Formal Opposition to

Summary of Position

I submit this formal opposition to the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill (Government Bill 159–1). While presented as a set of efficiency-focused changes, this bill introduces significant risks to access to justice, judicial independence, and public inquiry transparency. It reshapes civil, criminal, and coronial law in ways that constrain fair process, restrict appeals, and limit scrutiny of institutional harm.

This is not a neutral reform. It is structural recalibration of justice — away from citizens and toward bureaucratic discretion.

1. Enables Premature Dismissal of Civil Claims

Sections 164A and 164B allow registrars to escalate civil proceedings deemed "plainly abusive" — a vague and undefined term — for potential summary dismissal by judges.

• Subjective thresholds open the door to ideological or political interpretation,
• Litigants with complex, Treaty-related, or systemic claims may be silenced prematurely,
• The process bypasses full hearings and undermines procedural justice.

2. Imposes Automatic Civil Restraints

Section 164C enables automatic bans on individuals deemed to have abused court process.

• Justice becomes a privilege, not a right,
• No allowance for intent, context, or remedy,
• No guaranteed path to review or rehabilitation.

This sets a dangerous precedent in access to legal redress.

3. Downgrades Appellate Oversight

Section 319A allows Court of Appeal judges to remit cases back to the High Court.

• Removes the opportunity for cases to be heard at the appellate level,
• Undermines vertical scrutiny of judicial decisions,
• Risks inconsistent or downgraded justice for complex claims.

4. Burdens Defendants Through Centralised Management

Section 156A allows pre-trial criminal procedures to be consolidated across District Court offices.

• Increases logistical strain on defendants with limited means,
• Reduces local access to justice,
• Disproportionately harms rural and vulnerable populations.

5. Permits Quiet Closure of Coroners’ Inquiries

Section 65A allows coroners to terminate inquiries based on new information without family consultation or public transparency.

• Enables closure of inquiries into deaths involving state responsibility,
• Undermines truth-seeking in cases of institutional abuse or negligence,
• Silences public interest by administrative discretion.

6. Uses Language to Conceal Structural Harm

This bill echoes recent trends — using terms like “timeliness” and “efficiency” to justify:

• Reduced entry to justice,
• Expanded power for gatekeepers,
• Closed inquiries into public harm,
• Diminished rights of appeal.

This is not reform. It is retraction of the legal space where justice occurs.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill must not proceed as currently drafted. It compromises the role of courts as defenders of civil rights and public truth in favour of administrative efficiency.

• Delete sections 164A–C and define abuse-of-process via an independent framework,
• Restrict remittance of appeals to ensure judicial transparency,
• Maintain coroner inquiry rights with mandatory public notice and family consultation,
• Ensure defendants retain access to local pre-trial process and fair criminal preparation.

Justice delayed is a problem — but justice denied by design is far worse.

Respectfully submitted,

Ukes Baha

Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst

ukesbaha.com