad b

een

dam

p or

wet

for a

four

year

per

iod.

The

pr

oble

m w

as o

ngoi

ng. T

he C

LC a

ssist

ed L

in a

pply

ing

to th

e Te

nanc

y Trib

unal

for n

eces

sary

repa

ir w

ork

to b

e ca

rrie

d ou

t. Th

e de

part

men

t dec

ided

to u

nder

take

the

wor

k an

d he

was

re

loca

ted

to a

noth

er fl

at w

hile

that

wor

k w

as ca

rrie

d ou

t. Th

e CL

C ne

gotia

ted

with

the

Depa

rtm

ent r

egar

ding

dam

ages

su

ffere

d by

thei

r clie

nt a

s a re

sult

of th

e po

or m

aint

enan

ce a

nd

obta

ined

an

ex g

ratia

pay

men

t of $

4,00

0 fo

r L.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

cont

ract

s to

be p

rope

rly

enfo

rced

and

for p

eopl

e to

be

resp

onsib

le fo

r the

ir ne

glig

ence

.

Ther

e is

likel

y to

hav

e be

en a

savi

ng in

cour

t tim

e.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Prev

ious

ly a

sses

sed

at $27

0 pl

us 20%

for a

self

repr

esen

ted

litig

ant,

i.e. $33

0.

The

dam

p co

nditi

ons

appe

ar to

hav

e ha

d so

me

impa

ct o

n N

s hea

lth.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Diffi

cult

to a

sses

s and

ta

ken

as n

il.

13. C

ase

M h

ad b

een

livin

g in

a si

tuat

ion

of d

omes

tic v

iole

nce

for 3

0 ye

ars.

She

had

rece

ntly

obt

aine

d an

AVO

whi

ch h

ad b

een

brea

ched

by

her h

usba

nd. T

he C

LC a

ssist

ed h

er w

ith in

itial

pr

epar

atio

n of

an

appl

icat

ion

for v

ictim

’s co

mpe

nsat

ion.

The

m

atte

r was

refe

rred

to th

e pr

o bo

no se

ctio

n of

a la

rge

lega

l fir

m.

As d

iscus

sed

prev

ious

ly, V

ictim

’s co

mpe

nsat

ion

appe

ars t

o be

an

equi

ty m

easu

re.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

14. C

ase

N a

nd h

er h

usba

nd h

ad b

orro

wed

mon

ey to

inve

st in

a

timbe

r pla

ntat

ion

sche

me.

The

sche

me

was

frau

dule

nt a

nd

the

com

pany

wen

t ban

krup

t. Th

e cr

edito

rs o

f the

com

pany

ob

tain

ed a

judg

emen

t aga

inst

N a

nd h

er h

usba

nd, h

owev

er

they

had

no

asse

ts a

nd li

ttle

inco

me.

The

y w

ere

advi

sed

they

m

ay h

ave

a ca

se a

gain

st th

e co

mpa

ny fo

r bre

ache

s of t

he tr

ade

prac

tices

act

, and

this

clai

m co

uld

be o

ffset

aga

inst

the

debt

. Th

e co

uple

dec

ided

to g

o in

to vo

lunt

ary

bank

rupt

cy, a

s the

y ha

d no

sign

ifica

nt a

sset

s or i

ncom

e.

It is

econ

omic

ally

effi

cien

t for

peo

ple

to b

e re

spon

sible

fo

r the

ir de

bts,

how

ever

it is

not

eco

nom

ical

ly e

ffici

ent f

or

peop

le to

be

rew

arde

d fo

r the

pro

ceed

s of c

rime.

No

bene

fit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Reco

very

and

enf

orce

men

t ac

tion

was

avo

ided

.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Sim

ilar b

enefi

ts h

ave

been

as

sess

ed e

lsew

here

at

$540

.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

15. C

ase

Owasahomelesspersonasaresultoflosingherjobdueto

injuryandlivinginacar.Herapplicationforpriorityhousing

withtheDepartmentofHousingwasdeniedasaresultof

administrativeerrors.Followingareview,shewasgranted

prioritystatusandapprovedfortheSpecialAssistanceSubsidy,

subsidisingheraccommodationintheprivatehousingmarket.

