Administrative Law: avenues and grounds of review for challenging government decisions

This article discusses the Law of Administration and its accountability mechanism for regulating decision making authority of the government. It explains the process of merits review and judicial review and how they can be used to challenge government decisions. The article also provides guidance to Liam on how he can challenge the decision of the UtTC.

Administrative Law

Table of Contents
Issue............................................................................................................................................3
Rule............................................................................................................................................3
Application.................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................6

Issue
Can Liam challenge the decision of the UtTC and on what avenues and grounds of review?
Rule
The Law of Administration of the country is considered as an accountability mechanism
which is responsible for the regulation of decision making authority of the government. It is
applicable to the decision making of the government regarding issues related to individuals
instead of policy decisions on broader aspect. It is the administrative legal system that
guarantees binding of the government as well as the common people to the law as well as
support the rule of law in the country. It requires the government agencies to act as
authoritative decision makers and operate in the individual matters so that their decisions
could be taken into consideration for the purpose of either merits review or judicial review in
order to effectively analyse the review outcomes.
In this context, the Merits review is considered as a process through which, the decision is
taken by others instead of primary decision makers by reconsideration of the law, facts as
well as policy relevant to the original decision. In this process, the overall decision is taken
relying on the legal compliance of the process of decision making. On the other hand, judicial
review incorporates evaluation of the processes that is being monitored in the process of
resolution. The main aim of the merits review is to guarantee accuracy and prefer ability of
the administrative decisions i.e. in accordance with the law. It is to ensure rational conduct of
all the individuals influenced by a judgment and refining the excellence and reliability of
primary decision making. The Merits review can primarily be directed internally by a senior
officer of the organization. Along with it, external merits review could also be considered by
variety of bodies established to provide external review. As in Plaintiff S157/2002 v
Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, 489 (Gleeson CJ), it was stated that the precise

contents of the requirements might differ in accordance with the legal context and might also
be governed by express statutory provisions, the individuals affected due to procedural
fairness should be provided with justice under merits review.1
In the internal review, decision taken by an officer of organization is reviewed by another
individual within the organization. Various organizations have official structures of internal
review which might usually be delivered in the regulation. There are few of the agencies also
which possess informal systems which are made accessible through managerial processes
within an organization. The internal review can be pursued by demanding review of the
decision by ensuring the established events of the devices. The suitable internal review
procedures could be applied and it is easier to admission and enable earlier and more
reasonable way of reconsidering the decisions, wherein, the candidates could consider a
mistake has been conducted. The internal review procedures will not be suitable where
resolutions are conducted by senior officers or by the Ministers. The policy makers should
reflect if internal review mechanisms should rely on law in order to warrant precision of
rights or whether internal administrative processes are sufficient.2
The external review comprises of renewed concern of the primary decision by an external
authority, which is usually a board or panel and might also be a supervisor or a self-
governing authority from another organization. The external merits review must be provided
by the legislation, wherein, the reviewers possess the authority of inventive decision maker
and the executive rules of the organization are not obligatory on the review tribunals.3The
1 High Court of Australia, Plaintiff S157/2002 V Commonwealth of Australia (2003) Eresources.hcourt.gov.au
<http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2003/HCA/2>.
2R.J.S. Macpherson, "Restructuring of Administrative Policies in Australian and New Zealand State School
Education Systems: Implications for Practice, Theory and Research" (1991) 29(4) Journal of Educational
Administration <https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/EUM0000000002474>.
3Common Wealth of Australia, Australian Administrative Law Policy Guide (2011) Ag.gov.au
<https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/AdministrativeLaw/Documents/Australian-administrative-law-policy-
guide.pdf>.

administrative policies are applicable to the decisions of the court of tribunal but the courts
do not require to follow them in the distinct cases if their opinion is that obedience might not
lead to appropriate decision.
Application
Liam can challenge the decision of the organization as it was the sole decision of Lawrence,
the secretary of the UtTC. Liam believes that instead of providing submissions regarding the
allegations against him, Lawrence did not consider and decided to cancel the membership of
Liam. He also believes that the decision taken by Lawrence was bias because he was dating
Cristine Marie, who was one of the main rivals for club award. Liam can consider merits
review because in this process, an individual other than Lawrence could reconsider the facts,
rule and policy characteristics of the actual decision and regulates the appropriate decision.4
Otherwise, he can also consider judicial review wherein, the legitimacy of the decision
making process could also be considered. The merits review would confirm if the decisions
taken have been appropriate or not and whether is in accordance with law or not. It could
ensure fair treatments of all the individuals affected by a decision and so Liam could find it
beneficial as he believes that the decision of the organization is inappropriate and it affected
his membership in the organization.
Furthermore, there is also an option with Liam whether he wants to consider internal or
external review as merits review. In the process of internal review, he can consider any of the
senior officials from the organization as he was allowed to wear such gears in the
organization as well as he had not taken marijuana in the meetings. The external reviews
could also be taken into consideration by Liam if he believes that it would not be appropriate
4National Archives of Australia, Administration – National Archives of Australia, Australian Government
(2018) Naa.gov.au <http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/defence/administration.aspx>.

to consider internal review. In the process of external review, he can consider someone else
from external to the organization to take decisions. The external review involves renewed
consideration by the external organization and he can consider either regulator or an
independent officer from another organization to achieve the purpose, however, the decision
should be provided for by the legislation. If he dissatisfies with either of the merits reviews,
he can also consider judicial review if he finds it appropriate.
Conclusion
Liam should consider external or internal review for the purpose of challenging the decision
taken by the organization. As he supposes that the decision was entirely taken by the
secretary, so he should suppose external review to find the decision to be appropriate. On the
other hand, he can also consider judicial review if he finds it inappropriate.
References
Macpherson, R.J.S., "Restructuring of Administrative Policies in Australian and New
Zealand State School Education Systems: Implications for Practice, Theory and Research"
(1991) 29(4) Journal of Educational Administration
<https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/EUM0000000002474>
Common Wealth of Australia, Australian Administrative Law Policy Guide (2011) Ag.gov.au
<https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/AdministrativeLaw/Documents/Australian-
administrative-law-policy-guide.pdf>
National Archives of Australia, Administration – National Archives of Australia, Australian
Government (2018) Naa.gov.au
<http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/defence/administration.aspx>

High Court of Australia, Plaintiff S157/2002 V Commonwealth of Australia (2003)
Eresources.hcourt.gov.au <http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2003/HCA/2>