Better Decisions Project Framework Report-Management Project Reference

Better Decisions Project:
A framework for effective administrative decision making systems
A joint project of:
November 2005
Better Decisions Project: A framework for effective administrative decision making systems Page: ii
Executive Summary
The Better Decisions Project
The Better Decisions Project was established in April 2003 by the then Department of Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (now the Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (DTFTWID)), in partnership with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman (the Ombudsmans Office). Officers from the Department of Justice and Attorney General and the Queensland Building Services Authority (the QBSA) also contributed their experience, expertise and guidance to the project as members of a consultative committee. The Better Decisions Project largely stems from an earlier review of tribunals and dispute resolution bodies within the Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading portfolio. The majority of recommendations arising from this review report resulted in the creation of Queenslands Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to consider a wide range of matters, including certain decisions of the Chief Executive of DTFTWID and certain decisions of the QBSA. A secondary recommendation of this review was that a further review of administrative decision making procedures, internal review mechanisms, complaint handling systems and training/skills analysis of primary decision makers be undertaken. The secondary recommendation was the basis of the Better Decisions Project. One of the main aims of the project is to enhance administrative decision making within DTFTWID at a systemic level, through the development of a Framework that incorporates the key features of effective administrative decision making systems. This report presents the framework developed in the project (referred to as the Better Decisions Framework).
Purpose of the Better Decisions Framework

The report examines administrative decision making at a systems level, focusing particularly on decision making systems with regulatory functions such as registration and accreditation programs, occupational and business licensing, and enforcement of legislation. The Better Decisions Framework is primarily intended to be a guide for officers involved in the design and establishment of new administrative decision making systems, and officers participating in substantial reviews of existing decision making systems. Of course, the extent to which issues raised in the Framework apply to individual administrative decision making systems will depend on the nature, purpose and characteristics of the particular decisions and decision making processes. For this reason, the Framework should be used as a general reference only. It is not intended to be an exhaustive guide to the many diverse matters that affect both the development and ongoing operation of administrative decision making systems.
Better Decisions Project: A framework for effective administrative decision making systems Page: iii
Structure of this report

This report is essentially in two main parts. Part 1 (Chapters 1 to 3) outlines general information on administrative decision making, and provides a brief summary of the background and development of the Better Decisions Framework. Part 2 (Chapters 4 to 8) of the report sets out the five main components of the Better Decisions Framework, and explains how they contribute to the effectiveness of administrative decision making systems. The five key components of the Framework are: Legal Considerations; Corporate Communications; Management Practices; Review and Appeal Structures; and Complaint Handling.
There are also a number of references and resources included as appendices to this report. For example Appendix 1 presents the Better Decisions Framework in a summarised checklist form, accompanied by a number of self-assessment questions. This checklist is intended to be a quick reference for people considering or applying the Better Decisions Framework. Like many organisations, administrative decision making agencies are called upon to update and improve their services on an on-going basis. Throughout the Framework, a number of improvement strategies are highlighted as important ways of continuing to enhance administrative decision making systems.
Better Decisions Project: A framework for effective administrative decision making systems Page: iv
Table of contents
BUILDING THE BETTER DECISIONS FRAMEWORK CHAPTER 1: ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS .....................................................................2 1.1 What are administrative decisions?..................................................................2 1.2 Why is administrative decision making important?...........................................3 1.3 What are the benefits of a good administrative decision making? ...................3 CHAPTER 2: DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS ......................................................................4 2.1 What is an administrative decision making system? ........................................4 2.2 Why examine administrative decision making from a systems perspective?...4 CHAPTER 3: MODELS FOR DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS ..................................................6 3.1 Research ..........................................................................................................6 3.2 The decision making environment....................................................................6 3.3 Defining a framework........................................................................................9 CHAPTER 4: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................11 4.1 Law and the Better Decisions Framework......................................................11 4.2 Administrative law - impact on decision making systems..............................11 4.3 Other aspects of judicial review ......................................................................19 4.4 Merits review...................................................................................................20 4.5 Legal considerations for the development of policy and legislation underpinning administrative decision making systems ..................................23 CHAPTER 5: CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS ..............................................................27 5.1 Corporate Communications and the Better Decisions Framework ................27 5.2 Service Charters .............................................................................................27 5.3 General information about an agencys business and decision making processes.............................................................................29 5.4 Communicating with clients through the decision making process ................30 CHAPTER 6: MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ......................................................................31 6.1 Management practices and the Better Decisions Framework........................31 6.2 Building and retaining knowledge about administrative decision making.......31 6.3 Delegations.....................................................................................................34 CHAPTER 7: REVIEW AND APPEAL STRUCTURES ..........................................................37 7.1 Review and Appeal Structures and the Better Decisions Framework............37 7.2 Review rights under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001 .......................................................................38 7.3 Legislated review and appeal rights for administrative decision making systems ..............................................................................................42 7.4 What decisions should be subject to merits review? ......................................42 7.5 Forms of review ..............................................................................................43 CHAPTER 8: COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT ....................................................................45 8.1 Complaints Management and the Better Decisions Framework ....................45 8.2 Characteristics of effective complaints management systems.......................47 APPENDICES............................................................................................................48
Building the Better Decisions Framework
Better Decisions Project: A framework for effective administrative decision making systems Page: 1
Chapter 1: Administrative Decisions

1.1 What are administrative decisions?
1. Government make laws to give effect to policies intended to benefit the communities they have been elected to govern. For example, government legislation may provide for services and benefits for the community, prohibit some conduct in the interest of public order and safety and regulate business activity to a degree considered appropriate to protect the wider public interest. A major role of government agencies and officials is to administer government legislation to achieve the policy purposes for which the legislation was enacted. Government legislation authorises Ministers and officials to make decisions that can affect citizens and corporations in many aspects of their lives and business activities. Decisions made by the Governor in Council, Ministers or officials in the course of administering legislation are administrative decisions. Also, some administrative decisions are made, not under legislative power, but under inherent powers of the executive government, for example the power to make contracts to procure goods or services. Administrative decisions are often contrasted with: Judicial decisions decisions made by Courts exercising judicial power; and Decisions of a legislative character decisions which involve the making of statutory rules (Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation), these rules apply generally to all persons affected by their terms within the jurisdiction of the particular government. 5. Generally, when a statutory rule or decision making power is applied by a Minister or official to the circumstances of a particular individual or corporation, an administrative decision is made. Administrative decisions that impact on the rights or interests of citizens and corporations, particularly those made under laws for the regulation of business activity, are the focus of this project. Many Acts authorise Ministers or officials to make administrative decisions relating to a wide range of issues including occupational, business and liquor licensing, registration and accreditation programs, as well as the investigation and enforcement of legislation. Often Acts authorising administrative decisions also allow the relevant Minister or Director-General to delegate their decision making powers to other public sector officers. These Acts may also regulate the administrative decision making process, and provide people affected by an administrative decision with rights to appeal, or seek review of, the relevant administrative decisions.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The majority of government decisions made under legislation administered by the Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (DTFTWID) can be described as administrative decisions.
1.2 Why is administrative decision making important?

10. Government agencies make many thousands of administrative decisions each year, addressing a wide range of diverse matters and issues. Administrative decision making is very important for a number of reasons, including the following: Firstly, many administrative decisions have serious, ongoing implications for members of the community. For example, a refusal to renew a persons business related license (such as a licence to operate as a real estate agent or a motor dealer, or a licence allowing the sale of liquor) can have serious impacts on the persons financial and business interests. Similarly, decisions regarding the registration and accreditation of residential services such as boarding houses and supported aged accommodation can have serious implications for the health, safety and well-being of some of the more vulnerable members of the community. Due to the very real impacts of these types of decisions on peoples lives, administrative decision making is a serious issue for public sector agencies. Secondly, because of the very direct effect many administrative decisions have on the community, the performance of a government agency is often judged on the quality of its administrative decisions. By ensuring that their administrative decisions are lawful, reasonable and fair, agencies can promote a positive perception of their services and performance within the community.
11.
12.
1.3 What are the benefits of a good administrative decision making?

13. There are many clear benefits of good administrative decision making, both for the community and decision making agencies themselves. For example, good administrative decision making practices: increase the likelihood of agencies making lawful, reasonable and fair decisions about important matters affecting the community; promote good customer relations, and a positive community perception of the role and performance of the agency; allow the agency to identify and implement strategies to improve services offered by the agency; and contribute to better corporate governance, including the effective use of resources, as well as accountability and transparency in government operations.
Chapter 2: Decision making systems

2.1 What is an administrative decision making system?
14. In summary, it is the procedures and arrangements that an agency or government official has in place to capture and evaluate all material relevant to the proper exercise of a decision making power. It includes documentation of decisions and reasons for decisions and any quality control procedures, including any process for obtaining and evaluating feedback from affected parties or independent reviewers (eg Courts, tribunals, the Ombudsman), for the purpose of system improvements. Administrative decision making systems operate within a complex environment, with many external factors influencing and impacting on a systems processes and performance. These factors may be social, political, legal, physical and economic and may also include other systems.
15.
2.2 Why examine administrative decision making from a systems perspective?

16. The Better Decisions Framework does not focus on the process officers should follow to make sound administrative decisions, but on the systems which should be put in place to facilitate good decision making. The Framework does this by identifying key features of effective administrative decision making systems, and by highlighting how features of the decision making environment influence the decision maker. By adopting this broad based approach, it is hoped that the Better Decisions Framework will assist in explaining the elements of good administrative decision making and be a useful reference tool for officers involved in the design and establishment of new administrative decision making systems and officers reviewing and enhancing existing decision making systems.
17.
Chapter 3: Models for decision making systems

18. As mentioned previously, one of the main goals of the Better Decisions Project
is to develop a framework comprising the key features of effective administrative decision making systems. This chapter is a brief summary of the development of the Better Decisions Framework. Part 2 of the report presents the Framework in detail.
3.1 Research
19. Part way through the research conducted for the Better Decisions Project, it became apparent that while there are significant resources available on decision making theory and administrative law principles, there was no particular model identifying the elements of effective administrative decision making systems performing regulatory functions, such as those performed by DTFTWID. As a result, the direction of the Better Decisions Project was shifted to the construction of a model from an analysis of a number of different frameworks and quality models. The research conducted for the Better Decisions Project has not been reproduced in detail in this report. However, some of the material examined is referred to in Appendix 2 which provides a brief summary of the key matters influencing the development of administrative law and administrative review in Queensland over the last 30 years.
20.
21.
3.2 The decision making environment 22. Some of the main environmental factors influencing administrative decision
making systems are illustrated in the following diagram:
Continuous Improvement Culture & Values Principles Policy Governance
Communication Performance Evaluation
Inter-related Frameworks
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MAKING ENVIRONMENT Better Decisions Project:

A framework for effective administrative decision making systems Page: 6
Corporate Capacity
People
Administrative Decisions
Community
23.
Identifying and recognising the influences and impacts of environmental factors is the first step in building the Better Decisions Framework. The next table provides a brief description of these influences.
Key Features of the Administrative Decision Making Environment

Key Features Community Description Community refers both to local communities and to organisations within those communities, as well as to society in general. Community includes public opinion and values, often influenced by diversity, economics and demographics. Values shape the culture permeating the operation of the decision making agency. The culture of an organisation is the philosophy or ethos underpinning every aspect of its operation. Culture and values together support and are reflective of an organisations style of governance, including the tone of strategic planning employed by an organisation in working towards its objectives. Principles relate to the codes of ethics and conduct underpinning the governance framework. Principles maintain the integrity of a decision making system. Substantive government policies outline what the government intends to do through stated plans of action. Substantive policy is a statement of intent for dealing with an issue requiring, or likely to require, the approval of the Parliament, the Cabinet and the Premier. Alternatively, procedural policies consider how something will be done and by whom, often within government agencies. They concern internal operations, often in the form of departmental manuals, operating standards and technical operations. Governance or corporate governance refers to the strategy, planning and performance management and the basis for internal and external accountabilities and processes within the organisation. Governance style is reflective of the values which shape the culture of an organisation. Inter-related frameworks are those that influence the decision making system, although they are external to it (for example, the Managing for Outcomes Framework). All systems and processes rely on their inter-relationship with people. People can include parties, staff, customers, the executive, other key stakeholders, interested persons and community groups. The way in which people interact has a profound effect on any system.
Culture and Values
Principles
Policy
Governance
Inter-related Frameworks
People
Key Features Communication
Description Communication refers to information available to staff to enable them to perform their duties in accordance with governance strategies and values. This includes information provided by training and feedback. Communication also refers to accessibility of information to the public, including customers and other stakeholders and the feedback provided by these groups. Performance of an organisation is assessed in line with organisational goals, objectives, principles and values, strategic plans, key performance indicators and governance objectives. Performance monitoring and review may involve internal and external systems and processes. Evaluation refers to the capability of an organisation to monitor and review its systems effectively and to develop best practice in relation to: the operation of those systems; and the application of feedback derived from those systems to enhance performance. Corporate capacity is about the capacity of the organisation to provide a quality product and/or service based on its corporate capability. This includes effective workforce planning, and technology, resources and knowledge management. Continuous improvement is reliant on mechanisms being in place to ensure that corporate values, culture, principles, policy and procedures are constantly evaluated and aligned with changing corporate and societal values and views. This includes encouraging and utilising feedback from staff, customers and other stakeholders to improve service delivery.
Performance
Evaluation
Corporate Capacity
Continuous Improvement
3.3 Defining a framework

