澳大利亚法律援助新国家伙伴关系协定

M. Noone
{"title":"澳大利亚法律援助新国家伙伴关系协定","authors":"M. Noone","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2259297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 2 July 2010, the new Australian National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services (NPA) commenced. The agreement between the federal and state governments was promoted by government as a break from the past. The key features of the Agreement include an increased focus on early intervention and prevention services and encouraging greater collaboration among legal and other service providers. In this article I outline the current legal aid system, give some context to the agreement and the detail aspects of the NPA. I then survey what changes (if any) have occurred in the Australian legal aid system during the first twelve months of the Agreement. In this context I canvas the tensions between early intervention (often alternative dispute resolution), prevention services (community legal education) and traditional legal aid casework. I conclude with some observations about matters that require research and ongoing evaluation if those concerned with access to justice, both proponents of ADR and legal aid lawyers, wish to further their objectives. Most importantly, in recognition of the complex and paradoxical nature of access to justice developments, these evaluations must be rigorous and contextualized.","PeriodicalId":129013,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australia’s New National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance\",\"authors\":\"M. Noone\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2259297\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 2 July 2010, the new Australian National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services (NPA) commenced. The agreement between the federal and state governments was promoted by government as a break from the past. The key features of the Agreement include an increased focus on early intervention and prevention services and encouraging greater collaboration among legal and other service providers. In this article I outline the current legal aid system, give some context to the agreement and the detail aspects of the NPA. I then survey what changes (if any) have occurred in the Australian legal aid system during the first twelve months of the Agreement. In this context I canvas the tensions between early intervention (often alternative dispute resolution), prevention services (community legal education) and traditional legal aid casework. I conclude with some observations about matters that require research and ongoing evaluation if those concerned with access to justice, both proponents of ADR and legal aid lawyers, wish to further their objectives. Most importantly, in recognition of the complex and paradoxical nature of access to justice developments, these evaluations must be rigorous and contextualized.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2259297\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2259297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2010年7月2日,新的《澳大利亚法律援助服务国家合作协议》(NPA)开始实施。联邦政府和州政府之间的协议是政府作为与过去的决裂而推动的。该协定的主要特点包括更加注重早期干预和预防服务,并鼓励法律和其他服务提供者之间加强合作。在本文中,我概述了当前的法律援助制度,给出了协议的一些背景和NPA的细节方面。然后,我调查了在协议生效的前12个月里,澳大利亚法律援助制度发生了哪些变化(如果有的话)。在此背景下,我分析了早期干预(通常是替代性争端解决)、预防服务(社区法律教育)和传统法律援助案例工作之间的紧张关系。最后,我对一些需要研究和持续评估的事项进行了一些观察,如果那些关注诉诸司法的人,无论是ADR的支持者还是法律援助律师,希望进一步实现他们的目标。最重要的是,由于认识到诉诸司法事态发展的复杂和矛盾性质,这些评价必须严格并结合具体情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Australia’s New National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance
On 2 July 2010, the new Australian National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services (NPA) commenced. The agreement between the federal and state governments was promoted by government as a break from the past. The key features of the Agreement include an increased focus on early intervention and prevention services and encouraging greater collaboration among legal and other service providers. In this article I outline the current legal aid system, give some context to the agreement and the detail aspects of the NPA. I then survey what changes (if any) have occurred in the Australian legal aid system during the first twelve months of the Agreement. In this context I canvas the tensions between early intervention (often alternative dispute resolution), prevention services (community legal education) and traditional legal aid casework. I conclude with some observations about matters that require research and ongoing evaluation if those concerned with access to justice, both proponents of ADR and legal aid lawyers, wish to further their objectives. Most importantly, in recognition of the complex and paradoxical nature of access to justice developments, these evaluations must be rigorous and contextualized.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信