Second class lawyers for second class citizens?

266 Social security advocacy Second class lawyers for second class citizens? W illiam D e Maria Research at the Brisbane Welfare Rights Centre looks at the effectiveness of social security advocacy. Should the focus at welfare rights centres be case advocacy or class activism9 William de Maria teaches in the Department of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of Queensland. N o t m u ch re searc h h as b e e n d o n e y e t o n w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre s in A u stra lia. T h e u s u a l w o r k l o a d p r o f i l e s a r e r u s h e d to g e th e r a ro u n d fu n d in g tim e an d th a t s a b o u t it, a s th e c e n tr e s lo c k in to th e trip le re a litie s o f risin g p o v e rty, fa llin g c o m p a ssio n a n d fiscal re d u c tio n s.1 T h e stu d y re p o rte d h e re d iscu sses th e re su lts o f re s e a rc h c o n d u c te d a t th e B ris b a n e W e lf a r e R i g h ts C e n t r e ( B W R C ) in 1991. T h e re su lts w e re b a s e d o n in fo r m a tio n fro m th re e se p a ra te sa m p le s: a first c o n ta c t sam p le o f 6 4 clien ts; a te le p h o n e c o n ta c t sa m p le o f 6 9 clien ts; a n d a S o c ia l S e c u r ity A p p e a ls T r i b u n a l ( S S A T ) s a m p le o f 3 2 c lie n ts. W h ile so m e re su lts fro m th e first tw o sam p les are d isc u sse d h ere, th e y a re re p o rte d in d e ta il e ls e w h e r e.2 T h is s tu d y fo c u s e s m o re o n th e re su lts fro m th e S S A T sa m p le. T h e a rtic le fa lls in to tw o sectio n s. In th e first p a rt re su lts o f an ev a lu a tio n o f a d v o c a c y p ra ctices a t B W R C a re p r e sen ted. T h is ev a lu a tio n w a s b a se d o n a th re e - c o r n e r e d m e th o d o lo g y w h e re b y d is a d v a n ta g e d p e o p le, a d v o c a te s a n d m e m b e rs o f 32 S o cial S ecu rity A p p e a ls T rib u n a ls (S S A T s) w e re a b le to a sse ss e a c h o th e r w ith r e s p e c t to c a s e s th a t w e n t fro m B W R C to th e S S A T in th e re searc h p erio d. In th e se c o n d p a rt so m e h isto ric a l n o tes o n so c ia l security a d v o c a cy a re d etailed. A g e n e ra l c ritiq u e o f w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre s is th en o ffered. A dvocacy before the SSAT: research results A c c o rd in g to a re c e n t su rv e y th e B W R C h a n d le d m o re c a s e s a t th e S S A T th a n a n y o t h e r w e l f a r e r i g h t s c e n t r e in A u stra lia in 1991.3 F o u r im p o rta n t m a tte rs c o m e to g e th e r to p r o d u c e a n a d v o c a t e d a c t i o n b e fo re th e S S A T : th e a p p e a r a n c e o f a D S S d e c is io n h o stile to th e B W R C clien t; th e in tra c ta b ility o f th e d e c isio n, a s te ste d b y c lie n ts a n d /o r B W R C re p re s e n ta tio n s b a c k to D S S, sp e c ific a lly th r o u g h u n p r o d u c ti v e r e - c o n ta c ts w ith d e te rm in in g o ffic e rs a n d u n su c c e s s f u l s u b m i s s i o n s to i n t e r n a l re v ie w o ffic ers; th e a b ility /w illin g n e ss o f th e B W R C to a c c e p t re sp o n sib ility fo r an S S A T ap p e al; th e fa ith o f c lie n ts w h o fe el th a t th e B W R C w ill d o th e r i g h t th in g b y th em. T h e f i r s t c o n ta c t g r o u p o f B W R C c lie n ts (th o se w h o m a d e a first ap p ro ach to B W R C d u rin g th e re s e a rc h p e rio d ) w e re a s k e d h o w th e y th o u g h t B W R C co u ld h elp. n % A d v ic e a n d in fo rm a tio n 4 0 34 S S A T re p re sen ta tio n 2 9 24 S p e a k in g to D S S o n th e ir b e h a lf 2 2 18 H e lp in g lo d g e ap p e a l 8 7 O th e r 2 0 17 T h e n u m b e r o f re sp o n se s e x c eed s th e n u m b e r o f re sp o n d e n ts b e c a u se m u ltip le a n s w e r s w e re p e r m itte d. W h e n a s s is ta n c e w ith ap p e a l lo d g e m e n t is a d d e d to th e S S A T re p re sen ta tio n fig u res w e can s e e th a t a th ird o f a ll s e rv ic e e x p e c ta tio n s o f B W R C w e r e S S A T c e n tr e d. A n o th e r th ird s o u g h t a d v ic e a n d in fo r m atio n. T h e B W R C seem s fo rced to a c t a s a D S S a d v ic e c e n tre b e c a u s e m a n y p e o p le in d isp u te w ith D S S w o u ld n o t tr u s t th e q u a lity o r to ta lity o f o ffic ia l i n f o r m a t i o n. T h e m o s t c o m m o n re s p o n s e in th e r e la tiv e ly h ig h o th e r g ro u p w as d o n t k n o w [w h y th e y c o n ta c te d B W R C ]. T h e stu d y w a s n o t in a p o sitio n to fo llo w th is u p b u t ca n o ffe r so m e h y p o th eses: th e d o n t k n o w fig u re re fle c te d an ig n o ra n c e a b o u t B W R C s ca p acity to h e lp a n d th e ty p e o f a s s is ta n c e it c o u ld o ffer; th e f ig u r e m a y a ls o r e f le c t a d e e p p e ssim ism o n th e p a rt o f clien ts th a t th e irs is an in tra c ta b le a n d d esp e rate situ a tio n in w h ic h th e y c a n n o t see a s o lu tio n a n d th e r e f o r e d o n t k n o w h o w B W R C c a n h elp ; th e fig u re m a y a lso re fle c t co n fu sio n o n th e p a rt o f th e c a lle r, w h ich m ay b e a re fle c tio n o f th e c o m p le x ity o f t h e d i s p u t e w i t h w h ic h t h e y a r e faced. ALTERNATIVE LAW JOURNAL