24. After examining these influences, five key subject areas were identified as a basis for the Better Decisions Framework. These subject areas are represented in the following diagram.
Continuous Improvement
Dispute and Complaints Management
Management Practices
Legal Framework
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK

25. Of course, there are many other issues influencing the capacity of an organisation to achieve its goals, and to provide an effective service to its clients and stakeholders. However, it was considered that these five areas were particularly important factors influencing the effectiveness of an administrative decision making system operating in a regulatory environment. The following chapters examine the ways in which legal considerations, corporate communications, management practices, review and appeal structures, and complaints handling, all contribute to effective administrative decision making systems. Various continuous improvement strategies are identified throughout the Framework as ways of ensuring that administrative decision making systems grow and develop in light of contemporary trends, and changes in the environment within which the system operates.
26.
Review and appeal structures
Corporate Communication
The Better Decisions Framework
Chapter 4: Legal Considerations

4.1 Law and the Better Decisions Framework
27. Law impacts on administrative decision making systems in many different ways. The effectiveness of a decision making system, and the quality of its administrative decisions, can depend on a proper consideration and implementation of relevant legal principles. This part of the Better Decisions Framework is a general guide to some of the ways that law influences effective administrative decision making systems. The framework examines the influence of law in the design, development, and ongoing operation of decision making systems. The application of laws regulating administrative decision making can be technical and complex. Agencies should obtain professional legal advice and assistance in relation to any specific concerns about how the law impacts on administrative decision making.
28.
29.
4.2 Administrative law - impact on decision making systems

30. Administrative law follows from the principle that government officials with legal power over other citizens must stay within the bounds of that power and use it only as the Parliament intended. Many administrative law principles regulate the ongoing operation of administrative decision making systems. For example, laws concerning natural justice, privacy and confidentiality, public record keeping and the conduct of public officers regularly impact on the day-to-day operation of decision makers. The effectiveness of an administrative decision making system, and the validity of its decisions, can depend on proper compliance with administrative law principles. The Better Decisions Framework broadly interprets the concept of administrative law to include any legal principles regulating administrative decision making practice, excluding any specialised legislation underpinning an agencys administrative decision making functions. The following are some of the main administrative law concepts that regularly impact on administrative decision makers.
31.
32.
33.
34. In designing systems for better decision making, it is often desirable to develop
written guidelines (see paragraphs 159 165, pp34-35) to assist decision makers responsible for exercising specific statutory powers. This is especially important where there is a significant volume of decisions to be made under a statutory power, and/or the exercise of a power may significantly affect the rights or interests of an individual or a corporation.
35.
The guidelines should include a clear statement of the government policy objectives that the statute and the particular statutory power aim to achieve. They should also explain the requirements for a valid exercise of the decision making power, not only those requirements expressed in the legislation, but those implied from careful interpretation of the statute as a whole and those imposed by general administrative law principles. For example, if no specific procedures for exercising a decision making power are set out in the legislation, the guidelines could suggest procedures that should normally be followed to obtain and assess all information relevant to the decision making process. The guidelines may also spell out: the circumstances in which natural justice may require that a person be given an effective opportunity to present a case to the decision maker before a decision is made adverse to that persons interests; what considerations are relevant to the exercise of the decision making power (and give examples of considerations that are not relevant); what facts need to be established to support a favourable exercise of the decision making power; and what kinds of evidence should be sought to establish those facts.
36.
37.
38.
For those involved in preparing guidelines of this kind, it will often be valuable to obtain legal advice to ensure that the guidelines are consistent with the relevant legislation and also comply with general requirements of administrative law.
39. Sections 20, 23 and 24 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 set out the grounds of
review on which the Supreme Court may, at the request of a person aggrieved, set aside a decision made under an Act (or under some non-statutory schemes or programs) for failure to comply with legal requirements for the making of the decision. Those grounds of review can be used as a checklist of issues to be addressed, or pitfalls to be avoided, when drawing up guidelines to assist decision-makers. The following is a brief analysis of some of the main grounds of review:
Natural Justice
40. When making a decision that could adversely affect a persons rights or interests, Australian law requires that a decision-maker must: (i) (ii) be, and be seen to be, impartial (the rule against bias); and follow fair procedures, in particular, procedures that give the affected person(s) a reasonable opportunity to present their case (the hearing rule).
(i)
41.
The Rule against Bias Bias is a lack of impartiality for any reason. Australian Courts can overturn a decision for actual bias on the part of the decision maker; or for a reasonable apprehension of bias, even where no actual bias can be demonstrated. Actual bias could occur if, for example, the decision-maker: has a direct or indirect (for example, through a relative) financial or other interest in the outcome of a decision, or has a prejudiced attitude toward a person who would be affected by the decision (perhaps as a result of conflict in prior dealings with that person).
42.
43.
The test for apprehended bias is whether a fair-minded observer, aware of all the relevant facts, might reasonably suspect that the decision maker will not resolve the issue with a fair and unprejudiced mind, for example, if the decision maker had shown favouritism (or hostility) to one side of the case or had otherwise engaged in conduct that might lead a fair-minded observer to believe that the decision maker had prejudged the issue to be decided. This does not mean that a decision maker cannot indicate a provisional view on a matter, especially where that helps participants to focus on the critical issues. However, in indicating a provisional view, the decision maker should make it clear that he or she retains an open mind on the issues and will carefully consider any relevant information and arguments put forward by the affected participants. If actual bias, or a reasonable apprehension of bias, exists in a particular instance, a different decision maker should be allocated to that case. The Hearing Rule The only exception to the hearing rule is where the statute containing the decision making power makes it clear, expressly or by implication, that Parliament intended to exclude the principles of natural justice from the making of decisions under a particular statutory power. What is a fair procedure has to be worked out on a case by case basis having regard to: the nature of the particular statutory decision making power; the legal considerations and evidence that will be relevant to its exercise; and the significance for the relevant person of the rights or interests that may be affected by an adverse decision.
44.
45.
(ii) 46.
47.
48.
Practical considerations affecting the exercise of the power may also be relevant, for example, urgent circumstances (or other considerations relating to timeliness of decision making), cost and administrative efficiency.
49.
Guidelines (developed with the assistance of legal advice) about fair procedures for the exercise of a particular decision making power can be a valuable aid for decision makers. The essence of the hearing rule of natural justice is that a person whose rights or interests may be adversely affected by the exercise of a statutory decision making power, should be given a fair opportunity to present a case to the decision maker for a favourable exercise of the decision making power. This need not involve any kind of formal court like process. The opportunity to present a case in writing is usually sufficient, though a personal hearing may be appropriate where a persons honesty or credibility on a particular issue needs to be assessed. The hearing rule requires that the person who may be affected by a decision must be given: reasonable notice that a decision is to be made, sufficient details of the nature and consequences of the decision, and the criteria that govern the making of the decision.
50.
51.
52.
In particular, the decision maker should inform the person affected of the critical issues or factors on which the decision is likely to turn, so that the person has a fair opportunity to address them. In many instances, presenting an affected person with a summary of all relevant information will be sufficient to enable a meaningful submission to be made in response to the information. If the decision maker proposes to rely on adverse information obtained from a third party or through the decision makers own inquiries, sufficient details of that adverse information should be given to allow the person affected a fair opportunity to answer it. The person must be allowed a reasonable time to respond having regard to such factors as the urgency of the decision, the seriousness of the consequences of the decision, and the volume and complexity of the information presented to the affected person for response. Another aspect of allowing a reasonable opportunity to present a case is that any special communication needs of affected persons must be taken into account. Appropriate arrangements should be made for people with limited literacy or a disability or from a non-English speaking background to be able to participate meaningfully in the decision making process. If the person affected raises a new issue that is relevant to the exercise of the decision making power, there may be a duty to investigate the issue and make findings in respect of it. The Courts have also stated that it is a requirement of natural justice that a decision must be based on probative evidence, that is, on material which tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issues to be determined. Guidelines for a particular decision making power should cover the material facts that need to be established, and the inquiries, or sources of information, which should be pursued to obtain relevant information to support findings as to material facts.
53.
54.
55.
56.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures

57. Where the statute conferring a decision making power specifies procedures with which a decision maker must comply (whether before or after the making of the decision), a Court may set aside the decision for failure to comply with the procedures. It is advisable for guidelines to contain a checklist of any mandatory procedural requirements.
No authorisation/jurisdiction to make the decision

58. Statutory decision making powers are usually conferred on a specified official, for example, the Governor-in-Council, a Minister, a chief executive, or a statutory office holder. That official is often empowered by the statute to delegate the decision making power. In those circumstances, the decision making power must be personally exercised by the official specified by the statute or by an authorised delegate of that official. A decision made by another official who lacks proper authorisation will be invalid. A good decision making system must therefore ensure that the authorised decision maker personally considers all relevant material, even if it is in the form of a brief prepared by junior officers. The system must also ensure that written instruments of delegation are correctly drafted in accordance with the terms of the relevant statute and periodically reviewed to ensure that all officers exercising decision-making powers have current, valid delegations. (Delegation of statutory powers is addressed in greater detail at paragraphs 170-188, pp 36-38, Chapter 6.) A second aspect of the no authorisation principle is that an official cannot make a decision that is not authorised having regard to the true scope of the decision making power conferred by Parliament. This principle will apply to invalidate a decision where, for example: through a misunderstanding of the relevant statute, an official o fails to address the issue (or one of the critical issues) which the statute requires an authorised decision-maker to address; or o purports to decide an issue which is outside the scope of the decision making power conferred by the relevant statute; or o makes an order or determination of a kind not authorised by the relevant statute; or an official makes a mistake as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in circumstances where the existence or non-existence of that fact is a precondition to the exercise of a statutory decision-making power (often referred to as jurisdictional facts).
59.
60.
61.
Guidelines prepared with the assistance of lawyers can anticipate and give guidance on any difficult issues of statutory interpretation that might otherwise cause an authorised decision maker to identify an incorrect issue or apply an incorrect test for the exercise of a particular decision-making power. Guidelines can also highlight any jurisdictional facts on which the exercise of a particular decision making power depends and provide guidance on the inquiries, or sources of information, that should be pursued to obtain relevant information to support findings about the jurisdictional facts.
Error of law
62. The Judicial Review Act 1991 also provides that a decision made within an officials jurisdiction and authority may be set aside if the decision involved an error of law. The most common kinds of error in this regard involve the misinterpretation of the relevant statute, including the misapplication of a relevant statutory phrase to material facts as found by the authorised decision maker. Again, it is advisable to obtain advice from lawyers on any questionable aspects of statutory interpretation and incorporate that advice into guidelines for authorised decision-makers.
63.
Fraud
64. A court can set aside a decision if it was induced or affected by fraud. In the context of statutory decision making, this would most likely involve the falsification of evidence and/or the suppression of relevant evidence. Guidelines for particular statutory decision making powers may need to cover steps for testing/cross-checking the truth of evidence, and whether all relevant evidence has been obtained.
65.
No evidence or other material to justify the decision

66. In applying most statutory decision making powers, the decision maker must be satisfied as to whether certain material facts are or are not established as a basis for making ultimate findings as to how the decision making power should be exercised. Evidence is used here in the broad sense of relevant information, unfettered by the rules of evidence as applied in superior courts. A Court exercising judicial review may overturn a decision if there was no evidence or other material before the decision maker that was logically capable of supporting the finding made by the decision maker on an issue of fact that was material to the ultimate decision (in the sense that the ultimate decision might, or would, have been different, if a different finding of fact had been made). As suggested above, it is appropriate that guidelines cover issues relating to the sufficiency of evidence to support findings on questions of fact that are material to the exercise of a particular statutory decision making power, including assistance with how to resolve disputed questions of fact. It is particularly important that decision makers record how they assessed the available evidence and their line of reasoning to support findings on material questions of fact (particularly disputed questions of fact), with reference back to the critical parts of the evidence or other material before them. This will be needed if a statement of reasons is sought by an aggrieved person or the decision becomes subject to judicial, tribunal or Ombudsman review.
67.
68.
69.
70.
Improper exercise of the decision-making power

