There hasn't been much noise about the latest reference to the Productivity Commission which may affect the future conduct of litigation in Australia. On 20 June the Commonwealth Government asked the Productivity Commission to examine the factors contributing to the current costs of securing legal representation and accessing justice services, the social and economic impacts of these costs, and whether they are proportionate to the issues in dispute.
The Commission will report on options for achieving lower-cost dispute resolution, including through alternative dispute resolution, the use of technology and expedited procedures.
It will also provide advice on data collection across the justice system to enable better monitoring of costs and evaluation of measures aimed at keeping costs down.
This raises the question, what is the real cost of access to justice and legal representation? Is it just the cost of providing the courts and tribunals, the community legal aid and the public prosecutors and defenders? Or does it go further to encompass the incidental costs which are driven by the way litigation is conducted? The loss of productivity? The endless appeals by those parties who can afford it? What does it cost the nation to have so many law schools churning out so many law graduates?
Surely the "real cost" of anything must also encompass the cost of the natural resources used and the environmental harm caused, as well as the social cost.
The outcome could provide support for those advocating the use of more technology in litigation, electronic case management, and ADR. However all these solutions will require increases in budgets which can only be justified if we see what the "real cost" is.
The response of the NSW Government to the rising cost of litigation is to abolish legal aid for public interest environmental litigation and query whether the Environmental Defender's Office should receive any government funding. The EDO has had several successes lately against polluters and mining companies which hasn't made it popular in some quarters. Fortunately the Commonwealth came to its aid with $300,000 to keep it going.
More information is available at www.pc.gov.au
 |
| Photo by Comstock Images via Getty Images |
It will also provide advice on data collection across the justice system to enable better monitoring of costs and evaluation of measures aimed at keeping costs down.
This raises the question, what is the real cost of access to justice and legal representation? Is it just the cost of providing the courts and tribunals, the community legal aid and the public prosecutors and defenders? Or does it go further to encompass the incidental costs which are driven by the way litigation is conducted? The loss of productivity? The endless appeals by those parties who can afford it? What does it cost the nation to have so many law schools churning out so many law graduates?
Surely the "real cost" of anything must also encompass the cost of the natural resources used and the environmental harm caused, as well as the social cost.
The outcome could provide support for those advocating the use of more technology in litigation, electronic case management, and ADR. However all these solutions will require increases in budgets which can only be justified if we see what the "real cost" is.
The response of the NSW Government to the rising cost of litigation is to abolish legal aid for public interest environmental litigation and query whether the Environmental Defender's Office should receive any government funding. The EDO has had several successes lately against polluters and mining companies which hasn't made it popular in some quarters. Fortunately the Commonwealth came to its aid with $300,000 to keep it going.
More information is available at www.pc.gov.au
