For many people, legal fees can be a disabling burden. Cost barriers, alongside cultural or geographical barriers, can be so insurmountable that needed legal advice may never be an option.
In such situations, community legal centres (CLCs) are a salve. These independent organisations epitomise principles of mutual aid and equal legal access. Offering legal services, such as advice or representation, free of charge on a needs-basis, CLCs play a key role in repairing the relationship between marginalised individuals and a legal system often devoid of justice.
But unlike their corporate counterparts which rake in cash, CLCs need to scrounge for funding elsewhere. The majority of CLC funding derives from the federal government, which then distributes to state governments. However, this barely covers their costs. After decades of Liberal governance, CLC funding has been significantly reduced, but in the context of cost of living crises, demand has soared. Without adequate funding, the services are swamped by demand — the funding is vital to hiring more solicitors and administrative officers, who can facilitate more cases. A number of CLCs face a precarious existence, and others are struggling to expand, offering jobs with one-year contracts due to financial volatility.
This issue is particularly pernicious as many CLCs specialise in services for a specific group or issue — for example, the Aboriginal Legal Service provides free legal assistance to First Nations people across Australia, and the Welfare Rights Centre focus on legal advice for appeals against Centrelink decisions, fighting against decisions cancel welfare payments or raise a debt. Each CLC in NSW is often the only one to specialise in that type of service, meaning restriction on any one CLC severely hampers legal access. A legal solution often pushes the first domino towards resolving other issues — for example, the waiver of an incorrect welfare debt may allow someone to reapply for housing, and then stay safe and healthy.
Many CLCs are transparent about their dearth in funding, with the Welfare Rights Centre encouraging callers to contact their local Federal MP about a funding increase. Honi spoke to Katrina Ironside from CLCNSW, a peak body of 42 CLCs, who articulated further issues that estrange CLCs from well-needed funding.
Ironside explained that Government funding is subject to delays as funding applications need to be processed through two levels of government. For example, the Welfare Rights Centre was promised flood funding to cater to clients in Lismore and adjacent areas, but it was received 15 months after the damages.
“These delays mean you can’t hold staff, making it hard to provide consistent services”, Ironside explained.
“You lose good staff and expertise in an area of law helping traumatised people.”
Ironside also elaborated on the difficulty in paying staff. Recently, there has been a Fair Work Commission-ordered 5.5% increase in wages. However, CLCs do not automatically get an increase in funding to match this as they do not fall under the category of government organisations.
“The only option is to reduce staff”, Ironside lamented, which has “real implications for people — staff and clientele.”
Without concrete promises of funding increases, CLCs have turned to alternative streams of money. Some turn to sponsorships or partnerships, such as with health insurance funds or unions. Others, such as the Refugee Advice & Casework Service, invest time and money into fundraising. As these resources are limited and zero-sum, Ironside explains this prevents CLCs from “solely focusing on service provision”.
The question begged to be asked — in the face of dwindling funds, what is the solution to keep CLCs afloat? And what role should the government play?
Ironside stressed the need for changed governmental policy, where all CLCs receive baseline, invariable funding. This would allow the Centre to build a consistent legal service, whilst additional funding can soften the financial blow of sudden incidents, such as natural disasters. Funding can also facilitate automatic indexation when wages change, and in the long-term, can be invested into the running of an organisation.
“Centres need to have up to date technology and back-end support”, Ironside expressed, “to avoid service interruptions”.
Although some CLCs represent clients in proceedings against the government, Ironside sees this as no reason to prevent a healthy relationship between CLCs and the government. Ironside believes, “Our work at CLCs helps the government, as we are helping people with government processes. The government should see it as a strength that we can alert their bodies to potential problems before they get worse”. Preceding the suite of Liberal governments, this relationship was closer, and Ironside hopes the eventual estrangement will be repaired.
As a shrinkage of the CLC sector would be a lose-lose situation for all parties, policy reform is desperately needed to keep the blood pumping in Centres. An equitable and fair justice system is impossible without quality legal services accessible to all.