Social security advocacy 26 7 Fair hearing and impartiality Thirty-two cases went from the BWRC to the SSAT in the research period (16 January 14 March 1991). The social security advocates4 spent on average a minimum of six hours and a maximum of 11.9 hours preparing and co-presenting such cases. All in all advocates who presented at the SSAT were satisfied that they had been given a fair opportunity to put their client s case. Only 10% of the advocates harboured dissatisfaction. When asked what constituted a fair opportunity to put their case, 17 out of the 21 responses here said this meant the SSAT offering the advocate an opportunity to address them. This low level, almost deferential expectation, was so common among the advocates that one wonders whether it is a direct result or a by-product of their training, or whether the SSAT has informally instilled this attitude in the advocates. When asked to comment on tribunal impartiality 90% of the advocates questioned agreed that they presented before an open-minded tribunal. It is hard to understand the basis of this attitude. No doubt the SSAT sees itself as impartial. Have the advocates simply absorbed the SSAT s view of itself? Or is their attitude based on accumulated case experience that confirms tribunal objectivity? If so, what exactly is the experience? Is it the observation of the advocates as they note how each tribunal manages the DSS-client dispute in terms of words spoken and acts done? Unfortunately, our methodology was not sophisticated enough to focus on these questions. Therefore, it would be reckless to accept that 90% of the sample were in fact perceiving SSAT impartiality. Advocacy training The great majority of advocates were happy with the formal preparation for SSAT advocacy that they received from BWRC. Sixty-one assessments were done by SSAT members on advocate performance. This total was made up of: 17 assessments from welfare members, 7 assessments from medical members, 19 assessments from full-time members and 18 assessments from legal members. Of these, 48 said that the advocates were adequately trained. A typical example of SSAT approval was Case B: Full time member: Advocate understood implications of s.43a \ Welfare member: Advocate understood major issues. Legal member: The case was well presented*. A ty p ic a l e x a m p le o f S S A T d issa tisfa c tio n w as C a se P: Welfare member: Advocate not very knowledgeable of the law*. Full time member: Submission indicates advocate not completely familiar with the law*. Legal member: Advocate did not have a knowledge of the law*. Medical member: Legal arguments and written submissions muddled, suggested inadequate understanding of the law*. T h e re w e re n o sig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s in th e a p p ra isa l o f a d v o c a te s b y S S A T m e m b e rs a c c o rd in g to th e p ro fe s s io n a l b a c k g r o u n d o f th e S S A T m e m b e r. W h e n w e e x c lu d e th e la w y e r a d v o c a te fro m th e re sp o n se set, w e fin d th a t w h e n S S A T m e m b e rs a sse sse d a d v o c a te s w ith re sp e c t to a d e q u a te train in g, th ey c o m p re h e n d e d th is a c c o rd in g to: a d e q u a te ly p re p a re d su b m issio n s; a g ra sp o f th e re le v a n t law ; a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e c r i t i c a l issu es; a w e ll d o c u m e n te d su m m ary. A ll S S A T m e m b e rs w h o p a rtic ip a te d in th e s tu d y s a id y e s to th e q u e s tio n a b o u t w h e th e r im p r o v e m e n ts c a n b e m a d e to th e B W R C a d v o c a c y serv ic e. W h e n a sk e d to e lab o rate, th e fo llo w in g m a tte rs w e re m entio n ed : m o re tra in in g a n d m o re fu n d in g ; a p p o i n t m o r e s o l i c i t o r s ( t h r e e re sp o n se s); b e tte r p re sen ta tio n o f w ritte n m ateria l a n d im p ro v e d a b ility o f a d v o c a te to u se in fo rm a tio n a t h earin g ; a d v o c a te s n e e d to re la te m o re to th e law ; a d v o c a te s n e e d to re fra in fro m b e in g c le v e r b arriste rs; B W R C s h o u ld s tr e s s f u n c tio n s o f S S A T m o re; a d v o c a te s v ary in th e ir e ffic ie n c y an d e ffe c tiv e n e s s, m o re tra in in g n e e d e d fo r so m e; a d v o c a te s s h o u ld p r e s e n t c a s e s in a p p ro p ria te w ays; a d v o c a te s s h o u ld c o n s id e r c le a r e r w ritten su b m issio n s. T h e te n o r o f th e s e re m a rk s o n o n e le v e l is a n a p p e a l to le g a l im p e ria lism. T h e leg al c u ltu re is th e ru le r b ro u g h t o u t to m e a su re ad v o c a c y. Im p ro v e m e n ts in a d v o c a c y a re see n as m o v e m e n ts u p th e le g a l c u ltu re ru le r. P a rk e r in h e r re c e n t stu d y a t B W R C h as c o m e to th e sa m e co n c lu sio n : A d v o c a c y b e fo re trib u n a ls a p p e a rs to b e a p a ra le g a l ta s k w h e re th e a d v o cates are acting like lawyers, but not with the legitim acy or m andate to advise like lawyers. Although these jobs are taken on with the desire to give the voiceless a voice in tribunals where they had not previously been able to be represented or helped, a largely legal-professional model has been used.5 Parker goes on to describe the tension that emanates from the SSAT on the issue of correct forms of advocacy: The W elfare Rights Centre has been struggling with the SSAT because some of the... tribunal, who are lawyers, do not think the advocates are doing a good enough job. The [tribunal lawyers] are angry that advocates are being trained by a social worker, and that a social worker and lay advocates are doing most of the advocacy... Training advocates for administrative tribunals in the values and practices of lawyers, reflects the colonisation o f administrative appeals and boards by the legal profession.6 Parker cites O Connor and Sweetapple s work on the children s courts to support her point. These authors found legal encroachment in that jurisdiction too.7 Advocacy impact The study was interested in what (if any) impact was made by the advocates on SSAT decision making. The study