(02) 6243 3460
There is a range of mechanisms available in the ACT to ensure that government agencies are publicly accountable for their decisions and actions, including through complaints, appeals or investigations. Tribunal or court action provides scope to revoke or make a different decision. However these formal legal actions pose significant procedural barriers such as standing and security for costs. The Ombudsman, or Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, can conduct investigations but do not have the power to make a different decision. However they can make recommendations to Government which may impact on the decision in question or future decisions.
If you are unhappy with a government or agency’s decision the first step is usually to determine the reasons for the decision. This can be done by seeking a written statement of reasons. This will help you decide whether a decision should be challenged or if there were valid reasons for making the decision. Some key questions are:
For certain decisions a government agency will automatically be required to provide a written statement of reasons for their decision. For example, if the ACT Planning and Land Authority approves a development application under the Planning and Development Act 2007 [s.162(1)(a) or (b)] it must provide the applicant, and anyone who has put in a submission relating to the development application, a notice setting out the reasons for the approval [s.170(3)(c)].
In other cases a person may apply to the decision-maker for a statement of reasons. The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act) enables a person to apply for a written statement of reasons generally within 28 days of the notification of the decision for a ‘reviewable decision’. A ‘reviewable decision’ is a decision that can be reviewed by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). Decisions which can be reviewed by ACAT are discussed below.
The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) provides that a person aggrieved by certain government decisions can apply in writing for a written statement of reasons [s.13] generally within 28 days of the notification of the decision. For Commonwealth decisions the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) confers the same right [s.13]. However, a decision-maker is not required to give a statement of reasons for all decisions. It is important to seek legal advice and carefully study the legislation in question. In addition you may seek information through the freedom of information (FOI) process. information allows you to make an informed decision as to whether to take the matter further, for example by making representations to a Member of Parliament, complaining to an ombudsman, seeking internal review or review by a tribunal, or commencing proceedings in a court.
If you wish to challenge a decision there may be numerous avenues of review:
Certain decisions can be subject to internal review. The relevant legislation will set out if there is a right to have a decision internally reconsidered and who can seek internal review. For example, under the Tree Protection Act 2005 some decisions by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, such as approving a tree damaging activity, may be internally reviewed [see Part 1.1 of Schedule 1]. Only the person who has applied to damage a protected tree may seek internal review of the decision. In such a case the internal review must reconsider the conservator’s original decision having regard to any advice from the advisory panel [s.106].
If you think that a decision is not a good decision based on the facts then in some cases you can seek review of the merits of the decision. In August 2008 the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 that amalgamated a number of existing tribunals, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and consolidated them into a single administrative tribunal, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The tribunal commenced on 2 February 2009.
The ACAT reviews the merits, rather than the lawfulness, of a decision. That is, the tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision-maker and decides the matter anew. It can support the existing decision, attach conditions to it, make an entirely new decision, or send the matter back to the original decision-maker with directions on how to reconsider that decision [s.68 ACAT Act].
ACAT differs from a court as a method for dispute resolution in several ways; Court proceedings can take years for resolution and can be expensive in terms of filing fees and ongoing costs in legal fees. ACAT by comparison is characterised by speedy processes and minimal fees. The ACAT allows for self representation (or lawyer representation if you wish); and is characterised by a reduction of formalities and less reliance on the technical rules of evidence.
Not all decisions of all government agencies or authorities can be reviewed by ACAT. There must be a right to have the decision reviewed by the ACAT stated in the relevant legislation. The following are some examples of decisions which may be reviewed by the ACAT:
Even then, some decisions are specifically exempted from review. For example, single residential development approvals under the Planning and Development Act are generally exempt from review by the ACAT [Schedule 1 of the Planning and Development Regulation 2008]. You should seek advice on whether the decision is reviewable by ACAT from a lawyer, such as the EDO.