71. A decision otherwise made within the scope of the decision makers authority/ jurisdiction may be overturned on judicial review on the basis that the decision making power has been improperly exercised if any of the following grounds of review are established. (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; (b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; or (c) exercising a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power was conferred. 72. If a statute specifies considerations that must be taken into account when exercising a decision making power, then a failure by a decision maker to take into account one or more of those considerations will be a ground of justification for a Court to set aside the decision. When a statute does not specify considerations to be taken into account (or specifies some but not all considerations), a Court may, by a process of statutory interpretation, draw implications from the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute that: certain considerations were relevant to the exercise of the decision making power, and the decision maker was bound to take them into account (even though that was not expressly stated in the legislation).
73.
74.
Again, a failure to take those considerations into account may justify setting aside the decision. There may also be considerations that, although relevant to the decision making power, are not required to be taken into account by the decision maker, that is he or she can choose to do so or not. The Court will not interfere under this ground of review if the decision maker chose not to take into account a relevant consideration that, as a matter of statutory construction, he or she was not bound to take into account. By a similar process of statutory interpretation, a Court may decide that a consideration taken into account by a decision maker was irrelevant to the exercise of the decision making power and should not have been taken into account. If that error was sufficiently material, it may warrant setting aside the decision. Similarly, a decision making power cannot be exercised for a purpose ulterior or extraneous to the purpose(s) for which Parliament conferred the decision making power. For example, if a council had a statutory power to regulate the kind of buildings to be erected on a development site, that power could not be used for the purpose of stopping any construction on the site. If the purpose of a statute is not clearly stated in it, a Court will, through a process of statutory interpretation, draw implications from the subject matter, language and scope of the legislation as to the permitted purposes for which the power may be exercised.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Guidelines formulated with the benefit of legal advice can give guidance to decision makers on statutory interpretation issues of this kind by: identifying all considerations relevant to the exercise of specific statutory powers and specifying those which a decision maker is bound to take into account; giving examples of irrelevant considerations that should not be taken into account; identifying permissible purposes for which a statutory decision making power may be exercised; and giving examples of purposes for which the statutory decision making power may not be exercised.
Exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith

79. This ground is rarely relied on in Court decisions because an exercise of a power in bad faith would usually be caught by other grounds of review. Exercising a power in a way that was calculated to benefit the decision maker, or a relative or friend of the decision maker, would be an example of bad faith and also infringe the rule against bias. A Court has suggested that deciding a matter by tossing a coin or allowing every third application would also be examples of bad faith.
An exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person

80. Where a statute vests an official with a personal discretion to make a decision, that official (or an authorised delegate) must not: 81. exercise the power under duress or undue influence, or defer to the views of another as to the decision that should be made, or allow the decision to be dictated by another person.
However, the official is entitled to have regard to government policy and is entitled to give decisive weight to government policy in exercising the personal discretion, provided that the decision is genuinely that of the official. An official is also entitled to consult the relevant Minister or chief executive about the decision to be reached in a particular exercise of power, again, provided that the final decision is genuinely that of the official.
An exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of a particular case
82. An agency may adopt a general rule or policy as to how a discretionary decision making power is to be applied by authorised decision makers in ordinary cases, provided the rule or policy is fair and legally valid having regard to the terms of the governing legislation.
83.
However, the rule or policy must not be applied inflexibly, without evaluating the facts and merits of a particular case (especially a case that is out of the ordinary.)
An exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power
84. Courts have shown they are prepared to overturn, on this ground, administrative decisions otherwise made within the scope of the decision makers powers where, for example, the Court considered that: the decision was devoid of plausible justification; the decision maker gave excessive weight, or inadequate weight, to particular relevant considerations; the decision was demonstrably and unjustifiably inconsistent with other decisions; the decision involved discrimination without a rational distinction; the decision maker did not attempt to obtain relevant information when it was obvious that material centrally relevant to the decision to be made was readily available, or where the material available to the decision maker contained some obvious omission or obscurity that needed to be resolved before a decision was made.
An exercise of power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain
85. This ground of review would be made out if the terms in which a decision maker framed an operative decision or order were so unclear or ambiguous, that a reasonable person could not be certain as to their meaning or effect.
Any other exercise of power in a way that is an abuse of the power

86. This ground is intended to catch any abuse of power not covered by the grounds above. It has been applied to invalidate a decision on the basis of inconsistency in the application of administrative guidelines between like cases.
4.3 Other aspects of judicial review

87. Section 21 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 also allows an aggrieved person to seek intervention by the Supreme Court before a decision is made if a relevant ground of review can be demonstrated in relation to conduct engaged in by another preparatory to the making of a decision. Section 22 of the Act allows an aggrieved person to seek intervention by the Supreme Court to compel an official who has a duty to make a decision, but has failed to do so within a reasonable time or within a time frame stipulated by statute to make the relevant decision.
88.
4.4 Merits review

89. While judicial review is mainly concerned with the processes by which a decision was made and ensuring that decision making power is exercised within the limits of the governing statute, review of decisions by a merits review tribunal or by the Ombudsman is far wider in scope. The Ombudsman or a merits review tribunal can look at all aspects of a decision under review and could, for example, form a view that the relevant evidence should have been assessed differently to arrive at different findings on material questions of fact and different conclusions on crucial issues. This kind of independent monitoring can provide valuable feedback on the quality of an agencys decision making systems by assessing not just whether the decision making system is complying with legal requirements, but whether it is producing correct, fair and just decisions.
90.
Record keeping
91. Comprehensive and timely record keeping is central to good administrative practice. The importance of effective record keeping in public sector agencies has been highlighted by recent investigations by the Queensland Ombudsman and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) regarding child protection issues.i Both the Ombudsman and the CMC highlighted poor record keeping practices as a systemic issue within a particular agency, with the CMC going as far as expressing a view that (t)here is no doubt that inadequate record-keeping by departmental officers and the department as a whole is one of the reasons the child protection system is currently failing to properly protect Queenslands children.ii There are well established benefits of government agencies maintaining comprehensive records of both their decisions and the processes undertaken in making those decisions. Similarly, there are serious risks for agencies that fail to document their decisions and decision making processes properly. Some of the benefits of proper record keeping are as follows: Effective record keeping leads to improved decision making by providing decision makers with comprehensive, detailed information on which to base their decisions. A proper record of the steps taken to arrive at a particular decision assists the decision maker to prepare a comprehensive statement of reasons. Proper records enable the agency to establish how particular decisions were made, in the event that the agency needs to revisit a matter for any reason in the future. Proper records assist review bodies to understand why and how a decision was made. Proper record keeping enhances transparency in government by enabling agencies to respond meaningfully to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. Accountability in government is also enhanced by agencies maintaining proper records of decisions and decision making processes.
92.
93.
94.
As well as being a vital part of good administrative practice, government agencies also have a legal obligation to undertake comprehensive record keeping. The Public Records Act 2002 requires public authorities, including government departments, to make and keep full and accurate records of (their) activitiesiii. In addition, departments are responsible for the safe custody and preservation of their recordsiv. The Public Records Act 2002 authorises the State Archivist to make policy, standards and guidelines about the making, keeping, preserving, managing and disposing of public records, to which agencies must have regard in meeting their record keeping obligationsv. The Archivist has issued a number of Information Standards including the overarching Information Standard 40 Record Keeping, as well as more specific standards including Information Standard 31 - Retention and Disposal of Government Information and Information Standard 41 - Managing Technology Dependent Recordsvi. For all of the above reasons it is essential for administrative decision making agencies to be aware of their record keeping obligations, and to implement procedures and processes (including proper staff training) to ensure that record keeping obligations are satisfied. Some important issues to keep in mind regarding record keeping include the following: All information relevant to the decision making process should be the subject of written records, including investigation reports and findings, details of telephone conversations with affected parties, and any other searches undertaken or information gathered in the decision making process. Records should be maintained centrally. There are risks to effective record keeping and decision making if documents relating to a particular matter are kept in a number of different locations (for example, paper files, electronic files, diaries, loose notes). Electronic records should be captured and stored centrally by agencies, particularly files and email correspondence stored on individual officers computers. Records should be made contemporaneously. The veracity of records is put into doubt if there is a significant time lag between an event and the recording of the event. Officers should always ensure that they act in a professional, objective manner. These qualities should also be reflected in officers notes and records of their activities. Many government records are subject to freedom of information legislation, therefore officers should be careful to ensure that their notes and records are an accurate and impartial record of the event, and not drafted in a manner that could inadvertently be interpreted as derogatory, emotive, or prejudicial by members of the community.
95.
96.
Privacy and confidentiality 97. Many administrative decision making agencies, particularly those with regulatory functions, collect a wide range of personal information about members of the community. For example, a person applying for a licence to operate as a real estate agent may be asked to provide his or her name, address, telephone number, relevant educational qualifications, criminal history, and a statement of whether he or she has previously been disqualified from holding a licence. The management of personal information by Queensland Government agencies is managed by an administrative, rather than legislative, scheme. The cornerstone of Queenslands approach is Information Standard 42Information Privacy, which applies to all Queensland Government agencies. Information Standard 42 adopts the eleven Information Privacy Principles (the IPPs) contained in the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988. The IPPs set out rules for the: collection; storage and security; access and amendment; accuracy; and use and disclosure of personal information stored in paper or electronic form.
98.
99.
100. In general terms, personal information is any information about an identifiable individual, and includes a persons name, address, telephone number, date of birth, marital status, employment history, criminal history, financial and medical details, and information about the persons family and relationships. 101. As part of the Queensland Governments privacy scheme, agencies have developed individual privacy plans. 102. It is important to keep in mind that specific legislation can override the Information Principles, and departmental privacy policies and guidelines. If agencies have any specific concerns about their obligations to protect peoples privacy, they should contact their Privacy Officer or legal advisors. 103. The management of personal information is a very important issue for many administrative decision making agencies. It is crucial that administrative decision making agencies are aware of their responsibilities for protecting peoples privacy, and that they implement systems, policies and procedures to ensure that personal information is managed carefully and lawfully.
Conduct of officers involved in the decision making process

104. As public sector employees, officers working within an administrative decision making system are subject to a number of Acts which govern their conduct in carrying out their duties. 105. Apart from the Public Records Act 2002, and the Freedom of Information Act 1992 mentioned previously, Acts governing the conduct of public officers in the context of administrative decision making can include: Public Service Act 1996; Public Sector Ethics Act 1994; Crime and Misconduct Act 2001; Ombudsman Act 2001; Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994; Anti-Discrimination Act 1991; and Judicial Review Act 1991.
106. The Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 also obliges officers to comply with their own agencys code of conductvii. 107. Building and maintaining knowledge of officers obligations under these Acts and relevant codes of conduct within an agency, as well as adopting policies and procedures for ensuring that officers meet their obligations under these Acts and codes of conduct, enhances both the integrity and effectiveness of the administrative decision making system.
4.5 Legal considerations for the development of policy and legislation underpinning administrative decision making systems
108. Many administrative decision making systems, particularly those with regulatory functions such as licensing, registration, and legislative compliance, are based in specialised policy and legislation. This part of the report looks at the legal issues surrounding the creation and development of specialised policy and legislation underpinning administrative decision making systems.
Developing policy
109. Policy has been described as the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver outcomes - desired changes in the real worldviii. 110. All administrative decision making systems are based in policy. 111. The Queensland Policy Handbook (the QPH)ix, which is part of the Governing Queensland series produced by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, provides important information regarding the development and implementation of public policy in Queensland. The QPH identifies a number of legal issues that should be considered in the course of policy development, including the following: Does the policy have a lawful basis?
112. All government policy must have a lawful basis. In other words, the government must have the legal and constitutional authority to implement or carry out proposed policy. According to the QPH, (t)he legal basis for public policy is fundamental to every policy analysis, and every public policy proposal must include consideration of its legalityx. 113. If in any doubt about the legal or constitutional validity of a policy proposal, agencies should seek appropriate legal advice. Is the policy consistent with existing laws and legal frameworks?
114. To promote consistency within the law, policy proposals should, as far as possible, be consistent with other Queensland laws, particularly laws of general application, such as the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994. 115. Further, in the interests of avoiding unwarranted policy work and the creation of unnecessary legal processes and infrastructure, policy proposals should endeavour to utilise existing legal frameworks wherever possible. For example, the creation of new appeal bodies to review an agencys administrative decisions should generally be avoided if an existing body could properly determine appeals or applications for review of the agencys decisions. Will the policy be implemented by legislation?
116. Legislation is one of the ways of implementing policy. Often, when considering legal issues influencing the development of policy for an administrative decision making system, it is also important to consider the relationship between policy and legislation. 117. As mentioned previously, many administrative decision making systems (particularly those with regulatory functions) are established and governed by specialised legislation. As a result, the development of policy for these decision making systems should include consideration of the legal issues affecting the development of this type of legislation. Legislative standards and fundamental legislative principles are considered below at paragraphs 121-128. Does the policy satisfy current Government requirements?
118. Finally, while not strictly a legal requirement, it is important for officers developing policy for administrative decision making systems to be aware of the Governments expectations regarding the characteristics of law and policy. 119. According to the QPH, the Government requires law and policy to be: certain, meaning the law should be unambiguous, and that it should only be changed for good reason, and in full knowledge of the implications of the change; accessible, meaning people know where to find the law and policy, and can readily understand their rights and obligations; equitable, meaning that all people are treated equally under the law; and
fair, meaning that the law or the policy is not harsh, that natural justice is provided and that administrative decisions can be reviewed appropriately.xi
120. Section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 Qld (the FOI Act) provides that an agency must make copies of each of its policy documents available for inspection and purchase by members of the community. The term policy document is comprehensively defined in section 7 of the FOI Act to cover documents about how an agency proposes to administer statutory powers or administrative schemes that are liable to affect the rights or interests of members of the community. Section 19(3) of the FOI Act provides that a person must not be subjected to any prejudice because of the application of the provisions of an agencys policy document to any act or omission of the person, if at the time of the act or omission (a) the policy document was not available for inspection or purchase; and (b) the person was not aware of the provisions; and (c) the person could lawfully have avoided the prejudice had the person been aware of the provision.
Developing Legislation
121. As mentioned previously, legislation is one of the ways of implementing government policy. Many administrative decision making systems are governed by their own specialised legislation. 122. Queenslands Legislative Standards Act 1992 (the LSA) aims to ensure that the states legislation is of the highest standard, and that it satisfies certain fundamental legislative principles. These principles require that legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals, and to the institution of Parliamentxii. 123. Many administrative decisions, particularly regulatory decisions, have serious economic and social consequences for members of the community. For example, a decision to refuse to renew an occupational licence such as a real estate agents licence or motor dealers licence could have significant financial and commercial impacts for the proposed licensee. Similarly, a decision to extend permitted trading hours allowed under a liquor licence could have important social impacts for people living in close proximity to the licensed premises. Therefore, legislation establishing and governing these types of administrative decision making systems must have adequate regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. 124. The LSA provides a number of indicators to assess whether legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individualsxiii. The relevant legislation should: make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and be consistent with principles of natural justice; and allow the delegation of administrative power only in appropriate cases and to appropriate persons; and
not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate justification; and confer power to enter premises, and search for or seize documents or other property, only with a warrant issued by a judge or other judicial officer; and provide appropriate protection against self-incrimination; and not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively; and not confer immunity from proceeding or prosecution without adequate justification; and provide for the compulsory acquisition of property only with fair compensation; and have sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Island custom; and be unambiguous and drafted in a sufficiently clear and precise way.
125. A number of these matters, including natural justice, delegations, and review rights, are addressed in more detail throughout the report. 126. While the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel (OQPC) and the Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation Committee play central roles in ensuring that proposed legislation meets the requirements of the LSA, it is also important for departmental officers to keep the principles in mind when devising administrative decision making systems. 127. There are a number of other Queensland Acts which regulate the creation and use of legislation including: Statutory Instruments Act 1992; Reprints Act 1992; and Acts Interpretation Act 1954.
128. The process of preparing and progressing legislation is technical and complicated. The Queensland Legislation Handbook, also part of the Department of the Premier and Cabinets Governing Queensland series, provides an accessible overview of the important issues affecting the development of Queensland legislation.
Chapter 5: Corporate Communications

