Legal Requirements for Fair Government Decisions

Legal Requirements for Fair Government Decisions

Government decisions are subject to rules and principles designed to ensure fairness. These requirements include:

1. Natural Justice

The principle of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, ensures that individuals affected by a decision have the right to be heard and that decision-makers act impartially. This includes:

• The right to be heard: Individuals must be given the opportunity to present their case before a decision is made.
• The rule against bias: Decision-makers must not have any interest in the outcome of the decision or show any bias.

2. Reasonableness

Government decisions must be reasonable and based on evidence. This principle is recognised under Australian administrative law, where decisions must be logical and defensible.

3. Proportionality

Decisions must be proportionate to the objective being pursued. This means the decision should not impose excessive burdens compared to the benefits achieved.

4. Compliance with Legislation

Government agencies must comply with relevant laws when making decisions. This includes adhering to statutory guidelines and ensuring that decisions are made within the powers granted to them by legislation.
 

Reviewing Government Decisions

Several legal mechanisms are available for reviewing government decisions. These include:

• Internal Review

Many government departments offer an internal review process. This allows individuals to request a review of the decision within the same agency. The internal review is usually conducted by a different officer who was not involved in the original decision.

• Judicial Review

Judicial review involves challenging the lawfulness of a decision in court. Under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), individuals can seek a review of government decisions in the Queensland Supreme Court. Judicial review focuses on whether the decision was made lawfully, not whether it was the ‘right’ decision. Grounds for judicial review include:

• A denial of natural justice.
• The decision-maker acted beyond their legal power (ultra vires).
• The decision was unreasonable or lacked evidence.

• Merits Review

In a merits review, a tribunal or court reconsiders the facts and makes its own decision. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) are two common forums for merits reviews. These bodies can substitute the original decision with their own if they find the decision to be incorrect based on the facts and law.

• Ombudsman Review

The Queensland Ombudsman can investigate complaints about government decisions. The Ombudsman’s role is to ensure decisions are fair and reasonable, though it cannot overturn decisions. Instead, the Ombudsman may recommend corrective action.
 

Action

If you believe a government decision affecting you is unfair or unlawful, you should act promptly to protect your rights.

Steps you can take include:

• Requesting a copy of the decision and any supporting documentation.
• Seeking internal review if available.
• Filing an application for judicial or merits review, depending on the circumstances.
• Consulting a legal professional to assess your options.

 
It is important to be aware of time limits. For instance, applications for judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) must typically be made within a strict timeframe after the decision is made.
 

Cases

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

• This High Court case concerned a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal to refuse a visa extension for Ms Li. The court held that the tribunal’s decision was unreasonable because it was not based on any logical justification. This case reinforced the importance of reasonableness in government decision-making under Australian administrative law.

 
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

• In this landmark case, the High Court of Australia ruled that natural justice applied to administrative decisions affecting the rights of individuals. The court found that a decision to deport a family was invalid because the affected individuals were not given an opportunity to be heard. This case established the modern doctrine of procedural fairness in Australia.

 
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476

• This case involved a challenge to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which sought to limit judicial review. The High Court held that legislation cannot exclude the High Court’s constitutional power to review decisions for jurisdictional error. This decision is significant for maintaining the rule of law by preserving access to judicial review.

Seeking Advice

If you are affected by an adverse government decision and believe it may be unfair or unlawful, Gibbs Wright can assist. We have experience in reviewing and challenging administrative decisions through judicial review and other legal avenues. Our team will help you understand your rights, review your case and guide you through the legal processes to challenge government decisions.
 

Conclusion

Government decisions have the potential to significantly impact your rights and livelihood. Ensuring these decisions meet legal standards of fairness, reasonableness and compliance with the law is essential.

If you are affected by an unfair government decision, there are several legal avenues to challenge the decision and seek a fair outcome. Seeking legal advice is crucial to protecting your interests and ensuring that government actions comply with the law.