Plain language drafting has been taught in Australian law schools now for a decade.
What these advances are forcing me to do is not to look to the past of the plain language movement, but to look to the future. So what I'm doing nowadays is casting a critical eye over what is lacking in the Australian legal scene in terms of plain language and clear communication. And what I'm seeing - and it came into focus very quickly in the first half of this year - is a desperate need for reform in the courts and tribunals.

In Australia, in the past few years, governments have been radically cutting the financial aid available for people who cannot afford to pay for a private lawyer. There's only very limited legal aid available for civil litigation, and nowhere near enough for family law and criminal cases. And there are not enough court-appointed lawyers. The private profession does some "pro-bono" work, but it is not enough. At the same time, Australia is becoming an increasingly litigious society. For those, and other reasons, the perception is that the courts are flooded with self- representing litigants. And that neither the courts nor the litigants are coping.

		in the Family Court, up to 41% of cases have at least one self-represented litigant (and another study has the figure as high as 50%)2
		in the Federal Court, 18% of cases involved self-represented litigants (and of these 31% were applicants in migration cases)
		in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 35% of all cases involved self-represented litigants.

But instead of me talking statistics and telling you why reform is necessary in the language and procedure of the courts, let me - in the best practice of clear communication - show you.