operated on three classifications of impact: nil, positive and negative. Seventy-nine per cent of SSAT member responses recorded a positive impact. These responses were evenly distributed across the SSAT membership. This trans-professional consensus, recorded now for the second time, suggests a strong tribunal culture. When the SSAT membership judged advocacy as having a positive impact on their decision, they had the following attributes in mind: clear explanation of the issues; pertinent arguments; carefully documented submission; good written summary; reference to relevant AAT case law; advocate presented extra information not provided by client; provision of up-to-date m edical reports. The assessment of Case O was typical here: L egal member: A dvocate clearly explained issues. Full time member: Good points raised in written submission*. Welfare member: Well presented submission, pertinent arguments*. Vol. 17, N o.6, December 1992

268 Social security advocacy While on the issue of positive impact it can be mentioned that of the 32 advocate-assisted cases that went to the SS AT in the research period: 18 were successful; 9 were unsuccessful; 2 were partially successful; 1 was conceded by DSS after an SSAT decision unfavourable to the client; 1 client opted for self-representation prior to the hearing (no information on result). This gives a relatively high success rate of 56%. During the research period the success rate for unrepresented applicants was 40%. The 56% success rate for advocate-assisted matters compares well with the general success rate of 25% for applicants at the SSAT in 1989/90. Tw enty-one per cent of SSAT responses recorded a nil impact. Again these responses were evenly distributed across the SSAT membership. When SSAT members judged a representation as creating a nil impact, they usually had the following matters in mind: advocate made no comments; unspecific submission; self-explanatory case. Case V is typical here: Legal member: Case self-explanatory, applicant really had no case. Welfare member: Case self-explanatory*. Full time member: Case self-explanatory* The M Case is another example of assessed nil impact, but from a different point. The advocate in this matter took 2-5 hours to prepare the case. The advocate reported a preparation problem in the unavailability of Fol material and was critical of having to go to a hearing without this information. The advocate in this case also was one of three in the advocate sample who believed that they did not get a fair opportunity to put thenclient s case. The advocate s specific criticism was aimed at the presiding member who was said to have immediately started to question the client, and closed the case with no opportunity for the advocate to say or do anything. No negative impact responses were recorded. Professional influences on advocacy assessment SSAT members were asked to locate advocates who appeared before them on seven 5-point scales: knowledge of law, politeness, assistance to SSAT, assistance to clients, support to clients, articulateness, and preparedness. In broad terms advocates secured the top scores for politeness (70% received a 5 rating) and the lowest score for knowledge of law (11% received a 1 rating). These extremes should not mask a good all round score for the advocates. We were interested in whether the professional designation of the SSAT member influenced advocate assessment and also whether there was agreement between the members as to what constituted effective advocacy. Table 1, based on reconstituted data, shows that welfare members were the hardest to please when evaluating advocates. The most favourable assessments came from the full time members. Rating 1 represents the lowest scores given on the above seven scales and rating 5 represents the highest scores. While 354 evaluations were collected, it is wise to remember that they were generated by only 11 SSAT members. This is simply not enough data from which to draw conclusions about the play of professional background. Be that as it may, some enticing questions seek our attention: Do SSAT members look on advocacy in ways moulded by their professional background and subsequent professional experience? Is there a tribunal culture (or perhaps an administrative law culture) alive which structures the criteria for good and bad advocacy? If so, does this tribunal culture rule professional culture through interaction or subtle domination? Implied in the last question is the notion of private disagreements between SSAT members as to what constitute good and bad advocacy. For example, in Case G the advocate was given the lowest possible scores by the welfare member for knowledge of law, articulateness and preparedness. Yet the full time member gave the same advocate on the same case the highest possible score on these three matters. Who is right? More importantly, what difficulties are added to the advocate s task when there is not shared meaning as to what constitutes the criteria for good advocacy? Within the terms of this study it can be reported that extreme disagreements as occurred in Case G were rare. This leads back to the previous point what are the determinants of tribunal socialisation? Client satisfaction with BWRC advocacy at SSAT All clients who sought BWRC assistance at the SSAT reported that they were happy with the advocacy service.8 All responses were without exception complimentary. A cross-section of these is provided below: [BWRC] know exactly what they are doing, only go so far by yourself, what they did was the best anybody could do. She [advocate] gave us help we needed, she knew what she was doing, average person couldn t pay for the help she provided. Being your mouthpiece at hearing gives you a lot