I'm sorry if I'm saying any of this the wrong way.
Legal Aid has a number of policies that are intended to put pressure on their clients to settle quickly in a family law matter; the financial test and required contributions are unreasonably high, there has to be mediation even in situations where there's been documented abuse, clients have to accept offers from the other spouse that legal aid lawyers decide are 'reasonable' without any outside scrutiny or review or their grants are revoked, and there's a funding cap on each matter.
There have been Senate inquiries into Legal Aid funding that came up with reports describing how family law funding is unfair to clients, especially women. But the funding rules haven't changed.
Indirect discrimination is where a policy that appears neutral on the surface disadvantages a protected group. In the case of legal aid family law matters, most legal aid clients are women. The Senate has at least sort of said that the policies are unfair to clients (I don't want to overstate the legal weight to these reports). Indirect discrimination against women is supposed to be against the law in Australia both because of the DDA and the human rights treaties Australia has signed. Also because of the human rights treaties Australia has signed, the government is supposed to be responsible for taking special care in situations of women being victims of family violence or where women are being pushed into poverty.
Is there any legal standing to challenge these funding policies as discriminatory or as human rights violations?
PS - Apologies to any men out there who also use legal aid in a divorce. This isn't meant to minimize your frustration.
Legal Aid has a number of policies that are intended to put pressure on their clients to settle quickly in a family law matter; the financial test and required contributions are unreasonably high, there has to be mediation even in situations where there's been documented abuse, clients have to accept offers from the other spouse that legal aid lawyers decide are 'reasonable' without any outside scrutiny or review or their grants are revoked, and there's a funding cap on each matter.
There have been Senate inquiries into Legal Aid funding that came up with reports describing how family law funding is unfair to clients, especially women. But the funding rules haven't changed.
Indirect discrimination is where a policy that appears neutral on the surface disadvantages a protected group. In the case of legal aid family law matters, most legal aid clients are women. The Senate has at least sort of said that the policies are unfair to clients (I don't want to overstate the legal weight to these reports). Indirect discrimination against women is supposed to be against the law in Australia both because of the DDA and the human rights treaties Australia has signed. Also because of the human rights treaties Australia has signed, the government is supposed to be responsible for taking special care in situations of women being victims of family violence or where women are being pushed into poverty.
Is there any legal standing to challenge these funding policies as discriminatory or as human rights violations?
PS - Apologies to any men out there who also use legal aid in a divorce. This isn't meant to minimize your frustration.