5.1 Corporate Communications and the Better Decisions Framework
129. It is well established that effective communication with clients, staff and other stakeholders enhances the ability of an organisation to carry out its functions successfully and to achieve its goals. In the context of the public sector, it is also clear that the community expects to be able to communicate freely, easily, and meaningfully with government agencies and decision makers. 130. There are, of course, many issues for organisations to consider regarding communication, most of which are outside the scope of the Better Decisions Framework. This report does, however, focus on three main aspects of corporate communication within agencies that need to be part of, or recognised in, the Framework. 131. Firstly, the report examines the benefits of administrative decision making agencies adopting service charters. Secondly, the report looks at benefits of providing clients with general guidelines and information about the substantive business of an agency and the agencys decision making processes. Finally, the report considers how the effectiveness of an administrative decision can be influenced by how well the agency communicates with affected people throughout the decision making process. 132. Before turning to these issues it is important to note that, in designing and implementing their communication strategies, public sector agencies must have proper regard to the communication needs of their clients and stakeholders. For example, agencies need to have arrangements in place so that all members of the community, including people with a disability, people with limited literacy, and people from a non-English speaking background, can access information about the agency, and meaningfully communicate with the agency.
5.2 Service Charters

133. Many organisations, both in the public and private sectors, have developed and adopted service charters as a means of building and enhancing relationships with clients and customers.
What is a service charter?

134. In its simplest form, a service charter is a written statement by an organisation about the services it provides, and how it goes about providing those services. Ordinarily organisations make their service charter available to their clients and the public generally.
What should be included in a service charter?

135. There are no strict rules about what an organisation should include in its service charter. Often the details of what is included in a service charter will depend on the individual characteristics of the organisation, its clients and stakeholders, as well as the nature of the services provided by the organisation. 136. In 1997 the Commonwealth Government required its departments and agencies to develop and implement service charters based on a stated set of principles. According to the principles, service charters should: clearly identify the agency, the agency's purpose, its customer base and its services; detail information which facilitates communication between the agency and its customers; set out the agency's customer service standards and customer rights and responsibilities; articulate the agency's policy on obtaining feedback and handling customer enquiries and complaints; be developed in consultation with customers, staff and key stakeholders; be designed and promoted in a format and style suitable for an agency's customers; be supported by complaints handling mechanisms for resolving customer complaints; commit the agency to monitoring and reviewing arrangements; and require the agency to account publicly for its operations by publishing its customer service charter and information on its compliance with the charter and the agency's service performance.
137. Service charters have also been considered by the United Kingdom Government, which has developed a number of best practice guides and an accreditation program called Charter Mark to assist agencies to improve their service delivery. Good charters, under the UK model, are: simple, accessible living documents which tell the users about an organisations service, and the standards it will provide; supported by well developed systems and procedures including staff training, complaints handling and feedback, as well as mechanisms for reporting, evaluating and reviewing the standards; and publicised in management and public documents, so that the organisation is publicly accountable to users for delivering its standards.xiv
How do service charters enhance administrative decision making systems?

138. The adoption of a service charter can enhance administrative decision making in a number of important ways. For instance, service charters: focus the agency and its staff on providing responsive, quality services; provide staff with clear guidelines about what the agency expects of them in terms of providing services;
enable customers to become informed about the agency and its services, and as a result form realistic and reasonable expectations about the agency; promote accountability and integrity in the agency; make the agency more open and accessible to clients; improve clients perceptions of the agency; set out a framework for how the agency addresses problems and complaints; provide a benchmark for measuring and assessing the agencys performance; and assist in the identification of potential improvements to services.
139. For all of these reasons, developing, and adopting a service charter can significantly enhance administrative decision making systems.
5.3 General information about an agencys business and decision making processes
140. Service charters provide clients and stakeholders with information about an agency, usually including details of the services the agency provides and the standards the agency strives to achieve. 141. However, there are also benefits in providing clients and stakeholders with general information about the substantive business of the agency and the agencys decision making process. 142. Accessible, plain English information sheets or brochures on the business of the agency, and the agencys decision making processes, can enhance administrative decision making systems in a number of ways, for example: Clients will be more likely to develop reasonable, realistic expectations of how the decision making process operates. This can reduce enquiries as well as clients uncertainty and anxiety about the decision making process. The decision making process can be streamlined by helping clients become aware at an early stage of their rights and responsibilities in the decision making process, such as any requirements for clients to provide particular documents or other information. General information about the business of the agency and the legislation that the agency administers may also help focus clients on relevant issues in their communications with the agency.
143. Of course, to be effective, this type of information should be widely accessible to clients. Clients should be able to access the information at service centres, directly from the agency, and via the internet.
5.4 Communicating with clients through the decision making process

144. As well as providing clients with general information about the agency, its business and its processes through service charters and information sheets and brochures, it is crucial for agencies to communicate effectively with clients throughout the decision making process. 145. Common written material that an agency may disseminate in the course of making an administrative decision include: application forms; correspondence acknowledging receipt of applications and other documents; correspondence requesting parties to provide further information; notices inviting affected people to make submissions about a matter; correspondence informing parties of the progress of the matter; notification of a decision and the reasons for the decision, including notice of appeal rights; and correspondence to parties after the decision has been issued.
146. In addition, agencies may be approached via the telephone or personally by people with questions or concerns about the decision making process. 147. To communicate effectively with clients, administrative decision making agencies should ensure that the information provided by staff is: accurate; sufficiently informative; responsive and timely; and in plain English, avoiding technical terminology as much as possible.
148. Officers should also ensure that they avoid making assurances or promises that the agency might not be able to keep. 149. By focusing on the quality of its communication with clients, agencies can promote a positive perception of their services and performance, as well as avoid the dissatisfaction that can arise if clients feel ignored or misinformed about the agency and its administrative decision making process.
Chapter 6: Management Practices

6.1 Management practices and the Better Decisions Framework
150. Like most organisations, the ability of a public sector agency to carry out its functions successfully can depend on how effectively the agency is managed. Of course, the overall management of an agency encompasses a wide range of operational matters, as well as finance, human resources, communication and reporting issues. 151. While the report does not address organisational management in detail, this part highlights two broad management issues that should be included in the Framework because they particularly relate to administrative decision making functions. 152. Firstly, the Framework must include processes for facilitating the building and retaining of knowledge within an agency about administrative decision making. Secondly, the Framework must make provision for the proper delegation of administrative decision making powers and functions.
6.2 Building and retaining knowledge about administrative decision making

153. In order to make fair and lawful decisions, administrative decision makers must have a thorough working knowledge of both the specific business of the agency, as well as the broader principles of administrative law and administrative decision making. A challenge for managers of agencies making administrative decisions is building and retaining an appropriate level of corporate knowledge and expertise regarding these matters within their organisation. 154. The Queensland Ombudsman has produced an Easy guide to good administrative decision-makingxv which, as the title suggests, sets out general principles of effective administrative decision making. As well as being a helpful source of information for decision makers, the guide is a useful reference for agencies preparing policies and procedures, or designing staff training programs, with regard to administrative decision making.
Staff training and resources