of confidence, couldn t have done it by myself. So friendly, knew about things I didn t know about, didn t feel like a number, no matter what happens they have done their best. Client evaluation of the SSAT BWRC clients were asked to rate the SSAT on four 5-point scales to do with sympathy, formality, simplicity and knowledge of their case. Most of the scores congregated on the positive ends of these scales. Sixteen clients responded to the question whether they thought the SSAT could be improved. Examples of these are reproduced here: SSAT could g iv e d ecision straight away. SSAT did not seem to know about the case, SSAT should read file before hearing, all they did was to ask questions about things on file. Advocacy assessments x SSAT designation Ratings Designation 1 2 3 4 5 Total Responses Percentages Welfare members 6 11 21 30 33 107 Legal members 2 6 15 29 48 98 Medical members 0 4 13 32 51 47 Full time members 0 19 17 64 102 Total 354 ALTERNATIVE LAW JOURNAL

Social security advocacy 2 69 Not judging people until they get tacts straight doctor accused me of changing story. Shame they are not in rural localities. T h e r e s e a r c h c o n f ir m s a g o o d a l l ro u n d re s u lt fo r B W R C, a n d th e S S A T fo r th a t m a tte r. T h e re su lts a c k n o w le d g e d e d i c a t io n a n d c o m m i tm e n t in b o th o rg a n isa tio n s. C lie n ts in th e stu d y w e re h a p p y w i t h t h e a d v o c a c y s e r v i c e o ffe re d, th e S S A T o n th e w h o le w e re satisfie d, a n d th e re is e v id e n c e th a t th e se rv ic e d o e s h a v e a p o s itiv e im p a c t in so c ia l security d isp u ta tio n. F ro m w ith in a s e r v i c e f r a m e w o r k t h e e v a l u a t i o n lo o k s g o o d. W h e n w e c o n sid e r th e h isto r y o f s o c ia l s e c u r ity a d v o c a c y a n d ra is e th e issu e o f stru c tu ra l c h a n g e su d d e n ly th e a p p la u se d ie s d o w n. Social security advocacy: the legacy and the critique S o cial security a d v o c a c y d o e s n o t h a v e a sim p le le g a l h isto ry. N o d o u b t its tra d itio n h as b e e n b e n e fic ia lly c a u g h t u p in th e e x te n sio n o f th e ru le o f la w in to th e 2 0 th c e n tu ry d e v e lo p m e n ts o f w e lfa re states in th e w e st. T h e h isto ry o f so cial security a d v o c a c y c a n b e d e p ic te d a s a h is to ry o f th e re je c tio n o f c h a rity a s a p r iv ile g e, to th e a c c e p ta n c e o f s o c ia l secu rity as a rig h t.9 I t is im p o rta n t n o t to b e d e w y e y e d a b o u t t h e s e d e v e l o p m en ts. T h e re w a s n o e x p lo sio n o f w e l fa re rig h ts a s is c o m m o n ly u n d e rsto o d. R a t h e r t h e s t a t e m a d e a n e a r l y a n d e n fo rc e a b le e n try in to th e so c ia l security fie ld, a n e v e n t i t h as b e e n c o n so lid a tin g s in c e 1 9 0 8, w h e n th e i n a u g u r a l Old Aged and Invalid Pensions Act w a s p a sse d. M a tc h e d a g a in s t th e o rg a n is e d sta te w e re su c c e ssiv e g e n e ra tio n s o f d iso r g a n is e d p o o r. T h e w e lf a r e r i g h t s th e y h a d th e n a n d n o w a re h ig h ly c o n d i tio n al le g a l c la im s w h ic h a re c o n sta n tly v u ln e ra b le to h a rs h e r m o d ific a tio n s a n d e v e n r e p e a l. W e h a v e n o r ig h t to b e p ro u d o f o u r w e lfa re state, th e n o r n o w. T h is is a n e m e rg e n c y p e rio d f o r so c ia l security a d v o c a c y b e c a u s e it is a n e m e r g e n c y p e rio d fo r th e p o o r. T h e tim e s a re n o te d fo r th e ir to u g h n e ss, th e p o litic isa tio n o f m a rk e t e c o n o m ic s, th e a b d u c tio n o f w e lfa re fro m th e sta g e o f p u b lic c o n c e r n a n d d e b a te, a n d th e n ig h tm a r is h in c o n g ru e n c e b e tw e e n s h r in k in g s ta te w e lfa re re so u rc e s a n d risin g p o v e rty. T h a t b e in g s a id, th e n e a r h is to ry o f s o c ia l s e c u r ity a d v o c a c y s ta r ts in th e s e t t l e m e n t h o u s e s o f 1 9 th c e n t u r y E n g l a n d.10 S o m e th in g i m p o r ta n t w a s fo u n d in th a t e r a th a t is n o w a lm o s t lo st to u s. I s p e a k o f, f o r w a n t o f a b e tte r p h ra se, s o c ia l security a c tiv ism. C a n o n S a m u e l B a rn e tt, th e fo u n d e r o f T o y n b e e H a ll, o n e o f th e b e s t k n o w n a g e n c ie s in th e s e ttle m e n t m o v e m e n t, s h a re d w ith h is r e f o r m i s t c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a f ir m b e lie f th a t p a u p e ris m w a s the p ro b le m o f t h e d a y. 11 L e a t c o m m e n t s o n B a rn e tt s v iew : Where he differed from his contemporaries was in the emphasis he placed upon structural factors [in the etiology of pauperism].12 B a rn e tt b e lie v e d th a t th e elim in a tio n o f p o v e r t y c o u l d o n l y b e a t t a i n e d th ro u g h a ra d ic a l re v isio n o f th e stru c t u r e o f s o c i e t y. I n t h e c o n t e x t o f e m p o w e rm e n t fo r ju s tic e, h e o n c e sa id th a t w h a t th e p o o r n e e d e d w a s n o t... th e c ru m b s w h ic h fell fro m th e ta b le b u t a se a t a t th e b o a r d.13 M a n y p r o g r a m s w e r e d e v e l o p e d w ith in T o y n b e e H all. T h re e o f in te re st w e r e a le g a l a d v ic e c e n tr e ( 1 9 0 2 ), a p o o r m a n s la w y e r serv ic e (1 8 9 8 ) a n d a T e n a n t s P ro te c tio n C o m m itte e (1 9 0 1 ) c o n c e rn e d w ith th e e x to r tio n a te re n ts c h a r g e d in t h e E a s t E n d. T h e l e g a l a d v ic e c e n tre fu n c tio n e d b y co n tra c tin g o u t e lig ib le leg al c a se s to la w y e rs a sso c ia