An example of this is where an employee working for the TAFE, but within a correctional setting has breached security or safety protocols.

The breach may not be severe enough for the TAFE employee’s organisation to warrant severe disciplinary action, but this may be warranted in the custodial setting.

In this example, if the employee was returned to the custodial site, this could impact on business reputation of the TAFE not being seen to appropriately manage staff and safety issues.

If the TAFE was to administer disciplinary action at the level of the custodial setting, the employee would most likely be terminated, this may show an inequitable process when compared to staff not working in a custodial setting.

A decision based on a utilitarian lens would enable both the security concerns with that staff member at the custodial setting to be addressed, most likely that staff member won’t be deployed to that site and relocated to a non-custodial setting.

This outcome protects both the  business reputation of the employer working within custodial settings, and the employee is not delt a higher level of disciplinary action than their non-custodial based colleagues.

In practice, this means evaluating commercial strategies, product design decisions, and interactions with healthcare professionals to support the collective wellbeing of patients and clinical decision-making.

Further within Australia, before a medical device can be advertised, supplied or sold, it must meet the Therapeutic Goods Administration regulatory requirements. Medical device companies accept and follow these restrictions because they protect patient safety and ensure that healthcare professionals and patients can rely on products that have been assessed for quality and safety before being used. This is one example that demonstrates the prioritisation of public health and trust over speed to market and financial gain.

How this applies at Variety Victoria

• Fair distribution of support: Use clear criteria, consistent assessment, and transparent reasoning when allocating grants, equipment, and programs.

• Equity over equality: Prioritise children with greater or compounding disadvantage and provide extra support to families who face barriers in accessing services.

• Address systemic disadvantage: Direct resources toward communities and children who experience structural inequities, such as rural families, Indigenous children, or those in out‑of‑home care.

• Fair internal processes: Ensure recruitment, workload, and decision-making are transparent and consistent across staff and volunteers.

• Inclusive engagement: Actively involve families and young people with lived experience, and make consultation accessible across cultures, abilities, and regions.

• Accountability: Regularly review criteria, publish impact data, and explain how decisions are made to maintain trust and fairness.

In practice, the Justice Lens can be applied by ensuring all suppliers are assessed against the same evaluation criteria and that procurement decisions are based on merit and evidence rather than personal influence or bias. It also supports the consistent application of conflict of interest, confidentiality and disclosure requirements, helping to ensure that similar situations are treated in a comparable manner.

Importantly, fairness does not always mean identical treatment. Different circumstances may require different controls or responses depending on the level of risk involved. Applying the Justice Lens therefore involves making decisions that are proportionate, well-documented and aligned with established policies and governance frameworks.

By promoting transparency, procedural fairness and accountability, the Justice Lens helps strengthen trust in procurement and integrity processes, ensuring that public resources are managed responsibly and that decisions can withstand scrutiny.