155. Comprehensive training for staff in both general administrative decision making principles, as well as the substantive business of the agency, will enhance the ability of the agency to produce lawful and well considered decisions. Of course the style and level of training that would be appropriate for particular staff will depend on their expertise and their role within the administrative decision making system.
156. Similarly, providing staff with access to relevant and appropriate resources and reference material to assist them to research and resolve issues about administrative decision making will contribute to the agencys ability to make lawful and effective decisions. 157. However, it is important to bear in mind that administrative decision making agencies operate in a dynamic and continually changing environment. Legal developments, as well as changes in government priorities and community expectations, can all impact on administrative decisions and decision making processes. For example, the outcome of an appeal or review of an agencys decision may require the agency to adjust part of its decision making process, or its interpretation of a term or provision of legislation. 158. To operate effectively, administrative decision making agencies must be responsive to changes in the environment within which they operate. Staff training, as well as references and resources used by decision makers, should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect contemporary developments and issues.
Written guidelines for staff: Policies and procedures 159. As mentioned previously, many administrative decision making systems are governed by specialised legislation. However, it should be acknowledged that officers working in an administrative decision making system, perhaps in a nondecision making role, may not be familiar or comfortable with reading and applying legislation. 160. Furthermore, Acts establishing and regulating administrative decision making systems do not, generally speaking, exhaustively address each and every aspect of the administrative decision making process or system. Administrative decision making agencies are regularly faced with scenarios and questions that are not specifically covered by their legislation, and must make decisions on how to address these issues. 161. For example, while an Act may require an agency to apply the principles of natural justice in making a decision, it may not detail the actual steps that the decision maker must follow to satisfy the requirements of natural justice. Similarly, while legislation may require a decision maker to investigate relevant issues prior to making a decision, and may also provide the decision maker with particular investigative powers, the legislation may not state in detail when and how investigative powers should be exercised. 162. To address these issues many agencies develop and adopt written policies and procedures, often presented to staff in the form of a manual. 163. Written policies and procedures can enhance administrative decision making systems in a number of ways. For example, they can: provide valuable guidance for staff on how to approach the decision making process; promote consistency in the agencys approach to decision making; and
demonstrate openness, transparency and accountability in the decision making process by objectively detailing how the agency approaches administrative decision making.
164. However, the use of policies and procedures must be somewhat qualified: Firstly, policies and procedures must be regularly reviewed and updated, particularly in light of changes in community expectations and government priorities, legal developments and feedback from reviews, appeals and complaints about the agencys decisions. Secondly, policies and procedures should be used as a guide only. It is important for staff to bear in mind that policies and procedures are not law, and do not replace legislation or administrative law principles. Policies and procedures should not be applied arbitrarily or without consideration of the merits of the individual case.
165. While there are some limitations in their use, written and up to date policies and procedures can be a powerful way of enhancing administrative decision making within government agencies. Record keeping 166. Chapter 4 considered the importance of proper record keeping in administrative decision making agencies on the basis of best administrative practice, as well as the requirements of the Public Records Act 2002. 167. Chapter 4 also explained how proper record keeping leads to improved decision making through better quality information, more meaningful statements of reasons, and enhanced transparency and accountability in the agencys decision making process. 168. Proper record keeping also plays an important role in building and retaining corporate knowledge within an agency. While every decision must be considered on its individual merits, maintaining accessible records of previous decisions, research and investigations improves decision making within an agency in two main ways: By being aware of previous decisions of the agency, decision makers can aim for reasonable consistency in the agencys approach to similar matters and scenarios. Records of previous decisions may enable decision makers to avoid unnecessarily reinventing the wheel. For example, a previous decision makers research and reasoning regarding a particular matter may be a good starting point for a decision maker determining similar issues.
169. For all of these reasons, it is essential for managers of administrative decision making agencies to ensure that proper record keeping is a priority of the agency.
6.3 Delegations
170. Legislation often provides that authority to make a particular administrative decision rests with a particular Minister, or a senior public service position. For example, the Chief Executive of the Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development is authorised to make decisions concerning the registration and accreditation of residential services under the Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002, and decisions concerning licenses under the Liquor Act 1992 and the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. 171. Due to the volume of decisions made under legislation, many Acts allow authorised decision makers to delegate their administrative decision making powers and functions to another person (either by name, or as the holder of a specified office or position). Some legislation also allows the sub-delegation of powers and functions. 172. However, the validity of an administrative decision is put into serious doubt if delegated authority is exercised without proper authorisation or misused in the decision making process. For this reason, it is important for agencies to manage all delegations of statutory powers and functions properly. 173. When considering the issue of delegations, agencies should carefully consider the terms of the legislation regulating the administrative decision making system. In addition, agencies should have regard to section 27A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (the AIA), which includes provisions concerning delegations of statutory powers. The following are some key matters that agencies should bear in mind in the course of managing delegations of statutory powers.
Can the power be delegated? 174. Before arranging for the delegation of statutory administrative powers to departmental officers, agencies should verify that the particular power can in fact be delegated. 175. Generally speaking, if an Act confers an administrative power on a particular person or office holder, the power must be exercised by that person personally, unless the legislation includes an express provision allowing the person to delegate the power to another. This is particularly the case if the legislation suggests that trust is being placed in the judgement and discretion of the person or office holder to whom the power has been conferred. 176. If the relevant legislation does not include an express provision allowing for delegation of an administrative power, it may be the case that the power must be exercised personally by the person specifically authorised by the legislation. 177. If in any doubt about whether or not a particular power can be delegated, agencies should seek appropriate legal advice.
To whom can the power be delegated? 178. In many instances, legislation allowing a decision maker to delegate statutory powers to another person also requires that potential delegates possess certain characteristics as a condition of the delegation. 179. Limitations criteria for potential delegates are commonly expressed in a general way and refer to their qualifications and experience. For example, the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 allows the chief executive to delegate particular powers under that Act to an appropriately qualified public service employee. That Act goes on to indicate that the meaning of the phrase appropriately qualified includes having the qualifications, experience or standing appropriate to exercise the power. 180. These types of limitations on who may be delegated a statutory power are consistent with the Legislative Standards Act 1992 which suggests that legislation should only allow the delegation of administrative powers in appropriate cases and to appropriate persons. 181. It is very important that managers and primary decision makers ensure that officers with delegated authority have the appropriate and required qualifications, skills and experience to exercise the delegated power properly.
Form of delegations 182. In accordance with subsection 27A(3) of the AIA, the delegation of a person or bodys powers must be: in writing, or evidenced by writing; and signed by the person delegating the power, or if a body is delegating the power, by a person authorised by the body.
183. It is important to review and check periodically that all purported delegations of administrative powers are evidenced by appropriate written documentation.
Rules of delegations 184. As well as having the appropriate skills and expertise in the substantive business of the agency to exercise delegated administrative powers, it is also important for officers to understand the rules relating to delegations. For example, officers should be aware that: delegations may be general or limited, made from time to time, and may also be revoked by the person or body delegating the power; laws apply to the delegate in the same way as they apply to the person delegating their power; delegated powers must be exercised in accordance with any conditions to which the delegation is subject; delegates may, in the exercise of an administrative power, do anything that is incidental to the delegated power; the person delegating the power has a duty to ensure that delegated powers are properly exercised;
a power that has been delegated can still be exercised by the person delegating that power; and powers cannot be sub-delegated unless the relevant Act expressly authorises the sub-delegation of the power.
185. In this regard periodic training on the use of delegations may reduce misunderstanding and misuse of delegated authority within the organisation.
Storage and maintenance of delegations 186. Written delegations of administrative powers are important documents that should be stored in a manner that ensures their preservation and security. In addition, it is important that written delegations are easily retrievable.
Review of delegations 187. Delegations should be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that officers purportedly exercising delegated authority are properly authorised and that any delegations referring to officers or positions that are no longer part of the organisation are revoked. Reviews of delegations may be particularly important following significant organisational change, amendment to legislation, and changes of responsible Ministers, chief executives, or other officers authorised by legislation to make administrative decisions.
Legal advice 188. Improper or unauthorised use of delegated authority can be fatal to the validity of an administrative decision. If agencies have any concerns about whether or not a power can be delegated, or the use of delegations, or require assistance preparing delegation authorities, they should seek assistance from their legal advisors.
Chapter 7: Review and appeal structures

7.1 Review and Appeal Structures and the Better Decisions Framework
189. In many cases, a person who is adversely affected by an administrative decision is legally entitled to challenge formally both the decision itself and the manner in which the decision was made. 190. In fact, a person affected by an administrative decision of a Queensland Government agency may have a number of different options for appealing or seeking review of the decision. For example, depending on the particulars of the decision, an aggrieved person may be entitled to: seek judicial review of the decision by the Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Act 1991; complain to the Queensland Ombudsman about the administrative actions of the agency; approach the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission about any serious misconduct by public sector officers; pursue any statutory rights to have the decision internally reviewed by the decision making agency, or where there is no such right, simply request the agency to undertake an internal review of the decision; lodge an appeal or seek review of the decision by a Court or an independent review body such as Queenslands Commercial and Consumer Tribunal.
191. Effective and accessible appeal and review rights enhance administrative decisions and decision making systems in a number of ways, including by: providing aggrieved people with the means of having their concerns about a decision or decision making process heard; providing a means for errors in decisions and decision making processes to be addressed and rectified; promoting accountability, transparency and integrity in administrative decision making processes; providing agencies with feedback on decisions, including confirmation of correct decisions and practices, and identification of any errors or problem areas in decision making which can in turn lead to opportunities for business improvements; and providing guidance regarding the correct interpretation of legislative provisions and administrative law requirements.
192. For all of these reasons, review and appeal structures and processes contribute to the effectiveness of administrative decision making systems and are therefore included as part of the Better Decisions Framework.
193. The Framework addresses reviews and appeals of administrative decisions from two main perspectives: firstly, the Framework provides basic information and guidelines on broadly applicable administrative review rights that may be available under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001; and secondly, the Framework outlines guidelines for determining what appeal and review rights should be specifically provided in legislation establishing and regulating an administrative decision making system.
7.2 Review rights under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001
194. Both the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001 provide aggrieved people with ways of challenging administrative decisions of Queensland public agencies. These Acts have a wide application to many administrative decisions and actions of government agencies. Peoples rights to seek redress under these Acts exist outside of any legislation establishing and regulating particular administrative decision making systems. 195. The following is general information about the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001. It is important for officers working in administrative decision making agencies to be aware of the principles of these Acts for a number of reasons, including that: these Acts impose a number of obligations on administrative decision makers and administrative decision making agencies; and by being aware of the grounds on which a person can challenge a decision under these Acts, decision makers and decision making agencies can focus on good administrative decision making processes and practices that will increase the likelihood of their decisions standing up to review if challenged.
196. The following is general information only. The application of the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001 to particular agencies and administrative decisions may be complex and subject to a number of exceptions. If agencies have particular concerns about their obligations under the Judicial Review Act 1991 or the Ombudsman Act 2001, they should seek professional legal assistance.
Judicial Review
197. Administrative decision making agencies and decision makers should be particularly aware of two key features of the Judicial Review Act 1991. Firstly, the right of people aggrieved by an administrative decision to request a statement of reasons, and secondly, the right of aggrieved people to apply to the Supreme Court for judicial review of an administrative decision. Statements of reasons 198. In many instances, Acts authorising administrative decisions require decision makers to provide people affected by a particular decision with a written statement of reasons explaining the decision. In those instances, section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 provides that the document giving the reasons must also set out the findings on material questions of fact; and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.
199. However, even if an Act authorising a particular administrative decision is silent on whether statements of reasons must be issued, a person aggrieved by the decision may still be entitled to a statement of reasons under Part 4 of the Judicial Review Act 1991xvi. 200. While obtaining a statement of reasons is not necessarily a pre-requisite to appealing or seeking review of an administrative decision, in most cases it is a logical first step for people aggrieved by a decision. By obtaining a statement of reasons a person is in a better position to understand the basis and rationale for the decision and, as a result, is in a more informed position to decide whether or not to challenge the decision. 201. Under Part 4 of the Judicial Review Act, a person aggrieved by an administrative decision may request the decision maker to provide a statement of reasons for the decision. The request must usually be made to the decision maker within 28 days of the decision being issued. 202. After receiving a request, a decision maker has 28 days within which to provide the person with a statement of reasons for the decision. If the decision maker considers that the person is not entitled to a statement of reasons, the decision maker must give the person a written notice stating that a statement of reasons will not be issued, as well as the reasons a statement will not be given, within 14 days of the request. 203. A statement of reasons for a decision must include: any findings on material questions of fact; and reference to the evidence or other material on which the findings were basedxvii.
204. When preparing a statement of reasons, it is also best to include: reference to legislation and/or delegations authorising the decision maker to make the decision; reference to any legislative requirements or policy considered in making the decision; reasons for rejecting or giving less weight to arguments for a contrary decision; and reasons the decision was justified in view of the facts and considerations.
205. Administrative decision makers should always ensure that the reasons for their decisions are as comprehensive and clear as possible. If people affected by a decision can understand the basis for it and follow the decision makers reasoning they may decide that the determination is reasonable and not worth challenging, even though the decision may not be in their favour. Quality statements of reasons also contribute to a perception that the decision making process is fair, open and transparent. 206. In addition, if a decision is referred to an external review body, the initial decision makers statement of reasons may be all that the reviewing body has before it to understand how the decision maker arrived at their conclusions. Therefore, clear, comprehensive statements of reasons can be of valuable assistance to review bodies and can contribute to the chances of the decision being upheld. 207. The requirement for decision makers to prepare statements of reasons is another issue highlighting the vital importance of effective record keeping and note taking throughout the decision making process. Preparing a quality statement of reasons is much easier when the decision maker can refer to comprehensive contemporaneous notes. Preparing statements of reasons based on memory and sketchy notes can be extremely difficult and may result in the statement of reasons failing to be a true reflection of the basis and rationale of the relevant decision. 208. Assistance with the preparation of statements of reasons can be obtained from two publications of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Council (ARC), which explain the requirements of a statement of reasons for a decision under section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Cth. They are Practical Guidelines for preparing statements of reasons and Commentary on the Practical Guidelines published on the ARC website (www.arc.law.gov.au) under Other ARC publications. Review by the Supreme Court 209. As well as providing people with a way of obtaining statements of reasons, the Judicial Review Act 1991 also allows a person aggrieved by an administrative decision to apply to the Supreme Court of Queensland for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision. 210. Generally, in considering an application for review of an administrative decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991, the Court is concerned with the legalities of the decision making process, and not the merits of the decision.
211. The grounds on which a person may apply to the Supreme Court for judicial review of an administrative decision are considered in detail at paragraphs of 40-86, pp 12-19, Chapter 4. 212. The Court may make a number of orders in relation to applications for review of administrative decisions under the Judicial Review Act 1991, including: an Order that the decision or part of the decision be quashed or set aside; an Order that the matter be referred back to the original decision maker for reconsideration, with directions from the Court; an Order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the decision relates; and an Order requiring the parties to do, or refrain from doing, anything that the Court considers necessary to do justice between the partiesxviii.
The Ombudsman 213. Administrative actions, including administrative decisions, of Queensland public sector agencies may also be subject to investigation and review by the Ombudsman. 214. The Ombudsman promotes high standards of administrative practice in Queenslands public sector agencies for the benefit of the community. One of the ways the Ombudsman achieves this is by investigating, either formally or informally, complaints of maladministration by public agencies. 215. An investigation may result in the Ombudsmans issuing a formal report to the principal officer of the relevant public agency, the Minister responsible for the agency and, in some instances, to Parliament. If appropriate, the Ombudsmans report may include recommendations to resolve the particular complaint, as well as broader recommendations to improve practices and procedures within the agency. 216. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to consider a wide range of issues about administrative actions of public agencies. Some examples of maladministration that may be investigated and reported on by the Ombudsman include administrative actions by public agencies that are: unlawful; unreasonable or unjust; discriminatory; based on irrelevant grounds; based on a mistake of law or fact; and/or wrong.
217. Maladministration may also include a failure by an agency to provide reasons for a decision if required.
218. The Ombudsmans Office has produced a number of brochures which may be of assistance to agencies including: An Easy Guide to Good Administrative Decision Making; and Handling a Queensland Ombudsman Investigation.
Both brochures are available at www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au 219. It may be helpful for agencies to designate an officer to liaise with the Ombudsmans Office about any complaints the Ombudsman receives about the agencys decisions.
7.3 Legislated review and appeal rights for administrative decision making systems
220. The previous parts of this chapter considered review rights under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Ombudsman Act 2001 which are applicable to a wide range of administrative decisions and actions of Queensland public agencies. 221. However, in addition to these generally applicable review rights, many specialised Acts establishing and regulating particular administrative decision making systems include their own specific provisions for the appeal and review of decisions made under the particular Act. This type of legislation may provide aggrieved people with a right to seek internal review of decisions within the decision making agency or to apply to external merits review bodies such as Queenslands Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. 222. This part of the report outlines considerations for agencies assessing what specific appeal and review rights should be incorporated into legislation establishing and regulating their particular administrative decision making system. 223. As mentioned previously, the importance of review rights is emphasised by Queenslands Legislative Standards Act 1992, which provides that the exercise of administrative power in a way that affects peoples rights, liberties or obligations should be subject to appropriate review. Therefore, review rights are a very important consideration in developing policy and legislation underpinning an administrative decision making system.
7.4 What decisions should be subject to merits review?