Asdiscussedpreviously,publichousingislikelytobean

equitymeasure.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

TheCLCappearstohaveactedasaninformal

ombudsman.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

TheNSWOmbudsmanreceived 32,50

9complaintsandnotificationsin200

9-10,44with

atotalexpenditureof$

21.1million.

45Thisisa

costpercomplaintof$

649andthisistakenas

thebenefit.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

16. C

ase

Phadasmallbusinessorganisingswinger’sfunctions.He

contractedwithawebdesignertoprovideawebsiteforhis

business.Thewebsitewasdefectiveinanumberofwaysand

heheldthedesignerresponsible.TheCLCadvisedhimthat

hehadlimitedchanceofsuccessintheCTTTduetolackof

certaintyaroundthecontractualarrangement,howeverhe

progressedthematterseeking$30,000,thecostofawebsite

withcompletefunctionality.Inconciliation,heaccepted$1,00

0insettlement.


administered.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Additionalcostsmayhavebeenincurredifthe

matterprogressedtocourt.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Similarbenefitshavebeenpreviouslyassessed

at$33

0.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

17. C

ase

QapproachedtheCLCforadviceregardingobtaining

victim’scompensationforaclaimedassault,payingoff

outstandingfineswithaWorkandDevelopmentOrderand

possiblediscriminationwithregardtohiscriminalrecord.

AnFOIapplicationwaspreparedandonthebasisofthatFOI

applicationhewasadvisedthattherewaslittlesupportforhis

victim’scompensationclaim.Hewasadvisedoftheappropriate

avenueswithregardtoworkingofffinesandprogressing

discriminationclaims.

Victimscompensationislikelytobeanequitymeasure.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytohavebeenasavingin

administrativereviewfromnotprogressinghis

application.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit


0.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

18. C

ase

Rhadbeenemployedatahotelonacasualbasisasabar

attendantandotherdutiesforovernineyears.Thehotelwas

purchasedbynewowners,andaftersixmonthsshewastold

thattherewerenoshiftsavailabletoher.Shesubsequently

foundalternativework.TheCLCassistedherwithreferring

themattertoFairWorkAustraliaandinnegotiationswithher

previousemployer.Thematterwassettledfor$

3,00

0withno

admissionofguiltbythepreviousemployer.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforcontractstobeenforced,

howeverlabourlawsarelikelytobeanequitymeasure

ratherthananefficiencymeasure.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Anegotiatedoutcomeledtoreduced

administrationcosts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

In 200

9-10.FairWorkAustraliahad42,51

6matters,withatotalexpenditureof$

66.7

million,or$

1,56

9permatter.Thisistaken

asthebenefit,althoughitisnotedthatthe

matterhadbeenreferredtoFairWorkAustralia.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

19. C

ase

Swasatraineeteacher.Duetoanadversereport,hefailedhis

finalpracticaltrainingwhichmeanthecouldnotcompletehis

degree.TheCLCassistedhiminpreparationofacasebeforethe

universityassessmentcommittee.Hewasexcludedfromthe

universityforoneyear,allowinghimtore-enrolthefollowing

year.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. C

ase

ThadamentalillnessandwasinaDepartmentofHousing

dwelling.TheDepartmentreceivedallegationsoffraud

claimingthatThadsubletthepropertytoothers.TheCLC

assistedTinpreparingaletterwithsupportingdocumentation

refutingtheallegations.Thematterwasnotprogressed.

Asnotedpreviously,publichousingisanequity,rather

thananefficiency,measure.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

ACTTTmatterappearstohavebeenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thebenefithasbeenpreviouslyassessedat

$430.

