ABSTRACT The elusive concept of post legislative scrutiny (PLS) is slowly starting to capture the attention of Westminster inspired Parliaments around the world with its promise of improving the implementation and quality of law making through systematic review, with benefits of the citizen on the ground. Assumptions are made within the idea of PLS about who should be responsible for the scrutiny (the Parliament) and how it should occur in practice (often led and supported by Executive agencies). However, in many jurisdictions, including Australia, the term ‘PLS’ is not well known because the act of post-legislative scrutiny occurs on an ad hoc basis, without any clear systematic or prescribed framework for monitoring how, when or why it might occur. This gives rise to concerns that the quality of PLS occurring in jurisdictions like Australia might be lacking and demands for a more structured approach. This article shares these concerns but argues that the experience of PLS in Australia offers important insights how to invest PLS systems with the type of deliberative features that are necessary to ensure that scrutiny of implementation and lawmaking delivers meaningful outcomes for citizens on the ground.

中文翻译：

---

立法后审查的审议方法？澳大利亚临时方法的经验教训

摘要 立法后审查 (PLS) 难以捉摸的概念正慢慢开始吸引威斯敏斯特启发的世界各地议会的注意，它承诺通过系统审查来改善法律制定的实施和质量，并使当地公民受益。在 PLS 的思想中做出了关于谁应该负责审查（议会）以及在实践中应该如何进行（通常由执行机构领导和支持）的假设。然而，在包括澳大利亚在内的许多司法管辖区，“PLS”一词并不广为人知，因为立法后审查行为是临时发生的，没有任何明确的系统或规定的框架来监控它如何、何时或为何发生. 这引起了人们对澳大利亚等司法管辖区可能缺乏 PLS 质量的担忧，并要求采用更结构化的方法。本文分享了这些担忧，但认为澳大利亚 PLS 的经验提供了重要的见解，即如何投资具有审议特征类型的 PLS 系统，这是确保对实施和立法的审查为当地公民带来有意义的结果所必需的。