224. In 1993 the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC) presented its Report on Review of Appeals from Administrative Decisionsxix. As part of this report, EARC developed 15 guidelines for determining whether an administrative decision is suitable for merits review. In general terms, and with some qualifications, EARC considered that merits review is appropriate for administrative decisions affecting peoples rights, interests or legitimate expectations.
7.5 Forms of review

225. There are of course, a number of possible forms of review of administrative decisions including internal review conducted within the decision making agency, external review by tribunals or courts, or a combination of both internal and external review. 226. The Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002 (the RSA Act) is an example of a two-tiered approach to review. The RSA Act authorises the Chief Executive of the DTFTWID to register and accredit residential services operating in Queensland, which may include private boarding houses, supported accommodation hostels, and aged rental accommodation. In accordance with the Act, the Chief Executives decisions about registration and accreditation of residential services are initially subject to a formal process of internal review at the request of an interested person. If the person is dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, the person may apply to the Queensland Commercial and Consumer Tribunal for external merits review of the decision. 227. While the suitability of particular forms of review will depend on the particulars of the administrative decision making system, as well as the administrative decisions the system produces, the following are some general comments about different forms of review.
Internal review
228. The phrase internal review usually refers to review of an administrative decision conducted within the original decision making agency itself. Usually the review is carried out by another officer within the agency who is at the same or higher level of seniority as the original decision maker. Normally an officer conducting internal review may confirm the original decision or substitute the reviewing officers own decision. 229. There are a number of potential advantages of internal review processes, including the following: internal review has the potential to be less expensive and formal than external review mechanisms and, as a result, may be more accessible to clients who may not use external review due to time and cost considerations; internal review procedures promote the agency as being accountable, transparent and genuinely interested in resolving client concerns and disputes about its own decisions; internal review provides the agency with useful and timely feedback on its decisions and decision making processes.
230. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has developed some draft principles for internal review systems. While these principles have not been formally implemented or adopted, they do provide some useful general guidance. In general terms these principles suggest that internal review processes should be impartial and as simple, accessible and informal as possible.
231. It is important to note that internal review may not be appropriate for all administrative decisions and decision making systems. However, the potential of internal review as a means of resolving disputes about administrative decisions is a matter that should be considered by officers developing or reviewing administrative decision making systems.
External review
232. Generally speaking, officers developing or reviewing administrative decision making systems should avoid creating new appeal bodies to resolve disputes about administrative decisions. If possible, officers should endeavour to utilise existing appellate jurisdictions. 233. Further, when selecting or creating an appellate body, officers should have regard to contemporary trends in order to establish appropriate, consistent, and accessible merits review mechanisms.
Chapter 8: Complaints Management

8.1 Complaints Management and the Better Decisions Framework
234. The previous chapter examined the relationships between formal appeal and review structures and effective administrative decision making systems. This chapter considers how an agency can enhance its administrative decision making systems by effectively managing and resolving more general complaints about the agencys services and conduct.
What is a complaint?
235. In its Effective Complaints Management series, the Queensland Ombudsmans Office describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, orally or in writing, about the service or actions of an agency or its staff affecting an individual or group. It can also concern a failure by an agency to comply with its charter or mission regarding services it provides to the public.xx 236. Distinguishing between a person seeking a formal review of an administrative decision and a person making a complaint about an administrative decision, decision making process, or decision making agency and its staff, can be difficult. 237. In many instances, a persons concern or complaint about an administrative decision or decision making process may form grounds for appeal or formal review of the relevant decision. For example, a persons belief that a decision maker failed to comply with the principles of natural justice as required or that a decision maker made an error of law may be a basis of appeal or review of the relevant decision. 238. However complaints may be made about a wide range of matters that do not necessarily form the grounds of formal appeal or review. Some examples of the types of complaints that a person could make about an administrative decision making agency include that: staff of the agency were unhelpful or impolite; the agency failed to keep the person informed about the progress of the matter; the agency failed to decide the matter within its own service targets; correspondence from the agency was technical and difficult to understand; the person had difficulty obtaining information from the agency and/or making contact with the agency.
239. Another important distinction between requests for formal reviews of decisions and more general complaints may be the remedy or relief that the person is seeking. Generally, a person appealing or seeking a formal review of a decision wants the administrative decision overturned or at least significantly
altered. People making complaints are not necessarily seeking the same outcome. For instance, a person making a complaint may be seeking: an apology from the agency; an explanation of why something occurred; an acknowledgement by the agency of the persons concerns; a change in policies or procedures of the agency; clarification of an aspect of the decision or decision making process; and/or some form of compensation for inconvenience or cost suffered by the person due to an error of the agency.
How does effectively dealing with complaints enhance administrative decision making and decision making systems?
240. There are a number of important benefits of effectively managing all complaints, including those that do not necessarily form the basis of a review or appeal of an agencys decisions. 241. Effective complaints management systems promote a positive image of agencies in the community by demonstrating that the agency: is genuinely interested in client concerns and feedback; is responsive to the needs and views of its clients; is open, transparent and accountable for its decisions; and is prepared to admit when an error has been made, and to take steps to remedy or mitigate the error;
242. Effective complaints management systems also enable agencies to: identify problems or weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement, in their procedures and policies; remedy things when they have gone wrong; and reduce stress for staff by providing training and support structures for handling complaints.
243. The following section briefly sets out some of the main features of effective complaints management systems. The Chapter has relied heavily on the Effective Complaints Management series produced by the Queensland Ombudsmans Office which provides significantly more detail on both the importance of effective complaint handling and features of complaint handling systems. 244. The Effective Complaints Management series can be found at www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au
8.2 Characteristics of effective complaints management systems

245. The features of a complaints management system will depend on the characteristics of the individual agency. However, the Queensland Ombudsmans Effective Complaints Management series identifies a number of general key characteristics of effective complaints management systems. These include the following: The agency should have a serious commitment to complaints handling demonstrated through appropriate resources, continuous monitoring of the effectiveness of the complaint handling system, and implementation of improvements to the system as appropriate. Complaints management systems should be supported by effective communication strategies, including processes for advising clients of their right to complain, how to make a complaint, and of other complaint avenues (for example, the Ombudsmans Office). Complaints management systems should be focused on resolving complaints as promptly as possible, partly to avoid minor matters developing into major issues. Complaints management systems should be highly visible to clients. For example, information about making a complaint could be displayed at service centres, on the agencys web-site and included with correspondence to clients. Complaints management systems should be easily accessible to clients, incorporating simple and flexible arrangements for clients who wish to make a complaint. Special consideration should be given to the communication needs of people with limited literacy, people with a disability and people from a non-English speaking background. Complaints management systems should be responsive to clients. Agencies should promptly acknowledge complaints and keep complainants informed about the progress of their complaint. Complaints management systems must be fair to both the complainant and any staff affected by the complaint. Staff should receive regular training in handling complaints. Agencies should, if possible and appropriate, provide clients with remedies if a complaint is found to be justified. Agencies should collate and analyse information from complaints to identify any potential business improvements highlighted by complaints.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Better Decisions Framework Checklist