Mcouldhavelosthishome

andassociatedsupport

networks.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Removalistcostshave

beenassessedelsewhere

at$60

0.


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

1. A

dvic

e

Awasseparatedfromhiswife.Hewantedtofinaliseaccess

arrangementsregardinghisson.Hiswifehadnotattended

mediation.Herequiredassistanceindraftingparentingorders

whichwasprovidedbytheCLC.Theyalsogavehimadviceand

informationregardingtheprocesstobefollowed.

Aspreviouslydiscussed,itiseconomicallyefficientfor

accessarrangementstobeinthebestinterestsofthe

child.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Likelytobeasmallbenefitinhavingtheorders

draftedproperlyandfromunderstandingthe

process.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Similarbenefitshavebeenassessedataround

$70.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

2. A

dvic

e

Bhadagamblingproblemandhadborrowedaround$7

0,00

0fromarangeofcreditorssuchascreditcardprovidersand

banks.Hedidnotwishtogointobankruptcyandhadarranged

tosellahouseheco-ownedwithhisbrother.Hewasreferred

toafinancialcounsellortoworkouthisassetsandabilityto

payandtodevelopafinancialplan,includingprioritisinghis

debtsandtoprioritiseclaims,includingseekingtimetopayand

paymentbyinstalments.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletoberesponsiblefor

theirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Itislikelythatplanningonhispartwillsave

thecostofrecoveryactionbyhiscreditors.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Similarmattershavebeenassessedat$54

0per

creditor.Assumingfivecreditors,thiswouldbe

abenefitof$

2,70

0.

Thereislikelytobesome

costsavingsfromvoluntary

saleoftheproperty.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Previouslyassessedat

$6,850.

3. A

dvic

e

ChadworkedfortwodaysforDepartmentofCorrective

Servicesunderalabourhireagency.Hewasdismisseddueto

apoorreferencecheckandwasnotpaidforthedayshehad

worked.Hewasadvisedastotheprocesstobefollowedto

recoverthelostwages,firstthroughthefairworkombudsman,

andthenbydebtrecoveryinthelocalcourt.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforcontractstobeenforced,

howeverlabourlawsarelikelytobeanequitymeasure


Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

4. A

dvic

e

Dhadreceivedanoticetoattendcourtregardinganunpaid

trafficfine.TheCLCreviewedtheirfineschecklistwithD

andadvisedherofthelimitedlikelihoodofsuccessandthe

additionalcourtcostslikelytobeincurred.Ddecidedtopaythe

fine.


theirdebtsandfortheirownnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytohavebeenasavingincourt

timeandinenforcementcosts.Thesehave

beenpreviouslyassessedat$54

0.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

5. A

dvic

e

Ewasrequiredtoattendadisciplinaryinterviewwithhis

employerrelatingtoanumberofmatters.Hisunionis

representinghim.HesoughttheCLC’sassistanceinalso

representinghimandwasadvisedtheywereunabletohelp.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Rand

om sa

mpl

e of

Adv

ices


-��-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

6. A

dvic

e

Fhadreceivedanoticetoattendcourtregardingunpaidtraffic

fines.TheCLCreviewedtheirfineschecklistwithAandadvised

himofthelimitedlikelihoodofsuccessandtheadditionalcourt

costslikelytobeincurred.Fdecidedtopaythefines.



Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thereislikelytohavebeenasavingincourt

timeandinenforcementcosts.Thesehave

beenpreviouslyassessedat$54

0.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

7. A

dvic

e

Ghasreferredacomplaintagainstothermembersofherstrata

schemetotheCTTT.Shewasassessedasbeingcompetentto

representherselfasshehaspreviouslydonesosuccessfully,and

wasgivenadviceaboutbeingclearregardingtheissuesand

compromisingwithreasonablesuggestions.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

