The Justice Impact Assessment Framework was unveiled at the Northern Territory Bar Association Civil Law Conference, with the Law Council of Australia urging ministers, parliamentarians and public servants to weigh justice‑system costs before finalising policies, bills or programs.
Council pushes for systematic review of legislation
President Tania Wolff said the lack of foresight on how new measures affect courts and legal aid is hampering effective law‑making. “We believe that good law‑making in this country is being impeded by a failure to consider the clear consequences on the justice system of the proposed changes,” she told the gathering.
Wolff warned that new statutes, major policy shifts or fresh government programs can alter Australians’ rights, duties and expectations, often leading to a rise in legal need and additional demands on the justice system.
Related: Timely Treatment Vital for Brain Injury Recovery
The council’s new checklist is designed to surface hidden impacts such as higher demand for publicly funded assistance, extra pressure on tribunals and downstream costs that usually surface only after a law is in force.
“Used properly, the framework forces decision‑makers to see the true cost of a measure before it’s locked in – not just the headline policy cost, but what it will demand of the justice system to implement,” Wolff explained.
It also asks whether the same objective could be met with less strain on an already stretched system, prompting a harder question for policymakers.
Calls for mandatory assessments
While the council sees the voluntary rollout as a step forward, Wolff emphasized that a voluntary model leaves too much discretion to individual departments. “That’s why the Law Council is continuing to push for something even stronger: a formal Justice Impact Assessment embedded in Australia’s legislative development processes,” she said.
Related: Lawyer warns against viral breakup trend
She pointed to the United Kingdom’s mandatory approach, where any proposal that could affect the justice system must undergo a similar test. “It improves transparency and forces governments to put their reasoning on the record – that accountability is valuable in itself,” Wolff noted.
Implementing the assessments, however, presents practical hurdles. Identifying a potential impact is one thing; securing the resources to address it is another. “Identifying an impact and funding it are two different disciplines, and history shows governments are far more comfortable with the first than the second,” she observed.
Overall, the council plans to circulate the checklist widely across Australian jurisdictions, encouraging its adoption as a standing resource for all levels of government.