Legal Considerations Characteristic Policy Indicators Clear policy decisions are made about the purpose and approach of the administrative decision making system. Self-assessment questions Is the purpose of the decision making system clearly established? What are the investigative and determinative powers and responsibilities of the decision maker? How do people affected by decisions interact with the decision making system, for example: Are affected people notified of potential decisions, and given an opportunity to make submissions to the decision maker? Are affected people entitled to make written submissions about a matter, or can they participate in an oral hearing? Are people affected by a decision notified of the decision, and advised of any rights of appeal or review?
Can the decision maker delegate his or her powers and functions to another person? What rights does an affected person have to appeal, or seek review of, the agencys administrative decisions?
Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 49
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristic Indicators Policy for the administrative decision making system has a lawful basis. Self-assessment questions Does the agency seek legal advice on the lawfulness of new policy proposals concerning the establishment or enhancement of the administrative decision making system? Does the agency seek legal advice regarding potential conflicts between new policy proposals for the decision making system and other existing laws? Does the administrative decision making system utilise existing legal frameworks? For example, does the system establish new appeal bodies if existing appellate jurisdictions can be used effectively to determine appeals of the agencys decisions? Policy for the administrative decision making systems meets government expectations for law and policy. Is policy for the administrative decision making system: Certain; Accessible Equitable; and Fair?
Policy for the administrative decision making system is consistent with laws of general application and utilises existing legal frameworks.
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators Information obtained from dispute resolution systems, and complaints management systems is used to inform the development of policy.
Self-assessment questions What processes are in place to ensure that policy officers are informed about trends and outcomes of reviews, appeals and complaints about the agencys decisions? Do policy officers use data from appeals, reviews and complaints to identify potential improvements to the administrative decision making system?
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators Legislation Legislation underpinning the administrative decision making system has sufficient regard to the rights, liberties and obligations of individuals as set out in section 4 of the Legislative Standards Act 1992.
Self-assessment questions Does the legislation clearly define any administrative powers relating to the decision making system? Does the legislation provide affected people with a right to be notified of potential decisions and afforded an opportunity to make submissions to the decision maker before the decision is made? Does the legislation allow the delegation of administrative powers only in appropriate circumstances and to suitable persons? Does the legislation provide appropriate means of review and appeal of administrative decisions? Does the legislation avoid any unwarranted adverse effect on peoples rights and liberties and avoid imposing obligations retrospectively?
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators Legislation requires decisions to be issued to affected people in writing and include statements of reasons with the decisions or upon request.
Self-assessment questions Does the legislation regulating the administrative decision making system require the agency to provide affected people with written notice of its decisions? Does the legislation regulating the administrative decision making system require that the agency provide affected persons with a statement of reasons when a decision is issued? If the relevant legislation does not require an agencys decisions and reasons for decisions to be provided in writing, is there a process for informing affected people of their right to request the agency to provide a written copy of a particular decision and a statement of reasons for the decision?
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators Administrative Law The agency has policies and procedures in place to facilitate the agency meeting its administrative law obligations, particularly with regard to: Natural justice; Note taking and record keeping; Privacy and confidentiality; and Conduct of decision makers.
Self-assessment questions What procedures and policies are in place to identify the people that may be affected by the agencys decisions? What procedures and policies are in place to ensure that the agency gives affected people an appropriate opportunity to be heard about potential decisions? Does the agency have policies and procedures to ensure that it is reasonably easy for people with a disability, people with limited literacy, and people from a Non-English speaking background to participate in the decision making process? What procedures and policies are in place to assist decision makers and supporting staff to identify and respond to potential conflicts of interest?
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators
Self-assessment questions What procedures and policies are in place regarding note taking and record keeping? What procedures and policies are in place to manage personal information and to protect clients privacy in accordance with Information Standard 42 Information Privacy? Do the agencys policies and procedures regarding record keeping comply with Information Standards issued under the Public Records Act 2002? What procedures and polices are in place to ensure officers comply with their ethical and other obligations as public officers? Are policies and procedures periodically reviewed and updated, with consideration given to recent decisions, outcomes of reviews and appeals, changes in law and changes in government and community expectations?
Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators Decision makers and support staff are regularly trained in the application of relevant administrative law principles.
Self-assessment questions Do decision makers and support staff receive induction and periodic training about relevant administrative law concepts and principles, and their obligations as public officers? Is training on administrative law issues relevant to the decisions made by the agency, and tailored to the needs of the particular decision makers and support staff? Is information presented in training sessions regularly updated?
Relevant and suitable resources on administrative law principles, as well as information on relevant agency policies and procedures, are available and accessible by decision makers and support staff.
What resources are available to assist decision makers and support officers to resolve questions about administrative law requirements that arise in the course of carrying out their role in the administrative decision making system? Are resources periodically reviewed and updated?
Corporate Communications Characteristic Indicators Access The agency has strategies, policies and procedures which enable all members of the community to: easily obtain information about the agency; meaningfully communicate with the agency; and actively participate in the decision making process. Service Charter The agency has set customer service standards, and provides clear statements about customer rights and responsibilities.
Self-assessment questions What communication strategies does the agency adopt to ensure its services are accessible by all members of the community, including people with particular communication needs, such as people with a disability, people from a nonEnglish speaking background and people with limited literacy?
Does the agency have a customer service charter? Does the agency have set customer service standards in another form? Does the agency publicise its customer service charter/standards to its customers? Are customers advised of their rights and responsibilities?
Corporate Communications (continued) Characteristic Indicators The agencys service charter is designed and promoted in formats and styles suitable for an agencys service delivery and customer base.
Self-assessment questions What are the characteristics of the agencys customer base? Does the agencys customer base have any special communication needs? Is the agencys service charter available in other languages? How do people with literacy problems or disabilities access information about the agencys customer service standards?
The agency service charter is part of the agencys culture - adopted by staff and supported by management.
Does the agency provide staff with induction training and ongoing training about the agencys customer service standards? Are staff members periodically advised of how the agency is performing against service standards?
The agency states its policy on obtaining feedback and handling complaints in its service statement and other relevant communications.
Are customers advised of the process for making a complaint? What is the process for resolving complaints about the agencys services?
Corporate Communications (continued) Characteristic Indicators The agency is committed to monitoring and reviewing service standards.
Self-assessment questions How is the agencys performance against its service standards measured? Does the agency publish a summary of its performance against its service standards? Does the agency take remedial action if it is not achieving its service standards?
Information about the agencys business and processes
The agency has general information available for its clients about its business and decision making processes.
Does the agency have brochures or information sheets available for clients which, in general terms, explain the agencys business and decision making processes? Is this information accessible in different, suitable forms for the agencys clients?
Corporate Communications (continued) Characteristic Indicators Communicating with clients The agency produces clear, readily through the decision making understandable documents and process correspondence for use through the decision making process.
Self-assessment questions Are the documents used through the decision making process, including forms and correspondence, clear and appropriate for the agencys clients? What assistance is available for people with particular communication needs to participate fully in the decision making process? Is the agency clearly, appropriately and consistently identified in its communication material? Does the agencys communication material contain appropriate contact details for clients with questions or concerns?
The agency complies with any government policy on communication standards.
What government communication standards apply to the agency? What policies, procedures and strategies are in place to ensure that the agency satisfies these standards?
Quality Management Practices Characteristic Indicator Corporate Knowledge The agency develops and maintains comprehensive written policies and procedures with a focus on good administrative decision making practices.
Self-Assessment Questions Does the agency have written procedures detailing the key aspects of the agencys administrative decision making system and processes? Does the agency have written policies detailing the agencys approach to frequently occurring and/or significant situations and scenarios? Are staff members aware of the procedures and policies manuals? Do staff members have ready access to the policies and procedures manuals? How often are the procedures and policies manuals reviewed and updated? Are staff members periodically trained in issues covered by the procedures and policies manuals? Are staff trained in the proper application of policies and procedures, that is, that policies and procedures do not preempt applicable legislation or other legal principles?
Quality Management Practices (continued) Characteristic Indicators Good record keeping practices are valued and promoted to decision makers and staff who inform the decision making process.
Self-assessment questions What policies and procedures does the agency have in place concerning record keeping? Are staff members trained in record keeping requirements? Are the agencys practices regarding record keeping periodically tested against the written procedures and policies and the requirements of the Public Records Act 2002 and relevant Information Standards?
Staff members have a working knowledge of general administrative decision making principles, as well as the agencys particular policies and procedures.
Do staff members receive training about: the role and functions of the agency; general administrative decision making principles; and particular procedures and policies adopted by the agency?
Is staff training periodically reviewed and updated about: reviews, appeals and complaints about the agencys decisions; developments in administrative law and other relevant legal principles; and changes in community expectations and government priorities?
Quality Management Practices (continued) Characteristic Indicators Staff members have access to appropriate resources and tools to assist them to resolve issues arising in the administrative decision making process.
Self-assessment questions What resources are available to staff to assist them resolve questions or issues that arise in the context of the administrative decision making process? Are these resources regularly reviewed and updated?
Delegations
Delegated decision making is commensurate with the powers and responsibilities conferred by the legislation governing the administrative decision making system.
Who is the person/what is the position responsible for decision making under the legislation governing the administrative decision making system? What delegated decision making occurs in the agency? Does the legislation allow for the delegation of powers under the legislation? Does the legislation impose any conditions on the delegation or the characteristics/qualifications of potential delegates?
Delegations comply with the requirements of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954.
Are delegations in writing, or evidenced by writing, signed by the delegator (or if the delegator is a body, by a person authorised by the body for that purpose)? Does the agency centrally store delegations? How often are delegations reviewed and updated?
Delegations are reviewed regularly.
Quality Management Practices (continued) Characteristic Indicators The delegated level of administrative discretion is appropriate for the expertise and level of staff, and is reflected in selection criteria and performance management. The delegate is trained about the powers and restrictions of delegated authority and their rights and responsibilities as a decision maker.
Self-assessment questions How are delegates for administrative power selected? What skills and knowledge do delegates require to properly exercise delegated powers? What training do delegates receive about the use of delegations?
Effective Dispute Management Characteristic Indicator Review and Appeal The agencys administrative decisions are structures subject to merits review where appropriate.
Self-Assessment Questions Is merits review suitable for the agencys decisions in accordance with the EARC guidelines? Is another form of review suitable for the agencys decisions (for example, appeal to a court or tribunal on a question of law only)?
Review rights are reasonably accessible and appropriate to the administrative decisions.
Are people affected by a decision of the agency notified of any rights they may have to seek review of, or appeal from, the decision? How costly and difficult is it for clients to exercise any rights they have to seek review of the agencys decisions? Is the difficulty and cost of seeking review of a decision appropriate considering the nature and formality of the original decision? Is internal review suitable for the agencys decisions? Are there processes and procedures in place to facilitate and assist people with a disability, people with limited literacy, and people from a non-English speaking background to exercise their rights to apply for review of the agencys decisions?
Effective Dispute Management (continued) Characteristic Indicators If internal review is appropriate, internal review processes are in accordance with the Department of the Premier and Cabinets draft guidelines for internal review.
Self-assessment questions Is the internal review process reasonably: speedy; inexpensive; confidential; impartial; and informal? What policies and procedures are in place to assist staff to respond to, and participate as required in, reviews and appeals of the agencys decisions? Are staff members trained in the agencys role, and their own individual roles, if any, in reviews and appeals? Who is responsible within the agency for addressing issues concerning reviews and appeals of the agencys decisions, including liaising with the Ombudsmans Office and any court or tribunal registries?
Resolving disputes decisions
Agency has appropriate policies and processes in place for participating in reviews, including reviews by the Ombudsman and/or by the Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Act 1991.
There is a designated officer/unit, appropriately resourced, to co-ordinate the agencys dispute management system.
Effective Dispute Management (continued) Characteristic Indicators There is a system to gather and interrogate dispute management data, and to implement service improvements based on this analysis.
Self-assessment questions What policies and procedures are in place to gather and analyse information from individual reviews and appeals, and trends in reviews and appeals? Does the agency use this information to identify potential improvements to the administrative decision making system? How is any information or feedback from reviews and appeals disseminated to interested officers?
The agency reports on its dispute management system.
Does the agency present statistics on reviews and appeals of its decisions (for example, in its annual report)?
Complaints Management Characteristic Effective Complaint Management system
Indicator The agency has a complaints management system.
Self-Assessment Questions Does the agency have formal processes and procedures for inviting, receiving, investigating and resolving complaints from clients? In what ways is the agencys commitment to handling and resolving complaints effectively demonstrated? What processes and policies are in place to acknowledge and, where possible, resolve complaints as early as possible? How do clients find out about the agencys complaints management policies? How do clients find out how and to whom to make a complaint? Does the agency report on the performance of its complaints management system (for example, in annual reports)?
The agency has a commitment to valuing and resolving complaints about its services and actions. The agency endeavours to resolve complaints as early as possible.
The agencys complaints management system is visible.
Complaints Management (continued) Characteristic Indicators The agencys complaint management system is accessible to clients.
Self-assessment questions Does the agency make it easy for clients to make a complaint? For example, does the agency accept complaints in a number of ways including by telephone, correspondence and feedback on the agencys web site? What policies and procedures are in place to ensure that all clients, including those with a disability, limited literacy, or from a non-English speaking background can make complaints and meaningfully participate in the complaints management process?
The agencys complaint management system is responsive.
How does the complaint management system ensure that complaints are promptly acknowledged and that complainants are kept informed about the progress of their complaint? Does the agency advise clients of any other avenues they may have available to them to resolve their complaint, if the complaint cant be resolved by the agency to the clients satisfaction (for example, the Ombudsmans Office)?
The agencys complaints management system is fair to both the complainant and staff affected by complaints.
Is the complaint handling system based around the principles of natural justice? Does the system allow both complainants and staff an opportunity to be heard about the complaint prior to any action being taken?
Complaints Management (continued) Characteristic Indicators The agency offers complainants remedies if possible and appropriate.
Self-assessment questions What remedies are available if an error or problem is identified in a complaint? Are complaints handling staff authorised to implement a remedy for complainants in appropriate circumstances?
Staff have a working knowledge of, and are regularly trained in, complaint handling.
What training is available for staff in complaint handling skills, as well as the particulars of the agencys complaint handling systems? Does the agency gather any complaints data to identify trends and any systemic problems or other issues that need to be addressed?
The agency uses information from complaints to identify business improvement opportunities.
Appendix 2: Contemporary influences in administrative decision making