8. A

dvic

e

Hsoughttohaveparentingorderswithherex-husband

revised.Shewasadvisedthatshemustfirsttryfamilydispute

resolutionandwasadvisedoftheprocess.Shewasfurther

advisedthatshewouldqualifyforlegalaidandwasreferredto

herprevioussolicitor.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforthelawtoactinthebest

interestsofthechild.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Therewaslikelytobeabenefitinreduced

administrationtimefromHunderstandingthe

processtobefollowed.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

9. A

dvic

e

Ihadbeenbulliedandharassedbyaco-workeroveratwoyear

periodculminatinginherbeingassaulted.Thematterwas

referredtothepolicewhorecommendedanAVO.Theco-worker

hasbeensuspendedandsheisconcernedwhatwillhappenif

theco-workerreturnstowork.Shewasadvisedtoreportthe

mattertoheremployerandprogresstheAVO.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforemployerstobearthecost

ofprovidingasafeworkplace.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

10. A

dvic

e

J’sdaughter,son-in-lawandchildrenwerelivingwithherand

herhusband.Asaresultofanaltercation,theson-in-lawhad

assaultedJandJhadappliedforanAVO.Theson-in-lawwas

nolongerlivingwithher.ItappearedthatJhadarrangedthe

meetingwithregardtoconcernsregardingDVagainsther

daughter,howeverthesituationwascomplexandthedaughter

hadnotmadeanyreporttopoliceandwasreluctanttodiscuss

thematter.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�40-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

11. A

dvic

e

Kwassupervisingalearnerdriver,L,whocommittedatraffic

offence.Lobtainedherlicensebutthepointsfromtheoffence

meantherlicensewassuspended.Kwantedtoknowifthe

pointscouldbetransferredtohislicenseashewassupervising

J.Hewasadvisedthattheycouldbothhavebeenfined,andif

Lwantedtoappealthematter,shewouldneedtoattendcourt

andaskthemagistratenottorecordthepointshoweverthe

magistrateisunlikelytoviewtheapplicationfavourably.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobearthe

consequencesoftheirownnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thecostofanappealhasbeensaved.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Amagistratescourthearingforaself-

representedlitiganthasbeenassessedat$

320.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

12. A

dvic

e

Mhadresignedhisjobasheconsideredhewasbeingbullied

andharassed.ThematterhadbeeninvestigatedbyWorkcover

andtheyfoundnoactioncouldbetakenagainsttheemployer.

Mwasadvisedthathewasunlikelytohaveacourseofaction

andadiscriminationclaimwasunlikelytohaveanymerit.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforemployerstoprovideasafe

workplace.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Thecostofanappealhasbeenavoided.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Thecostofamagistrateshearingbyaself

representedlitiganthasbeenassessed

previouslyat$

320.

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

13. A

dvic

e

Nwasridinganunregisteredmotorscooterwhenhenoticed

policebehindhim.Heparkedthescooterandwalkedaway

buthenoticedthepoliceattempttoremovetheplates,and

thenremovetheregistrationlabelholder.Hewantedtoknow

whatwouldhappen.Hewasadvisedhewaslikelytoreceive

twoinfringementnotices,oneforunregisteredandonefor

unlicensed.TheCLCreviewedtheirfinechecklistwithhim.

Itiseconomicallyefficientforpeopletobearthe

consequencesoftheirnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

14. A

dvic

e

O’ssuperannuationwasinapreviousnameusedbyher.She

wishedtohavehersuperannuationinherlegalname.The

CLCassistedherindraftingaletterandadvisedthetypeof

supportingdocumentationthatwouldberequired.Following

correspondencewiththeSuperannuationprovider,shewas

furtheradvisedtoobtaincertifiedcopiesofsupporting

documentation.

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

15. A

dvic

e

Phadinvested$47,000withanotherpartywhohaddefrauded

herandleftthecountry.Shehadobtainedadefaultjudgement

for$

53,000andthepolicewerepursuingfraudchargesagainst

theotherparty.Shewasinarrearswithrespecttoanotherbank

loan,andwantedtoknowheroptionstoobtainthemoney.She

wasadvisediftheotherpartyisfoundguiltyoffraudthanshe

couldusethatasabasistorecoverthemoney,otherwiseshe

willneedtoprogresscivilaction.