te d w ith T o y n b e e H a ll. T h e m a in th ru st o f th e le g a l w o rk a p p e a re d to b e w o r k e r s c o m p e n s a tio n 14 h a r d ly a s u r p r is e g iv e n th e u n re g u la te d S o c ia l D a rw in ia n c h a ra c te r o f c a p ita lism a t th e tu rn o f th e ce n tu ry. L e a t m a k e s th e p o in t t h a t th e c o m p e n s a t io n f o c u s w ith i n T o y n b e e H a l l s l e g a l s e r v ic e... w o u l d s e e m to b e in l i n e w i t h t h e S e ttle m e n t s th e o re tic a l a n a ly sis o f th e s ig n ific a n c e o f institutional a n d structural, a s o p p o sed to in d iv id u a l in ju stic e a n d in e q u a lity 15 (m y e m p h a s is ). T h is a n a ly s is, w h e re b y s tru c tu ra l c a u s a tio n re p la c e s in d iv id u a l re sp o n sib ility in th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f p o v e r ty, is f a r m o re a c c e p te d n o w th an it w a s b a c k in C a n o n B a rn e tt s d ay. T h e b ig p ro b le m fo r u s a s a c o m m u n ity, in g e n e ra l, a n d f o r w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre s, in p a rtic u la r, is h o w to tran slate stru c tu ra l a n a ly sis to stru c tu ra l p ra c tic e, i.e. so c ia l a c tio n th a t a tta c k s th e so u rc es n o t j u s t t h e s u f f e r i n g o f p o v e r t y. A d v o c a te s in w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre s u su a lly d o n t a tte m p t th e tran slatio n. T h e y o fte n e m b ra c e th e le g a l c u ltu re s o b se s sio n w ith c a se s. A s su c h th e y fu n c tio n m o re lik e p a ra le g a ls.10 In so d o in g th e y e m b ra c e w illin g ly o r b y f o r c e o f c i r c u m s ta n c e th e le g a l c u ltu r e s 17 n a rro w c o n s tru c tio n o f th e w o rld in m u c h th e sam e w a y p a ra m e d ic s w o rk w ith in th e id e o lo g ic a l im p o s itio n s o f th e m e d ic a l m o d e l.10 T ru ly e ffe c tiv e s o c ia l secu rity a d v o c a te s w ill b e th o se sk ille d in so cial secu rity la w, ca se a d v o c a c y, d e p a rtm e n ta l p ro c e d u re, a n d h u m a n re la tio n sh ip s. B u t m o re th a n th is, a s I s e e p a ra le g a ls a lso d e m o n stra tin g c o m p e te n c e in th e se a re a s. T h e m o re is th e e m b ra c e m e n t o f a c tiv is t te c h n o lo g ie s th a t p r o v id e f o r m o v e m e n t fro m case a d v o c a c y to class a d v o c a c y a n d fu rth e r o n to so c ia l actio n. T h e so c ia l secu rity a d v o c a te o u g h t n o t to b e a s a te llite o rb itin g th e le g a l c u l tu re, b u t so m e o n e w ith a n a c tiv ist c o m m itm e n t vis a vis p o v e r ty, w ith th e ir o w n w o r k o r ie n ta tio n s a n d th e ir o w n h isto ry. W e lf a r e rig h ts c e n tr e s a r e th e n, o n th e w h o le, c e n tr e s o f in d iv id u a l re lie f, n o t c e n tre s o f so c ia l a c tiv ism. N o p e o p le s m o v e m e n ts sta rt th e re, n o b ro a d - b a s e d c r i t i q u e s o f s o c i a l p r o v i s i o n e m a n a te fro m th e ir p r e c in c ts, a n d n o re a l tro u b le is c a u se d to th e esta b lish e d r u l e s a n d r i t u a l s o f s o c i a l s e c u r i ty. A d v o c a c y r e p la c e s a c tio n, n e g o tia tio n u n d e rm in e s c o n fro n ta tio n. T o b e tru e to a stru c tu ra l a n a ly sis, n o b la m e c a n b e p la c e d. T h e m o v e m e n t fro m sin g le issu e a c tiv ism (c o rre c tin g a D e p a r tm e n t o f S o c ia l S e c u r ity (D S S ) d e c is io n ) to c la s s a c tiv is m (c o lla b o ra tiv e p ro je c ts b e tw e e n s ta ff a n d th e p o o r a n d d isad v a n ta g e d a t w e lfa re rig h ts c e n t r e s to c h a lle n g e i f n o t o v e r tu r n th e stru c tu ra l a n te c e d e n ts o f p o v e rty ) is so c a u g h t u p b y c e n tra l v a lu e s th at su stain a 13% c u ltu re o f p o v e rty th a t a d v a n c e m e n t to c la ss a c tiv ism is v e ry d iffic u lt In su m m a ry, to d a te, th e p ro p o sitio n I h a v e p u t re lie s o n tre a tin g w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tr e s a s p a r t o f a n a d v o c a c y a n d a c tiv ist h isto ry th a t I h a v e c ry sta lise d in th e s e ttle m e n t h o u s e m o v e m e n t in th e U n ite d K in g d o m in th e m id d le to la te 19th c e n tu ry. T h e re c e n t h isto ry is o n e o f h e a v y e n c ro a c h m e n t b y th e le g a l c u l tu re in th e g u ise o f th e c o m m u n ity leg al c e n tr e m o v e m e n t (w h ic h in c lu d e s f o r p re s e n t p u r p o s e s B W R C ).19 W ith ra re Vol. 17, No.6, December 1992

2 7 0 Social security advocacy e x c e p tio n s th is h is to ry h a s b e e n b e r e ft o f so c ia l a c tio n a n d th e re h a s b e e n v ery little m o b ilis a tio n b y a n d fo r th e p o o r. R a th e r, th e h isto ry is fu ll o f c a s e s, sin g l e i s s u e a c t i v i s m i n o t h e r w o r d s. C o m m e n tin g o n th is d e v e lo p m e n t in E n g la n d M o o re h a s said:... mainstream developments in lay advocacy lie heavily under the influence o f the leg a l reform lobby... Unfortunately their [lay advocates ] activities have left the culture of experts undisturbed. Their approach has been simply to provide greater access to the law for poor and underprivileged people and their success will be measured by the cases they win.20 T h ro u g h h e r re c e n t Q u e e n sla n d stu d y P a rk e r h a s b e e n a b le to e c h o M o o r e s sen tim en ts:... there is no major transformation in the way legal services are provided to the disadvantaged... lawyers working with disadvantaged are re-emphasising the old service ideology of professionalism, they are also using the