Applying pressure to the government worked Down Under

As a newly arrived Australian, there has been much I have had to get used to in the UK. Yes, obviously, it has taken time to acclimatise to the weather, as has realising you're actually quite good at cricket. I was, however, not expecting to come face-to-face with another debate on the merits of legal aid, and the impact on society of not having a properly funded justice system.

The Australian coalition made AUS$25m worth of cuts to legal aid services shortly after the 2013 federal election. The impact of austerity in the country brought about a robust discussion over allocation of resources and the priorities of government-funded serious crime cases, criminal representation in the lower courts, and serious civil and family law matters. Yet all lawyers, the courts, and academics had to ask was the simple but crucial question: who deserves legal aid?

The embattled Australian government faced mounting criticism over the cuts, with seven state and territory attorney generals writing to their federal counterparty, George Brandis, to demand a reversal of the cuts to frontline legal aid services, due to their inevitable, negative impact on Indigenous people and victims of domestic violence.

A national conversation about domestic violence had, simultaneously, been growing in Australia. For many years, the issue remained behind closed doors as victims felt stigmatised and reluctant to speak out. This all changed, thanks, in part, to the input of respected journalists, like Waleed Aly, and campaigners, such as recent 'Australian of the Year', Rosie Batty.

In the lead up to the 2015 federal Budget, Batty labelled domestic violence as 'family terrorism', saying: 'The federal Budget should have committed more money over the longer term to prevent domestic and family violence and provide a sustainable long-term footing for legal aid, community legal centres and aboriginal legal services.'

In March 2015, the pressure of public opinion finally paid off, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott's deeply conservative and beleaguered government reversed cuts to legal aid. Attorney General Brandis issued a government guarantee to fund the legal assistance sector for the next two years. The intended cut, which was expected to take effect on 1 July 2015, was cancelled with the government committed to contribute $1.327bn to the sector.

The decision restored $25.5m of funding over two years, with $12m going to 61 community legal centres, $2m to state legal aid commissions, and $11.5m to indigenous legal service providers.

The cuts to legal aid in Australia reflect a similar approach to legal aid funding in the UK. While the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, has the potential to outshine his predecessor, by continuing the reversal of Grayling's worst decisions, he appears, so far, to have merely adopted a pragmatic approach to justice issues.

Politicians in the UK - as in Australia - seem deeply unapologetic that these cuts affect those that history demonstrates are unlikely to pursue the course of justice due to a lack of education, funding, being victims of abuse, vulnerable to mental health issues, and those from lower socio-economic groups. Citizens once supported by the safety net of legal aid lawyers are now left to navigate the labyrinth of the legal system on their own. Although there is still some way to go, Australia has made headway by recognising the arguments and evidence from influential advocates about the impact of cuts to legal aid.

Those prominent UK lawyers and campaigners fighting to reverse the effects of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), and reforms to criminal legal aid, should take heart from the Australian experience. Applying pressure to government can work if you have the stomach for the fight.

Esther Nimmo is an editorial assistant at Solicitors Journal