Lyons, Greg --- "Editorial" [1981] AboriginalLawB 20; (1981) 1(2) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 2

• Editorial
• Recommendations Deserve Attention
• An Inquiry Into The Department Of Aboriginal Affairs
• The Need For Daa To Employ A Senior Lawyer
• Affirmative Action Needed In Law Faculties
• References:

---

Editorial

by Greg Lyons

Recommendations deserve attention

In its valuable report, Aboriginal Legal Aid, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (the 'Ruddock Committee') makes numerous recommendations to the Federal Government. Central to these recommendations is the Committee's view that the Government should continue to support separate Aboriginal Legal Services. While the Government has endorsed this view, it has shied away from some of the Committee's less-noticed recommendations. The purpose of this editorial is to highlight three of the Committee's less-publicised suggestions, to indicate the Government's responses to these recommendations and to urge a reconsideration of those responses.

An Inquiry into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Because of unease about the performance of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs - the Department which allocates funding to Aboriginal Legal Services and exercises some supervision over their functioning - the Ruddock Committee called for an inquiry into the DAA's 'present structure; role, composition and future'. The inquiry should not be an internal Departmental review. According to the Committee, it should be carried out by 'a small group of Aboriginal people and experts drawn from outside the Commonwealth and State Public Service structures who are familiar with Aboriginal Affairs and experienced in the organisation and delivery of programs designed to assist disadvantaged people.' The suggestion that Aboriginal people should be included amongst those conducting the inquiry is commendable. Notwithstanding the Committee's view, the Government has declined to act, saying that the DAA's delivery of services was reviewed by Sir David Hay in 1976 and that his fmdingswere subsequently implemented. The Ruddock Committee was well aware of the Hay Report and its conequences, yet felt obliged to make several trenchant criticisms of the DAA. Those criticisms concern the Department's distinct lack of progress in developing methods to evaluate the effectiveness of Aboriginal Legal Services, and its lack of enthusiasm and support for various Aboriginal Legal Service initiatives. The Committee was also concerned at the Department's lack of a clear set off priorities in allocating funds to a wide variety of programs - health, housing, education, legall aid and soo on - and in allocating funds between . competing claimants in each of these areas. It. is regrettable that the Government has rejected the call for a thorough review of the DAA; without that review, many people working in Aboriginal organisations will have reason to question the functioning, priorities and structure of the Department which has a powerful influence in their lives.

The need for DAA to employ a senior lawyer

Problems the DAA has experienced in developing sound relations with Aboriginal Legal Services stem in part from the fact that the DAA employs no lawyer experienced in the workings of Aboriginal Legal Services. The Ruddock Committee recognised as much. It recommended that the DAA employ a `senior lawyer who is experienced in legal aid matters and familiar with the special legal needs and problems of Aboriginals to advise both the Aboriginal legal services and the Government on the operation of the Aboriginal legal aid program.' Given that annual allocations to the twelve Aboriginal Legal Services across Australia now exceed $4 million, the suggestion has obvious merit. The Government's response is that the DAA, like other Government Departments, can call on 'appropriate Commonwealth authorities' - in practice, officers of the Attorney General's Department and the new Commonwealth Legal Aid Council - for advice on matters of law and the administration of legal aid programs. The Government's response. has a superficial attraction. Two points need to be made, however. First, it is not clear whether there are people in the 'appropriate Commonwealth authorities' with first-hand experience of'work in an Aboriginal Legal Service and a broad experience in legal aid matters. Second, those working in Aboriginal Legal Services - lawyers in particular - will have no easily identified lawyer within the DAA with whom they can develop a relationship based on shared professional concerns. For its part, the DAA will remain without a lawyer to immediately and informally advise on the activities, initiatives and problems of the various Aboriginal Legal Services.

Affirmative Action needed in Law Faculties

The Ruddock Committee recommends that the Government promote `the provision of special entrance conditions for Aboriginal students by university law faculties'. The Committee also recognises that Aboriginal law students may need extra support and tuition during their courses. In short, the Committee recommends affirmative action by law schools to ensure they admit a certain number of Aboriginal students to their courses. Without spelling out its concern, it is clear that the Committee wants law schools to act to reduce the institutional barriers facing prospective Aboriginal law students. The Governmerit 'appears somewhat wary of the Committee's suggestion, referring to its existing policy of offering some financial support to Aboriginal students already enrolled at tertiary institutions. The Government also states that the 'Department of Education will seek to develop methods of sensitizing tertiary institutions to the need to promote the enrolment of Aboriginals in their law schools This commitment appears to fall short of the Committee's recommendation that the Government promote 'the provision of special entrance conditions for Aboriginal students by university law faculties'. On the question of affirmative action, the Government seems reluctant to squarely face the issue.

The Government has accepted and acted upon numerous recommendations of the Ruddock Committee. Other recommendations have won some favour. With regard to the recommendations in this editorial, further consideration is needed.

References:

1. Report of the House of Representatives

Standing Committee on AboriginalAffairs, Aboriginal Legal Aid, A.G.P.S., 1980 (especially Recommendations 6, 24, 25, 41, 43 and 44).

2. Ministerial Statement 'Commonwealth Government Response to the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs', HansaPd, House of Representatives, 26 March 1981, 989 - 998.