Activity 5j

1. The task word ‘discuss’ require students to consider both sides of something. In this case, ‘discussing’ the ability of CAV to achieve the principles of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses of costs considerations. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.

        Arguments in support of CAV achieving the principles of justice include:

• CAV information and education in relation to the law improves public access to legal processes because they enable members of the public to know what their rights are and empowers them to take steps regarding defending those rights.
• Giving members of the public a free and independent service increases access because it doesn’t impose a barrier like cost on complainants, and it reduces barriers such as knowledge by making sure that all members of the public are equally informed about consumer and tenancy law.
• CAV’s compliance role enables it to take action against traders and landlords for breaches of consumer protection legislation – this ensures fairness where widespread conduct has impacted consumers significantly, without requiring each individual to pursue their own action.
• Whenever CAV takes action on behalf of consumers or tenants they are working to increase public access to the system because they are reducing the burden on individuals of needing the time, money and knowledge to seek justice.
• The work of CAV is integrated with the work of VCAT, which streamlines the civil justice system and gives the public access to opportunities to resolve their own disputes before they are escalated.
• CAV has significant power to enforce consequences relating to its investigations. This achieves fairness, because injured parties can see justice being done in response to the wrongdoing.

        Arguments against CAV achieving the principles of justice include:

• CAV’s compliance and support role is targeted only to consumers and tenants – there is no similar government body to represent the interests of traders and landlords, who must pay for private legal advice for a similar service (it could be argued that this may represent an unfair allocation of public resources).
• CAV is considered to be a ‘toothless tiger’ by many because its resources are mainly focused on educating members of the public about the law and providing templates and advise for consumers and tenants to negotiate with the businesses and landlords themselves – there is a popular perception that they do not significantly increase access, because ultimately it is the responsibility of the complainant to try to resolve their own dispute.
• CAV does not use its compliance powers in individual cases affecting only one person or organisation – there needs to be some ‘public interest’ component to the case (this reduces access for complainants who have been harmed, but whose cases are too small or lack public interest concerns).
• The conciliation conducted by CAV is over the telephone, and is not a sit-down meeting between both parties – instead, the CAV member will attempt to broker a compromise with the landlord or trader – the landlord or trader may feel this is unfair, because they are dealing with an expert; alternatively, the complainant may feel that the compromise negotiated is unfair and that they lacked input.
• Because CAV is unable to give any legally enforceable resolution in a case, their work may not materially increase access to justice – parties may receive information, education, assistance and conciliator support, and still have to file a claim with either VCAT or the courts in order to receive a binding outcome.

2. The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence when referring to the arguments for and against CAV, that it does achieve one principle of justice. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.