Challenging Government Decisions

Government agencies and local councils make thousands of decisions every day about licences, permits, compliance, enforcement, development, and other regulatory obligations. When a decision is wrong, unfair, or made without proper process, the consequences for individuals and businesses can be significant.

Administrative law provides rights to challenge government decisions and hold decision-makers accountable. Understanding those rights is the first step in protecting your interests.

Administrative law regulates how government bodies make decisions. It ensures decisions are lawful, fair, and made using the correct process.

Why Challenging Government Decisions Matters

Government decision-makers can make mistakes. Even well-intentioned decision-makers may:

(a)   rely on incorrect or incomplete information;

(b)   misinterpret legislation;

(c)   apply the wrong legal test;

(d)   overlook relevant evidence; or

(e)   deny procedural fairness (natural justice).

Review rights exist to correct these errors and ensure decisions are lawful. The right to review a government decision promotes fairness and transparency. It supports accountability, helps prevent misuse of power, and ensures affected people have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Government bodies must:

(a)   follow a fair process;

(b)   consider all relevant information;

(c)   give affected people an opportunity to be heard; and

(d)   provide clear reasons for their decisions.

Challenging a decision ensures these standards are met and prevents arbitrary or inconsistent outcomes.

How Government Decisions Affect the Public

Government decisions shape everyday life, often in ways people do not notice until something goes wrong. Decisions made by councils, government departments and regulators can affect a person’s rights, livelihood, reputation, property, or ability to run a business.

For individuals, the impact is often personal and immediate. A decision may prevent someone from using their property as planned or impact the use and enjoymnet of a property. A compliance notice may require costly work within a short timeframe. If a decision is made without giving a person a chance to respond, they may face penalties without warning. Where the process is not fair, transparent, or based on accurate information, people can experience stress, uncertainty, and financial pressure.

For businesses, government decisions can determine how they operate, expand, or even continue trading. Licensing decisions, regulatory conditions, inspections, and enforcement action affect day-to-day operations. A single decision can change timelines, increase costs, or disrupt services. When decisions are inconsistent or poorly explained, it becomes harder to plan with confidence.

How to Challenge Government Decisions

Because these decisions can have serious consequences, the law provides several ways to challenge them. Options may include requesting reasons, seeking an internal review, applying for merits review (for example, through QCAT or the Planning and Environment Court), or pursuing judicial review in the courts. The appropriate pathway depends on the legislation and the type of decision.

Different challenge and review processes apply to different decisions. Usually, the legislation that gives the decision-maker power will also set out how the decision can be reviewed or appealed. These might include:

• Request written reasons: 

  If reasons are not provided, you may be able to request a statement of reasons explaining the facts relied on, the law applied, and how the decision was reached.

  
  

• Seek an internal review: 

  A more senior officer within the same agency may reconsider the decision and either confirm it or change it. This process is often quicker and less formal, and can correct errors early.

  
  

• Apply for external review (merits review):

  A tribunal or court (for example, QCAT or the Planning and Environment Court) may reconsider the matter and determine the correct and preferable decision, based on the relevant material.

  
  

• Appeal of a decision: 

  Appeals focus on challenging the decisions of judges, magistrates and external reviewers. Appeals are generally require the identification of legal or factual error (rather than a complete rehearing).

Where legislation does not provide a specific review process, or limits the nature and extent of review rights, other options may still be available, such as applying for a statutory order of review (commonly referred to as judicial review). Judicial review is different from merits review because it focuses on how the decision was made (for example, whether the correct process and legal requirements were followed), not whether the decision was “right”.

Oversight bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Crime and Corruption Commission, the Information Commissioner, and the Human Rights Commission may also have a role to play, depending on the issue.

Restrictions on Challenging Government Decisions

Not all government decisions can be challenged. For example, policy decisions, Cabinet decisions, budget allocations, and legislative decisions (such as making Acts, regulations, or local laws) are generally not able to be reviewed.

However, the most common restriction is time limits. Review and appeal rights are not open-ended and usually must be exercised within a set period.

Time limits vary depending on the type of decision and the legislation involved. They balance the right to challenge a decision with the need for decisions to be finalised in a timely way. Missing the deadline can mean losing the right to challenge the decision.

Where legislation creates a right to review or appeal, the time limit is usually clearly stated. In limited circumstances, it may be possible to apply for an extension of time, but the circumstances where extensions might be available are limited.

Practical Tips for Challenging Government Decisions

If you have review or appeal rights, act early. Make sure you understand the decision and any deadlines, obtain reasons where possible, gather relevant evidence, and focus your challenge on what the review body has power to decide.