Itisnoteconomicallyefficientforcrimetoberewarded.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�4�-

detA

ils

tHe

lAW

tHe

pro

Cess

exte

rnAl

itie

s

16. A

dvic

e

Qhadbeendismissedforfailingtocomplywithadirection.

Hewishedtodisputethedismissal.HewasreferredtotheFair

WorkOmbudsman.

Unfairdismissallawsarelikelytobeanequitymeasure


Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

17. A

dvic

e

Rhadadisputewithaschoolregardingunpaidschoolfees.

Whiletherewereoutstandingfees,therehadalsobeenclerical

errorsininvoicingandRhadofferedtopayofftheproper

outstandingamountbyinstalments.Shereviewedherdraft

statementwiththeCLCandwasgivenareferralincaseshe

wantedrepresentation.


theirdebts.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

18. A

dvic

e

Shadbeenchargedwithatrafficoffencewhichhadresultedin

atrafficcrash.Hebelievedtheotherdriverhadchangedtheir

intentions.Hesoughttocontestthefineandinsuranceclaim.

Swasadvisedofthelegalbasishecouldusetocontestthefine

andoftheconsequencesofbeingfoundguilty,includingthe

maximumpenaltyandcourtcostsandwasreferredtoaprivate

solicitor.


theirownnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

19. A

dvic

e

ThadanupcominghearingforalowrangePCAoffence.She

hadanumberofconvictionsforspeedingwhichshehadnot

contestedbutnowwishedtocontestandhaveremovedfrom

herrecord.Shewasadvisedherproperfocusshouldbeonthe

PCAoffenceandthatthepreviousoffenceswillbetimelimited.

Tdecidedtoproceedwithcourtactionaroundtheprevious

offences.


theirownnegligence.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

20. A

dvic

e

Uandhisfriendhiredacar,usingU’sfather’screditcard

withoutpermission.A15yearoldunlicenseddriverwasdriving

thecarwhenitwasinvolvedinacrashandwrittenoff.The

crashwasnotcoveredbyinsurance.Thecarhirecompany

soughtfullrecoveryofthedebtfromUasthefriendwasin

hiding.Hewasadvisedthathewasliableforthefulldebtunder

thehirecontract,andthatheshouldnegotiatepaymentterms

withthecreditorandhonourthosepaymentterms.



Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Nobenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil

Noapparentbenefit.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f ben

efit

Nil


-�4�-

Appendix Footnotes1 Bauserman,R.(2002)ChildAdjustmentinJoint-CustodyVersusSole-Custody:AMeta-AnalyticReview,Journal of Family Psychology,AmericanPsychologicalAssociationAPA,Inc.2002,Vol.16,No.1,91-102

2 Taylor,P.,Moore,P.,Pezzullo,L.,Tucci,J.,Goddard,C.andDeBortoli,L.(2008),The Cost of Child Abuse in Australia, AustralianChildhoodFoundationandChildAbusePreventionResearchAustralia:Melbourne.

3 AccessEconomics(2004),The Cost of Domestic Violence to the Australian Economy.

4 Magistrates’CourtofVictoriaAnnualReport2009-10,page102.

5 Ibid, page25.

6 Malcolm,D.(2004)2004 Annual Review of Western Australian Courts,page50.

7 ABSHouseholdexpendituredata.

8 VictorianPolice,Annual Report 2009-2010,page70.

9 Ibid,page24.

10 DepartmentofJustice,Annual Report 2009-2010,pages24and87,withJSAcalculation.

11 DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,Annual Report 2009-10, page337withJSAcalculation.

12 Ibid, page2.

13 Bauserman,R.(2002)ChildAdjustmentinJoint-CustodyVersusSole-Custody:AMeta-AnalyticReview,Journal of Family Psychology,AmericanPsychologicalAssociationAPA,Inc.2002,Vol.16,No.1,91-102

14 Taylor,P.,Moore,P.,Pezzullo,L.,Tucci,J.,Goddard,C.andDeBortoli,L.(2008),The Cost of Child Abuse in Australia, AustralianChildhoodFoundationandChildAbusePreventionResearchAustralia:Melbourne.