model of professional dominance that goes with it.21 [emphasis in original] W e lf a re rig h ts c e n tre s a re n o t m a n d a te d b y th e p o o r. S ta ff a re in co n tro l. S t a f f a s s e s s c l i e n t p r o b l e m s. S t a f f d e v is e le g a l a n d p ro c e d u ra l s tra te g ie s a n d s t a f f a d v o c a te w ith d e te r m in in g o ffic e rs, in te rn a l re v ie w e rs, th e S S A T, a n d u l t i m a t e l y t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A p p e a ls T rib u n a l. In w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre s p e o p le a re e n c o u ra g e d to se e th e ir p ro b le m s as o n e s o f lifesty le, o r a s h ig h ly sp e c ific p e rso n a l c o n flic ts w ith D S S a n d th e re fo re u ltim a te ly a s a leg al p ro b le m. O n c e th e p ro b le m is fra m e d a s a le g a l o n e, a le g a l s o lu tio n a n d d e p e n d e n c y o n le g a lly tra in e d o r a c c u ltu ra te d s ta ff is a sh o rt step. T h e d iffic u lty is th a t b y re d u c in g so c ia l c o n flic ts to p e rso n a l d is p u te s ( s im ila r to w h a t h a p p e n s in c o m m u n ity m e d ia tio n ) w e s e le c t th e w r o n g t a r g e t f o r c h a n g e. I n s t e a d o f re m a in in g a n g r y a t s o u rc e s o f o p p re s s io n e x te r n a l to th e m s e lv e s, th e p o o r a n d d isa d v a n ta g e d in a llia n c e w ith staff, c o n tin u e to c o n s tr u c t th e p r o b le m in i n d iv id u a lis t te r m s a n d b o th b e c o m e re lia n t o n le g a l a n d p ro c e d u ra l so lu tio n - ism. Conclusion D e s p ite th e g r a tif y i n g r e s u l t s o f th e e v a lu a tio n o f B W R C, th e p r o g r a m is to o id e o lo g ic a lly re stric te d fo r a n e ffe c tiv e a tta c k o n p o v e rty a n d d isad v a n ta g e. T h is p o in t is a p p lic a b le a c ro ss th e D S S - B W R C -S S A T sy ste m, w h ic h I see a s a fa irly tig h t, in te rd e p e n d e n t id e o lo g ic a l a r r a n g e m e n t. S o it is u n r e a l i s t i c to e x p e c t o n ly p a rt-sy ste m c h a n g e. H a v in g said th at, th e fo c u s o f th is p a p e r re m a in s B W R C. T h e n a r r o w le g a l c u ltu r e in w h ic h it (relu ctan tly ) o p e ra te s p ro d u c e s a n a g e n c y e th o s c h a ra c te ris e d b y d u tifu l, i f n o t a c q u ie scen t, c o n d u c t to so c ia l sec u rity la w, p ro c e d u re s a n d o fficials. I am n o t su g g e stin g th a t th is is d o n e in a w a y th a t c o n sc io u sly b e tra y s th e w e lfa re o f its clien ts. T h e a b o v e re su lts co n firm h ig h u s e r satisfactio n. W h a t I am say in g is th a t B W R C is a c e n tra l p la y e r in a d is p u ta tio n p ro c e s s th a t is p a rtly o f its o w n m a k in g. B y th a t I m ean th a t fro m tim e to tim e B W R C is s u c c e s s fu l in a c h ie v in g p ro c e d u r a l o r a ttitu d in a l m o d ific a tio n s in th e a p p e a l p r o c e s s. T h is b e in g th e c a s e, B W R C g e ts c a u g h t u p in p ro d u c t e n d o rsem e n t, th e p ro d u c t b e in g itself, th e so cial se c u r ity a p p e a ls p ro c e s s fro m th e in te rn a l r e v ie w a t D S S to th e A A T, a n d th e e c le c tic is e d le g a l c u ltu re in w h ic h it o p e r a te s. B W R C c a n n o t m o v e e a s ily o u t o f its q u a s i-le g a l s e r v ic e id e o lo g y ( c a s e a d v o c a c y ) to a s o c i a l a c t i o n m o d e l. I t is c a u g h t in a s te e l w e b o f g o v e r n m e n t e x p e c ta tio n a n d in d iv id u a lised c lie n t d e m a n d s. B u t m o v e o u t it m u st if it is to fig h t p o v e rty a n d d is a d v a n t a g e o n th e b r o a d f r o n t t h a t is re q u ired. A s B W R C is p a rt o f th e c o m m u n ity le g a l c e n tre n e tw o rk in A u s tra lia, p e r h a p s w e a re p e rm itte d to g e n e ra lise th is p o in t to o th e r w e lf a r e r ig h ts c e n tr e s. S h o u ld th e y b e c e n tres o f c a se a d v o c a c y o r c e n tre s o f c la ss a c tiv ism? N o d o u b t so m e p e o p le in th e n e tw o rk w o u ld say th a t th e ir c e n tre s d o b o th. T h e y w o u ld p o in t to th e f a c t th a t o v e r a n d a b o v e a d v o c a c y t h e i r c e n t r e s h a v e b e e n in v o lv e d in th in g s lik e a n ti-p o v e rty r a l lies, a n ti-c u tb a c k p ro tests, p o litic a l lo b b y in g, s u b m is s io n w r itin g a n d m e d ia c a m p a ig n in g. O n e m u s t a s k a b o u t th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s in p o v e rty re d u c tio n. A t th e sam e tim e o n e ca n n o te th a t th e se strateg ie s a re a ll te r rib ly re s p e c ta b le a n d m id d le c la ss, a n d u s u a lly c o n d u c te d f o r, n o t w ith, th e p o o r. P o v e rty is n o t re sp e c ta b le, n o r is it m id d le class. T h e le g a l cu ltu re (so fte n e d a n d h y b rid is e d b u t e v e r-p re s e n t w ith in th e w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre m o v e m e n t) as id e o lo g ic a l o r th o d o x y th r o u g h o u t th e s o c ia l s e c u r ity a p p e a l p r o c e s s, lim its a c tiv is t o p tio n s m o re th a n th e la c k o f re so u rc e s e v e r can. I f th e m o v e m e n t is to re a lise its v a st p o te n tia l a s a fo rc e o f so c ia l a c tiv ism to b e re c k o n e d w ith, w e lfa re rig h ts c e n tre s m u s t g o th ro u g h a p a in fu l id e o lo g ic a l r e f ittin g. T h e lim ita tio n s o f th e le g a l c u l t u r e m u s t b e c l e a r l y u n d e r s to o d. R e o r g a n i s a t i o n a s a p o o r p e o p l e s m o v e m e n t w ill o ffe r e x p a n d e d strateg ic s c o p e, g r e a t e r r e le v a n c e to th e c o n s titu e n c ie s o f th e p o o r a n d in c re a s e d o p p o rtu n itie s to re s p o n d to th e ev ils o f p o v e rty a n d d isa d v a n ta g e in m o re c re a tiv e a n d ra d ic a l w a y s. P e rh a p s w h e n th a t is d o n e s o c ia l s e c u r ity a d v o c a c y w ill re d isc o v e r its a c tiv ist h isto ry. References 1. A situation com m on to other countries too. For United Kingdom see Harris, N., Judging the Quality o f W elfare Benefits Work by Firms of Solicitors, (1991) 10 Civil Justice Quarterly, October, 311. 