The recent history of evaluations and reviews, spanning over three decades, is a primary force in the application of broad systemic changes which continue to affect the development and review of administrative decision making systems in todays public sector.
The Commonwealth
Since the 1970s the administrative decision making framework in Australia has undergone intense analysis and development. At the Commonwealth level the most significant influences on administrative decision making systems have come from reviews undertaken by bodies such as: The Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee (Kerr Committee); The Committee on Administrative Discretions (Bland Committee); The Committee of Review of Prerogative Writ Procedures (Ellicott Committee); and Those conducted by the Administrative Review Council (ARC) e.g., Better Decisions: Review of Commonwealth Merits Review Tribunals and various other publications on the Commonwealth administrative review systems.
The Kerr Committee The Commonwealth system of administrative law takes its recent origins from the report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee published in 1971. The final report from this committee significantly shaped Australian administrative decision making systems. The contemporary frameworks for judicial review, expansion of the merits review system and the role of the Ombudsman stem largely from recommendations made by this committee. The Kerr Committee anticipated that additional work would need to be undertaken in reforming the Australian system. This resulted in two further committees being establishedThe Bland Committee and the Ellicott Committee. The Bland Committee The Committee on Administrative Discretions (Bland Committee) produced two reports in 1973. One dealt with an examination of the Kerr Committee proposal for a Commonwealth Ombudsman, the other examined proposals for administrative review. The final report of the Bland Committee contained an analysis of the Commonwealth governments framework for administrative review. One aspect of that framework which drew adverse comment was the lack of any consistent pattern for administrative review. The Ellicott Committee The Committee of Review of Prerogative Writ Procedures (Ellicott Committee) examined the Kerr Committee proposals for a reformed system of judicial review. This Committee reported in 1973 and endorsed the view that the state of the law relating to judicial review of administrative action was technical and complex and in need for reform, simplification and administrative statement. Other reviews The ARC was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cwlth). The ARCs role is to monitor and provide advice to the Commonwealth government in relation to the Commonwealth system of administrative review. In recent years the ARC has been the dominant influence at the Commonwealth level and has undertaken a number of reviews.
The ARC has also produced various reports about administrative decision making, as well as resources for decision makers. The ARC notes that there are typical themes in the evaluation of merits review tribunals: The distinguishing theme in the list of benefits is the suggestion that merits review produces not only better decisions, but also better decision making. That is, a review decision may have an immediate effect, not only on the decision under review, but also in correcting erroneous decision making practices, or highlighting misconceptions that arise within administration. In an incremental fashion, review can also produce more fundamental effects, such as: higher quality decision making; an altered commitment to reasoned decision making; improved program development; and, administrative and legal reform. xxi The ARC considers that the merits review system should have several specific objectives, including improving quality and consistency of decision making in agencies by: ensuring that there is a normative effect of any external merits review decisions in the decision making processes of an agency; and taking review decisions into account in the development of policy and legislation.
The ARC has published guidelines for the identification of decisions as suitable for review on the meritsxxii. In general terms the guidelines support the principle that a decision made in the exercise of a power conferred by an enactment is generally suitable for review on the merits if the interests of a person will be, or are likely to be, affected by an exercise of the power.xxiii
In Queensland
Apart from the influences derived from the activities undertaken at the Commonwealth level, Queenslands recent history of major reviews has influenced the development of contemporary administrative decision making systems in this State. These reviews include the Fitzgerald Inquiry and further reviews undertaken by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC), the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral and Administrative Review (PCEAR), the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee (LCARC) and more recently work undertaken by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and the Queensland Ombudsman (QO). Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct (The Fitzgerald Report) The Fitzgerald Report, amongst other things, recognised the need for independent merits review of administrative decisions made by Queensland government agencies and also identified a paucity of Queensland law relating to the capacity of individuals to challenge government decisions or actions that affected them. Consequently the Fitzgerald Report recommended the establishment of a general system of administrative review, including review of decisions on their merits by an external independent review body. Electoral and Administrative Review Committee EARC was established under the Electoral and Administrative Review Act 1989 (Qld) to investigate and report on public administration of the State, including matters arising out of the Fitzgerald Report. In 1993 EARC addressed a number of issues about merits review in its Report on review of appeals from administrative decisions.xxiv The report was critical of the system of merits review envisaged in the Fitzgerald Report. Recommendations included that:
15 criteria or guidelines be used as a basis for determining which administrative decisions should be subject to administrative review; and agencies should be encouraged to develop internal review of decisions.
EARC, in attempting to address the variance between and within decision making agencies, developed a set of guidelines to aid in the determination of the types of decisions that ought to be subject to merits review. The guidelines take the form of tests to be applied to the decision. Although the PCEAR (In its 1995 report on its review of EARCs report) disagreed with EARCs view that these guidelines should be enshrined in legislation on the basis that they would become too inflexible, they are still a valuable reference. The guidelines provide an excellent checklist for the development of policy and legislation and a guide when considering what review provisions may be appropriate for administrative decisions. Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review The PCEAR published its report of the EARC review of appeals from administrative decisions in 1995 and many of the PCEAR recommendations differed from those of EARC. In particular, PCEAR disagreed with EARCs recommendation that the 15 guidelines be enshrined in legislation, saying the guidelines would become too inflexible. The Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee As a consequence of LCARCs responsibilities in this area, it monitors the protection and enhancement of the individuals administrative review rights. The LCARC in its report on The preservation and enhancement of individuals rights and freedoms in Queensland: Should Queensland adopt a bill of rights?xxv noted that there were outstanding recommendations of the EARC and the PCEAR about the need for reform of Queenslands arrangements for appeals from administrative decisions. The LCARC, in considering the preservation and enhancement of individuals rights and freedoms in Queensland, saw a number of advantages in agencies providing for internal review of administrative decisions where appropriate. The LCARC also recognised that internal review should conclude with notification to the client that they have a right to external review, such as to a tribunal or court or to the Ombudsman, should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review. The LCARC has recommended that: new legislation which involves the exercise of administrative decision making or discretion should include a requirement that agencies notify people of their: rights to internal review by the agency (if appropriate); and their rights to external review (including their right to Ombudsman review); when notifying them of a decision.xxvi Strategic review of the Ombudsman The LCARCs review on the report of the Strategic Review of the Queensland Ombudsman published in July 1999 included comment that What is needed is not another review of the States administrative review system, but rather a government decision and subsequent action on the recommendations that have already been made by EARC and PCEAR to reform the States administrative review system. xxvii The Report of the Strategic Review of the Queensland Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner was written by Professor Kenneth Wiltshirexxviii. Wiltshires report, the subsequent review by the LCARC, and recent legislative reforms have driven significant changes to the role and activities of the Queensland Ombudsman as well as resultant
changes in administrative decision making practices in Queensland public sector agencies. Wiltshire concluded that the Ombudsman should take a proactive approach to identifying the systemic faults in the system of governance which give rise to citizens complaints and to rectify those faults.xxix The LCARC agreed with this statement in general but limited the role of the Ombudsman to identifying faults underlying complaints that come to the Office and, where those faults are indicative of a systemic fault in the system of governance, the Ombudsman pursue and rectify those faults.xxx The LCARC endorsed a recommendation that agencies: should establish formal contact officers for Ombudsman complaints, such officers to form a network whereby the Ombudsman can move to establish joint training seminars, advice on systemic issues and causes arising from complaints, client service charters, changes in policy, legislation and practice. The Ombudsmans Office should be on line to all of these contact officers.xxxi The committee identified that: by making a single person in each agency responsible for coordinating all matters that the agency has before the Ombudsman, files could be handled efficiently and the chances of a matter lying dormant for extended periods would be diminished. This role would link in well with the establishment of more structured complaints handling systems in departments and with the Ombudsmans Office generally employing strategies to increase government agency awareness about the role and powers of the Ombudsman.xxxii The virtues cited by the LCARC for agencies to appoint an Ombudsman contact officer included that such positions would be able to: encourage awareness of, and show a commitment to, good administration in the agency; build up expertise in dealing with queries about administration and administrative review which should, in turn, lead to greater efficiency for the agency and provide its clients with better service; provide an on-going, formal link between the agency and the Ombudsman; and provide agency clients who have complaints about administrative practice with an identifiable point of contact.
A further relevant recommendation of Wiltshires was that: in conjunction with the Ombudsman, units of government should establish internal complaint handling procedures consistent with the Ombudsmans mandate to handle complaints of their own volition in the first instance, and also complaints referred by the Ombudsman. Such a complaint handling procedure should have a recording and tracking system and a regular flagging or bring-up mechanism for evaluation of the effectiveness and timeliness of complaint handling. All state and local government agencies should show all Ombudsman cases in their annual reports.xxxiii LCARCs analysis and comment about this recommendation concluded that the review also encouraged government agencies to be proactive by implementing internal complaints handling mechanisms for their own complaints handling and complaints made to the Ombudsman and subsequently referred to the agency for resolution in the first instance.
Wiltshire also recommended that there be an overall review of the administrative appeal mechanisms in Queensland. The LCARC recognised that, in the course of undertaking the strategic review, deficiencies were identified in the administrative review system and that: The on-going creation of ad hoc, single purpose administrative appeal bodies has resulted in a public administration appeal maze that is burdensome xxxiv and costly to government, and confusing to citizens. The LCARC concluded that submissions received on the review: highlighted the need for a rationalisation of the myriad of administrative review rights, processes and bodies that make up Queenslands administrative review system, a need that was recognised as early as 1993 in the EARC administrative appeals report.xxxv LCARC indicated that, in addition, to ensuring appropriate complaints and review mechanisms that agencies should: notify their clients of the availability of internal review when agencies advise clients of their decisions.The overall number of persons seeking external review of administrative decisions and actions will be less when the government entities themselves satisfy more complainants through internal review of their grievances.xxxvi The value of providing this information to clients was further confirmed by citing the Commonwealth Ombudsmans experience. In considering Wiltshires report, LCARC noted that the Commonwealth Ombudsman favourably viewed agencies implementing customer service charters where those charters were linked to the agencys internal grievance and review mechanisms. LCARC went further and acknowledged that: To some degree, internal review of complaints tells the agency where it might be going wrong, rather than the Ombudsman via an indirect process having to tell the agency. Internal review provides the opportunity for the agency to inform itself of any systemic causes of administrative problems.xxxvii LCARC resolved to support a two-stage system of dispute resolution involving both internal and external review mechanisms and suggested that agencies have in place internal review procedures to maintain the integrity of its internal system. The committee further recommended that the Premier, as the Minister responsible for administrative reform, consider undertaking steps such as inserting a direction in the Cabinet handbook to ensure that: Departments and agencies implement internal complaints handling systems; and Departments take steps to ensure internal review rights and/or procedures are provided for in legislation creating discrete administrative decisions (where appropriate).xxxviii
Queensland Ombudsman An investigation into the adequacy of the actions of certain government agencies in relation to the safety, well being and care of the late baby Kate, who died aged 10 weeks October 2003, and Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission Protecting Children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care January 2004. ii at page 251 iii Subsection 7(1)(a) iv Subsection 8(1) v Subsections 25(1)(f) and 7(1)(b) vi Information standards are available at www.archives.qld.gov.au vii Section 18 viii See Better Policy-Making, Centre for Management and Policy Studies, November 2001@www.cmps.gov.uk, page 15. ix The Governing Queensland series is available at www.premiers.qld.gov.au x at section 2.6.1 xi at section 2.6.5 xii Subsection 4(2) Legislative Standards Act 1992 xiii Subsection 4(3) Legislative Standards Act 1992 xiv A Local Charter at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst xv Available at www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au xvi Sections 32 and 33 xvii Section 3 definition of reasons xviii Section 30 xix Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, Report on review of appeals from administrative decisions, Government Printer, Brisbane, August 1993. xx Queensland Ombudsman, Effective Complaints Management, Information Sheet 1, Setting the Scene, March 2003, available at www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au xxi Administrative Review CouncilOverview of the Commonwealth System of Administrative Review http://law.gov.au/www/arcHome.nfs/Alldocs xxii Administrative Review Council, What Decisions should be Subject to Merits Review? http://law.gov.au/www/arcHome.nfs/Alldocs xxiii Administrative Review CouncilOverview of the Commonwealth System of Administrative Review http://law.gov.au/www/arcHome.nfs/Alldocs xxiv Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, Report on review of appeals from administrative decisions, Government Printer, Brisbane, August 1993. xxv Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The preservation and enhancement of individuals rights and freedoms in Queensland: Should Queensland adopt a bill of rights?, Report No 12, November 1998, pp77-78 xxvi See the paper by the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The preservation and enhancement of individuals rights and freedoms in Queensland: Should Queensland adopt a bill of rights? Report No 12, November 1998, p 63. xxvii See p 5 of Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Appeals from Administrative Decisions Discussion Paper, December 2001 xxviii Professor Kenneth Wiltshire was appointed in 1997 to conduct the first strategic review of the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman. xxix Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000. xxx Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000, p10. xxxi Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000. xxxii Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000, p 30. xxxiii Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000. xxxiv Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000, p 58. xxxv Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000, p 60. xxxvi Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000.p 31-32. It was further noted that in March 1999 the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee observed in reporting on the Commonwealth Ombudsmans 1997/98 performance information that: For the first time since 1993-94, when numbers were affected by jurisdictional changes, there was a reduction in the number of complaints received by the Office. The number of approaches to the Office fell by 13 per cent, while the number of complaints received fell by 8 per cent. The Ombudsman characterised this as a modest
slackening off in demand and one that coincided with the introduction of client service charters by service delivery agencies and the establishment of more formal internal complaints handling mechanisms. xxxvii Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000, p 32. xxxviii Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, The Report of the Strategic Management Review of the Offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and the information Commissioner, Report No 26, July 2000, p 33-34.

Better Decisions Project Framework Report-Management Project Reference

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Better Decisions Project Framework Report-Management Project Reference

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Better Decisions Project:

A framework for effective administrative decision making systems

A joint project of:

Purpose of the Better Decisions Framework

Structure of this report

Building the Better Decisions Framework

Chapter 1: Administrative Decisions

1.2 Why is administrative decision making important?

1.3 What are the benefits of a good administrative decision making?

Chapter 2: Decision making systems

2.2 Why examine administrative decision making from a systems perspective?

Chapter 3: Models for decision making systems

Continuous Improvement Culture & Values Principles Policy Governance

Communication Performance Evaluation

THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MAKING ENVIRONMENT Better Decisions Project:

Key Features of the Administrative Decision Making Environment

Culture and Values

Key Features Communication

3.3 Defining a framework

Dispute and Complaints Management

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK

Review and appeal structures

The Better Decisions Framework

Chapter 4: Legal Considerations

4.2 Administrative law - impact on decision making systems

Failure to comply with mandatory procedures

No authorisation/jurisdiction to make the decision

No evidence or other material to justify the decision

Improper exercise of the decision-making power

Exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith

An exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person

Any other exercise of power in a way that is an abuse of the power

4.3 Other aspects of judicial review

4.4 Merits review

Conduct of officers involved in the decision making process

Chapter 5: Corporate Communications

5.2 Service Charters

What is a service charter?

What should be included in a service charter?

How do service charters enhance administrative decision making systems?

5.4 Communicating with clients through the decision making process

Chapter 6: Management Practices

6.2 Building and retaining knowledge about administrative decision making

Staff training and resources

Chapter 7: Review and appeal structures

7.4 What decisions should be subject to merits review?

7.5 Forms of review

Chapter 8: Complaints Management

8.2 Characteristics of effective complaints management systems

Appendix 1: Better Decisions Framework Checklist

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 49

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 50

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 51

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 52

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 53

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 54

Legal Considerations (continued) Characteristics Indicators

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 55

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 56

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 57

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 58

Information about the agencys business and processes

Better Decisions Framework Checklist Page 59