15 AccessEconomics(2004),The Cost of Domestic Violence to the Australian Economy.

16 SupremeCourtofVictoria,Annual Report 2008-09,pages2-3(notedataestimatedfromgraphicalpresentation).

17 Ibid,page41.

18 VCAT,Annual Report 2009/10,page5.

19 Op cit, pages46and142.NotethattheNetburdenofdiseasehasnotbeenincluded.Thiscanbeunderstoodasthepricetheindividualwouldpaytoavoidthetraumaofabuseandneglectandisestimatedat$7.7billion.HoweverGovernmentexpenditureof$3billioncouldbeseenasthepricesocietyispreparedtopaytoavoidthetraumaofabuseandneglectandisincludedintheestimateof$6,712million.

20 Op cit, Table51.

21 Thisvalueexcludesthevalueofsufferingandprematuredeath.Thewriterbelievestheinclusionofthisestimateiscontentiousforreasonsstatedelsewhere,essentiallythatthevaluemayrepresentanindividual’swillingnesstopayratherthansociety’swillingnesstopay,withsociety’swillingnesstopayincludedinAdministrativeandOtherCosts.

22 Mayhew,P(2003)Counting the Costs of Crime in Australia, AustralianInstituteofCriminology,page3.

23 VictorianDepartmentofHumanServices,Annual Report 2009-10,page25.

24 http://www.redbook.com.au/used-cars/details.aspx?r=66124&__Qpb=1&Cr=0&__ns=p_make_string|0||p_Classificationtype_string|0||p_family_string|0||p_year_string|1||p_sequencenum_int32|0&__n=2994%204294958234%204294843515%204294965618&silo=1300&seot=1&__nne=15&trecs=27&__sid=130758b4C0fdaccessed9June2011.

25 Telephoneinquiry,10June2011.

26 Op cit.

27 DepartmentofHumanServices,Annual Report 2009-10, page39.

28 VictorianDepartmentofHealthAnnual Report 2009-10, page168.

29 http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/index.htmlaccessed10June2011.

30 http://www.apra.gov.au/statistics/monthly-banking-statistics.cfmaccessed10June2011.

31 VictorianOfficeofthePublicAdvocate, Annual Report 2008-09, pages8and55.

32 Mayhew,P(2003)Counting the Costs of Crime in Australia, AustralianInstituteofCriminology,page3.

33 DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,Annual Report 2009-10, page410.

34 MichaelO’Connell,M(2003);PaperpresentedattheInnovation:PromisingPracticesforVictimsandWitnessesintheCriminalJusticeSystem.ANationalConference,Canberra,23–24June,2003.UniversityHouse,ANU,Australia.

35 AustralianSafetyandCompensationCouncil(2009),The Cost of Work-Related Injury and Illness for Australian Employers, Workers and the Community: 2005-06, table2.2.

36 AustralianBureauofStatistics,5206.0 Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product.

37 FamilyCourtofWesternAustralia(2010)Annual Review 2010, page5.


-�4�-

38 Telephoneenquiry15June2011.

39 NSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral,Annual Report 2009-10, page236.

40 Ibid, page166.

41 NSWGovernment,Rent and Sales Report No. 95, Table8.

42 http://www.irec.com.au/index.php?c=4accessed16June2011.

43 Consumer,TraderandTenancyTribunal(2010),Annual Report 2009-2010, pages7&53.

44 NSWOmbudsman,Annual Report 2009 2010, page7.

45 Ibid, page119.

Documents

Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Community Legal Centres · 2020-06-18 · Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Community Legal Centres National Association of Community Legal Centres