ADR processes are now used extensively in Australia to resolve disputes in courts and tribunals. In addition, government departments see ADR as an important tool in improving access to justice for ordinary citizens. However, what justice means in different ADR contexts may differ. One possible explanation for the divergence of views on justice and ethics in ADR practice is the fact that practitioners come from different professional backgrounds and disciplines and also use a range of processes. Also, while some processes have clearly stated normative purposes under enabling legislation and Charters, others do not. There are also industryscheme ADR processes with normative purposes beyond individual disputes. Drawing from empirical research, this paper begins to explore the relationship between process purpose, underlying values and ethical responsibilities that arise for a range of ADR practitioners working in different fields and the potential of those processes to promote substantive and procedural justice.

No abstract

This article details a trial of a new approach to measuring access to justice that utilises human rights instruments as the reference point. It involves an examination of people's actual experience of the justice system using human rights standards as the benchmark. The research project selected the right to income security. The project trialled a range of methods gathering data about how people have been treated in the Australian social security system and how they would expect to be treated if there was a human right to social security in Australia. This data is assessed against the set of standards developed to measure the enjoyment of the right to social security. The trial suggests that without knowledge about human rights and legal rights, without the confidence to exercise those rights and without the capacity or capability to seek or find help it is unlikely that people will realise their rights and accordingly access to justice is placed in question. The research methodology has the potential to be a useful model to conduct further access to justice research.If we believe in human rights, we must work hard to define what they mean for people's daily lives. We must identify the real and concrete outcomes that represent the achievement of human rights in practice and make sure they are incorporated in government programs and policies, as well as ensuring that the broad principles and goals of human rights form part of national and local government targets, mission statement and evaluation. 1 We've just had a young guy living with us for a few days, a twenty year old bloke who is unemployed and is homeless . . . I don't think he would see that he's got a right to that so he wouldn't go in and yell and scream or argue or get somebody to advocate for him and there's probably a lot like that. They're not prepared or have the capacity to stand up to the system and make the system work or justify itself. That's very hard to do to. 2

In the last four decades, there has been a significant increase in the number and variety of appropriate dispute-resolution (ADR) institutions and processes in Australia as a critical aspect of improved access to justice. Although more people can get assistance to resolve their disputes, the issues of whether this access is shared equally within the community, how the disadvantaged fare in these processes and what type of justice is provided by the various ADR processes are explored. The relevance of legislative objectives of ADR fora and processes to justice outcomes is highlighted. It is argued that ADR processes need to be designed and implemented bearing in mind the type/nature of the dispute, parties involved and availability of resources, and to have an overarching objective of promoting access to justice for users. Additionally, improved access to justice requires ongoing and rigorous evaluation of ADR processes to ascertain whether justice objectives are being achieved.

No abstract