2. Other parts o f this study have been reported in de M aria, W., Poor Australians Speak: the Consumer Perspective in Social Security*, and de M aria, W., From the Other Side o f the Counter: the Consum er Perspective on D SS Contact Services, Department o f Social Work and S o c ia l P o lic y, T h e U n iv e r s ity o f Queensland, unpub. m ss, 1992. 3. C asew ork and T rain in g D eta ils: W elfare Rights Centres Australia 1991. Submission to Hon. Dr N eal Blewett, M inister for Social Security, The Need for the Commonwealth to Fund Welfare Rights Advice and Advocacy Services in Each State of Australia, 24 April 1992. 4. The term social security advocate is preferred to the term lay advocate. Lay* has the same meaning as para*. Both, as Terry clearly puts it, are disagreeable 4... because [they] denote centrally the law yer and represent everybody else [including the poor] as circumstantial*. Terry, J., Legal Workers and Their Functions: W hat s in a Name?*, (1983) 8 Legal Service Bulletin A ugust, 181. I ow e the title o f m y paper to a phrase that appears in Mr Terry s paper at p. 183. 5. P arker, C., Where No Lawyer Has Gone Before: Professionalism and Legal Service Delivery to the Disadvantaged, B A (H ons) Thesis, University o f Queensland, June 1991, p.84. 6. Parker, above, p.86. 7. Parker, ab ove, p.87; see O Connor, I. and Sweetapple, P., Children in Justice, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1988. 8. This accords with a recent English study o f client satisfaction with a social security advice and advocacy service. See Harris, N., above, ref. 1, pp.322-3. 9. M oore, P., The Litigant s Friend, (1974) 124 New Law Journal, 868. 10. L eat, D., T he R ise and R o le o f the Poor M an s Lawyer, (1974/75) 2 British Journal of Law and Society, 166-181. 11. Leat, above, p. 169. 12. Leat, above. 13. Leat, above, pp. 170-1. 14. Leat, above, pp. 174-5. 15. Leat, above, p.175. 16. For exam ination o f paralegal practice see: Goldring, J., Can Paralegals Improve Access to Justice?*, (1 9 9 0 ) Criminology Australia J u ly /A u g u s t, 11. S e e a ls o G o ld rin g, J., P r o fe s s io n s and P a ra p ro fessio n a ls*, in Vernon, J. and R egan, F. (eds), Improving References continued on p. 273 ALTERNATIVE LAW JOURNAL

Meditation, voilence and the family 273 p o w e r im b a la n c e, d is e n g a g e m e n t a n d h a r m o f s o m e s o r t, m e d ia tio n is n o t a p p ro p ria te in any fa m ily la w m a tte rs. M e d i a t i o n is s u i t a b l e f o r o n e - o f f p ro b le m s w h ic h c a n b e o p e ra tio n a lise d, s e g m e n te d a n d r e s o lv e d a c c o r d in g to th e c o m p ro m ises a n d n e e d s o f th e p a r tie s in v o lv e d. T h e d isp u te s w h e re m e d i a tio n is a p p r o p ria te a n d d e s ira b le a s a v ia b le fo rm o f a lte rn a tiv e d isp u te re s o lu tio n a r e d is p u te s s u c h a s p r o b le m s w ith n e ig h b o u rs ( y o u p la y lo u d m u sic la t e a t n i g h t! ); y o u f lu s h t h e t o ile t a lw a y s d u rin g m y m e a l tim e s a n d m y d in in g ro o m a d jo in s y o u r to ile t ; y o u r d o g a lw a y s p o o s o n m y fro n t law n! ); c o m m e rc ia l d isp u te s a n d b u sin e ss tra n s a c tio n s, m o to r v e h ic le a c c id e n ts a n d sm a ll c la im s ty p e a g re e m e n ts. B y w ay o f c o n c lu sio n, le t m e a n tic i p a te a n d re sp o n d to so m e p o ssib le c ritic ism s o f m y c o m m e n ts. 1. 1 d o a d o p t a v e ry b ro a d a ll-in c lu siv e v ie w o f v io le n c e in th e lite ra l se n se o f v io la tio n b y o n e p a rty o f a n o th e r p a r ty s rig h ts, p o w e r, s e lf-e s te e m, c o n fid e n c e a n d d e v e lo p m e n t. I t c o v e r s th e f u l l g a m u t o f p h y s ic a l, e m o tio n a l, v e r b a l a n d sex u a l h arm. 2. A d o p tin g su c h a d e fin itio n, I v ie w a ll r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s b e i n g v i o l e n t, t h e d e g re e, e x te n t, m e a n in g, in te n tio n a n d im p a c t o f su c h v io le n c e o b v io u sly d iffe rin g. 3. M o s t a g re e th a t m e d ia tio n is in a p p ro p ria te in c a se s o f fa m ily v io le n c e. G iv e n m y b ro a d d e fin itio n o f v io le n c e, m e d ia tio n is th e r e f o r e in a p p r o p r ia te in a ll fa m ily la w d isp u tes. 4. M y a b so lu te p ro h ib itio n o n m ed iatio n d e n ie s p a rtie s p a rtic u la rly w o m e n th e c h o ic e a n d th e o p tio n o f p a rtic ip a t in g in th e m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s. S o m e w o m e n m a y fe e l stro n g, a rtic u la te a n d e m o tio n a lly p o w e rfu l e n o u g h to p a rtic i p a te in m e d ia tio n a n d n o t b e th re a te n e d b y th e o th e r sid e. I a c k n o w le d g e th e se a s a sm a ll m in o rity o f w o m e n, b u t I d o n o t tru s t th e p ro c e s s e s b y w h ic h th e se w o m e n a r e i d e n t i f i e d b y o t h e r s n o r id e n tif ie d b y th e m s e lv e s. S e lf-a s s e s s m e n t is a s fra u g h t w ith d a n g e r a s a sse ssm e n t b y serv ic e p ro v id e rs. 5.1 d isc o u n t m e d ia tio n a s a n a lte rn a tiv e fo