LEXICON HAS PREVIOUSLY discussed the impact of culture on legal proceedings and the legal system generally (see China Business Law Journal, volume 11, issue 3: Culture in the courtroom; China Business Law Journal, volume 13, issue 9: Interveners), and also the impact of culture on communications (see China Business Law Journal, volume 5, issue 10: Cross-cultural communications).
It is, of course, important to use the term “culture” carefully and to avoid stereotyping. Even where it is relevant, culture is usually just one factor to consider in determining how a dispute should be resolved, how a decision should be made, and what action should be taken in any given circumstances. Culture is unlikely to be determinative in its own right.
Related to the concept of culture is the concept of “diversity”. This concept is often used to describe the diversity that exists within society as a result of high-level factors such as culture and ethnicity. Increasingly, the term “superdiversity” is being used in this context. This term describes not just diversity between different groups in society but also diversity within those groups. It looks beyond high-level factors and examines the diversity that arises as a result of specific factors such as socio-economic status, education, gender and age.
The term “superdiversity” is often used in relation to countries like Australia and New Zealand, as a result of the contributions of immigrants over many decades and the multicultural societies in those countries. It is also used in relation to the law and legal system. In 2019, the New Zealand Bar Association recognised that a significant amount of work was required “to ensure New Zealand’s superdiversity does not undermine the ability of [the] court system to ensure equal access to justice for all” [for a previous column discussing justice, see China Business Law Journal, volume 11, issue 7: The notion of justice]. This column outlines two recent initiatives by the Asian Australian Lawyers Association (AALA) that relate to superdiversity and diversity generally: the release of the Superdiversity Action Plan in December 2025 and release of the 2025 Cultural Diversity Snapshot in November 2025.
Superdiversity Action Plan
The Superdiversity Action Plan refers to “superdiversity” as “a term used to describe a highly multicultural and multiethnic society”. The reasons for the plan, including the need to increase access to justice for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) parties, are explained as follows:
Australia’s growing superdiverse population, characterised by the dynamic interplay of migration histories and cultural differences, has presented new challenges and complexities for courts and tribunals – particularly in ensuring access to justice for CALD parties participating in the legal system. Decision-makers regularly adjudicate matters involving parties with limited English proficiency and/or little familiarity with the Australian legal system.
Given the issues outlined above, AALA has formulated this Superdiversity Action Plan to provide proposals to the Australian judiciary, tribunals, decision-makers, and the wider public for addressing challenges faced by CALD parties in the Australian legal system and process.
The plan makes various recommendations and proposals, all of which are designed “to improve access, equity, and cultural responsiveness for [culturally and linguistically diverse] parties in all areas of the Australian legal system”. A culturally responsive legal system is one that is sensitive towards the impact of factors such as culture, ethnicity, religion and language barriers.
Three of the nine recommendation are summarised below.
Legal literacy and community education. The plan recommends collaboration with CALD community service providers “to develop and deliver targeted legal literacy and education strategies, ensuring court and tribunal support services are accessible to CALD parties and culturally responsive”.
Such collaboration would include the provision of support to community legal centres and the development of multilingual legal resources to provide basic information about the legal system in Australia and how it might differ from legal systems in other countries.
Building cultural competence. The plan recommends cultural competency training and ongoing awareness programmes for judicial officers and tribunal members “to address unconscious bias, stereotyping, and assumptions when working with CALD communities”. It also recommends the development of a national Bench Book on cultural diversity. As this column has previously noted (see China Business Law Journal, volume 11, issue 3: Culture in the courtroom), a bench book provides guidance to judges in areas such as civil and criminal procedure. For example, bench books have been published in Australia to provide guidance to judges on the customs and cultures of Australia’s indigenous peoples. Further, the plan recommends that cultural competency be included in legal education and professional development training for lawyers.
Enhancing use of interpreters. The plan recommends that fully funded, accredited interpreters be provided for parties with limited English proficiency at every stage of legal proceedings to ensure equal access to justice and uphold procedural fairness. Further, specialist legal interpreting qualifications should form part of the accreditation process for interpreters and court-specific interpreter protocols should be adopted to reduce the disadvantage suffered by many CALD parties and ensure consistent, high-quality interpreting services.
The plan then proposes various actions, which respond to the following priority areas and questions:
-
- Information: What measures could improve CALD parties’ access to information about the Australian legal system, including pre-trial procedures and legal education?
- Managing proceedings: What best-practice approaches and practical tips are available for managing proceedings involving CALD parties?
- Evidence: What considerations should be taken into account when identifying, assessing and admitting cultural evidence?
- Training: What measures could increase awareness of the impact of culture and superdiversity through training for judicial officers and the legal profession?
The plan concludes by highlighting the importance of superdiversity:
Superdiversity is a defining feature of contemporary Australian society. Over recent decades, migration patterns have continued to evolve and the landscape in which CALD parties come before the courts has also changed, but one thing has remained constant: the Australian judicial system is still particularly difficult for many to navigate. The recommendations and proposals presented in this paper – ranging from the use of cultural reports to explain an offender’s background where cultural issues are relevant, through to equitable briefing practices and the adoption of modern technology to enhance interpreter services – are designed to promote procedural fairness and uphold the fundamental right to equal treatment under the law.
2025 Cultural Diversity Snapshot
The 2025 Snapshot follows a report in 2015 and “provides an updated picture of Asian-Australian representation within the legal profession”. According to the 2025 Snapshot,
While the data shows an increase in representation over the past decade, it also reveals that this progress has been disproportionately concentrated at junior levels. The Snapshot highlights the continuing gap in proportional representation across senior roles in the profession – from solicitors to barristers and the judiciary.
The low level of culture diversity in the legal profession and courts in Australia is reflected in the following key findings:
- Almost one in five Australians have Asian ancestry in 2025, but only one in 18 lawyers in the legal profession are Asian Australian.
- At the current rate it will take at least 70 years before Asian Australian judicial officers make up 17% of the judiciary and reflect the Australian population as of 2021.
- While the number of judicial officers in Federal courts increased from 154 to 190 in the past decade, the number of Asian-Australian judicial officers only increased by four.
Amusingly, the 2025 Snapshot notes that there are 62 judges in Australia named “Michael” compared to just 40 Asian-Australian judges.
As Judge Sharon Burchell of the County Court of Victoria noted in comments published in the 2025 Snapshot,
Diversity does not soften the law – it sharpens its sight. It deepens deliberation, steadies legitimacy, and helps us hear the whole story before we write its ending. The diversity of opinion and perspective is also what has allowed the common law to grow and thrive across generations and jurisdictions.
The importance of increasing diversity in the legal profession and in the courts in all jurisdictions should not be understated [for a related discussion about diversity, see China Business Law Journal, volume 11, issue 1: Chinese pioneers].
The author acted as an adviser to the Asian Australian Lawyers Association in preparation of its 2025 Superdiversity Action Plan, which built on a 2022 issues paper by Mai Chen and the author titled “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parties in Australian Courts – Insights from New Zealand”.
Andrew Godwin previously practised as a foreign lawyer in Shanghai (1996-2006) before returning to his alma mater, Melbourne Law School in Australia, to teach and research law. Andrew is currently Joint Associate Director of the Corporate Law and Financial Regulation Research Programme at the Melbourne Centre for Commercial Law and Honorary Associate Director (Commercial law) of the Asian Law Centre. Andrew has acted as a consultant to a broad range of organisations, regulators and governments in Australia and abroad. He served as Special Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the Australian Law Reform Commission between 2020 and 2024.