rm o f d isp u te re so lu tio n in fa m ily law d isp u te s b u t in d o in g s o I d o n o t a d o p t litig a tio n a s th e o n ly a c c e p ta b le p ro c e ss. M e d ia tio n d o e s n o t c h a n g e th e le g a l s y s te m. I t w o rk s b e c a u s e o f th e le g a l s y s te m. I t is re a lly le g a l m e d ic a tio n w h e re th e le tte r c re p re s e n tin g c o u rts a n d t h e a d v e r s a r ia l s y s te m h a s b e e n r e m o v e d. I t c h a n g e s n o th in g. I h a v e re s e rv a tio n s a b o u t th e a d v e rs a ria l p r o c e ss a n d o u r le g a l sy stem a n d I su g g e st th a t w e h a v e to b e c re a tiv e a n d e x p lo re o th e r o p tio n s. References 1. Stallone, D.R., 4Decriminalization o f V iolence in the H om e: M ediation in W ife Battering Cases* (1 9 8 4 ) 2 Law and Inequality 493 at 510. Giddings references continued from p. 265 16. Green v Daniels (1977) 51 ALR 463. 17. H an k s, P., S c h o o l L ea v ers, G overn m en t Policy, and the High Court, (1977) 2(7) Legal Service Bulletin 251-254. 18. N ote Social Security (Amendment) Act 1992 (w h ich cam e in to e ffe c t on 2 N ovem b er, 1 9 9 2 ) p reven ts such sc h o o l lea v ers from receiving benefits until the resumption of the following school year. 19. P hone in terview with Graham H em sley, 8 October 1992. 20. S ee for exam p le, AMP Society v Goulden (1986) EOC 9 2-1 6 4, and Dao v Australian Postal Commission (1987) EOC 92-193. 21. See Hunter, R., W om en v A IS, (1990) 15(1) Legal Service Bulletin 40. 22 S ee Inquests: R em in gton and K ensington Community Voice*, N os 1 to 10. 23. Pearson, J., Kids Emergency Phone Service, (1983) 8(1) Legal Service Bulletin 42. 24. See Fitzroy Legal Service, They said w e d get lawyers, not you guys, May, 1986. 25. See Faine, J., Land Speed Record for Law Reform, (1985) 10(6) Legal Service Bulletin 295. De Maria references continued from p. 270 Access to Justice: The Future of Paralegal P rofessionals, A u stra lia n In stitu te o f C rim in ology, Canberra, 1991; N o o n e, M., Paralegals in the Com m unity s Interest? in Vernon, J. and R egan, F., above, pp.25-38; Statsky, W., Introduction to Paralegalism, W est Publishing Company, N ew York, 1974; Murray, J., The Paralegal Police Prosecutor For How Long?* and Drew, K., The N ew South W ales P o licy P rosecu tion, both in V ernon, J. and R egan, F. (ed s) Improving Access to Justice, above, pp.97-101, pp. 103-6; Basten, B., and Disney, J., Representation by S p ecial A d vocates, (1975) 1 University of New South Wales Law Journal, 170; Hanks, P., Im p ro v ed A c c e s s to Law : W ith o u t Lawyers, in Goldring, J. et al (eds), Access to Law, second seminar on Australian Lawyers and S o c ia l C h a n g e, A u stra lia n N a tio n a l U niversity Press, 1980, p.272; Em shoff, J., D avidson, W., Connor, R., Training Prison In m ates as P ara leg a ls: A n E x p erim en ta l Project, (1980) 8 Journal of Criminal Justice, 2 7-3 8 ; Z e m a n s, F., T h e P u b lic S e c to r P a ra leg a l in O n tario: C o m m u n ity L e g a l W ork er*, (1 9 8 1 ) 4 Canadian Legal Aid Bulletin, 130; N oone, M., Paralegals in the 2. P u b lic P o lic y R esearch C en tre, Domestic Violence Attitude Survey (1988) O ffice o f the Status of W omen, Canberra. 3. Public Policy Research Centre, above. 4. This is a distuibing trend o f m any schemes in the U.S.A. See Astor, H., Dom estic Violence and Mediation*, (1990) 1 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 143 at 144-145. 5. Ellis, D., Marital Conflict Mediation and Post Separation W ife Abuse* (1 9 9 0 ) 8 Law and Inequality'ill at 328. 26. Bailey, S. and others, Urgent Repairs Needed, F ed eration o f C o m m u n ity L e g a l C entres (Victoria), October, 1988. 27. See ref. 17, p.251, footnote 1. 28. See ref. 3, p.255. 29. Hanks, P., W elfare R ights, (1977) 2(6) Legal Service Bulletin 219. 30. Halliday v Neville, unreported H igh Court decision. 31. See ref 20. 32. Gardner, J., Consumer Credit, Waltons Credit P olicies U nder Attack*, (1 9 7 6 ) 2 (3 ) Legal Service Bulletin 89. 33. M ental H ealth L egal C entre, 1992 Annual Report, pp. 10-12. 34. See National Legal Aid Advisory Committee, L egal A id For The A ustralian Com m unity, Appendix A. 35. K ids in J u stice, Y ou th J u stice C o a litio n, NSW, 1990. 36. C h ild W e lfa r e P r a c tic e and L e g is la tio n R eview, Victoria, 1984. 37. The outstanding provisions came into effect in June 1992. C om m u n ity s Interest?* in V ernon, J. and Regan, F., above, pp.29-30. 17. By legal culture* I mean a narrow world view that is confirmed, if not inculcated from the very first law lecture, or in the case o f paralegals, from the first o fficial contact with the business end o f a legal enterprise. This culture enshrines dom inant and cherished western values, in particular an adversarial m odel o f truth, a reverential attitude to facts, a faith in legal solutions to social problems, a sociological blindness to pow er im balances in human relationships outside the legalised definition of natural justice, individuation o f solutions to disputes, and a too ready if not irresponsible em bracem ent o f som e traditional sources o f forensic know ledge, specifically psychiatry. For further discussion see Lowry, M., Law S ch ool S ocialisation in the U nited States*, (1 9 8 3 ) 3 Windsor Yearbook o f Access to Justice, 245-55. 1 8. J o h n sto n e, Q., and W e g lin is k y, M., Paralegals, Progress and Prospects o f a Satellite Occupation, G reen w o o d P ress, Westport, 1985. 19. For a critical analysis of community legal centres in Brisbane see Parker, C., above. 20. Moore, People as Lawyers*, above, p.131. 21. Parker, above, pp.92-93. Vol. 17, No.6, Dec mber 1992