If you decide to seek merits review of a decision you usually have 28 days from the date of the decision to lodge an application for review (Rule 14, ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 (No 2)). In some appeals the time will run from when you are notified of the decision, for example in a review of planning approval decisions [s409] Planning and Development Act 2007. It is advisable to seek specific legal advice and check with the tribunal.
An application for review must be made on the ‘Application for Review of Decision’ form which is available from the tribunal registry and online. An application for review of a decision made under the Planning and Development Act 2007 costs $178.00. An application for review of decisions under other environmental Acts is $255.00. Check with ACAT for any changes in the fee structure. Application fees can be waived in cases of hardship and may be required to be paid by the other party if the application is successful [s. 48 ACAT Act]. Generally each party will bear its own costs.
In addition you may seek to challenge the legality of a decision, that is whether the requirements and procedures of the law were followed, rather than the merits of a decision. This is referred to as judicial review. Under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) a wide range of Commonwealth government decisions are subject to judicial review and in the ACT, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) provides for the judicial review of a wide range of ACT government decisions. In the ACT judicial review cases are heard in the ACT Supreme Court.
In contrast to the ACAT, Supreme Court hearings tend to be more costly and are held in a more formal legal environment. The Supreme Court Registrar can assist with information on filing fees which in some cases may be reduced in public interest matters. Like merits review, strict timeframes apply to seeking judicial review. You usually have 28 days from being notified of a decision to lodge an application for judicial review. The law relating to judicial review is complex and if you are considering seeking judicial review of a decision you should contact a lawyer such as the EDO.
Not everyone is automatically entititled to seek review of a decision.
Standing is the right to have an issue heard before a court or tribunal. Standing is often only available to a ‘person aggrieved’ or a person whose ‘interests are affected’. Traditionally this has meant that only persons directly affected by a decision or an action have a right to take legal action. In many cases environmental groups have had to justify that they are ‘a person aggrieved’. Who can bring an action may be set out in the relevant legislation. For example, the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides that any ‘interested person’ (individual or organisation) can apply for an injunction to remedy or restrain a breach of the Act [s.475]. An interested person is defined as a person whose interests have been or would have been affected, or has engaged in a series of activities for protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment in the previous two years. A ‘person aggrieved’ for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) is defined as including a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision [s.3(4)].
Costs can be another barrier to legal action. Costs include the expenses in conducting the litigation. For example they may include court filing fees, solicitor’s and barrister’s fees, expert witness fees, out of pocket expenses such as photocopying and telephone. In addition to these there may be upfront costs such as an undertaking as to damages or security for costs. Security for costs is where a party to the proceeding must provide evidence that they have sufficient funds to cover costs in the event that they lose; and may be required to provide money in advance of the court proceedings. The money required may go beyond the financial resources of a non-government organisation. Finally, you may be required to pay the other party’s costs if you lose.
Another avenue if you are unhappy with how the government has dealt with a matter is to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The ACT Ombudsman has broad powers under the Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT) to investigate complaints relating to matters of administration including:
The ACT Ombudsman cannot investigate actions taken by:
In some instances, the ACT Ombudsman refers complainants to other review agencies that can more appropriately deal with the issues raised [s.6A and s.6B].
Findings of the ACT Ombudsman are not ‘determinative’ or final (unlike a court or tribunal), they are recommendatory. He/she investigates and then may recommend that the government agency undertake one of the following:
The Ombudsman also has the option of providing his/her recommendation to the Chief Minister and to the Legislative Assembly if he/she feels inadequate attention or action has been given to their recommendations by the agency involved [s.19-20].
Complaints may be made by going to the Ombudsman’s office, by telephone, in writing (by letter, email or facsimile), or by using the online complaint form on the Ombudsman’s website. There are no fees for making a complaint. Complaints will also be accepted anonymously. Before making a complaint you should first raise your complaint with the relevant agency. If the Ombudsman decides not to investigate they must provide reasons to the person complaining. They must also keep you informed of the progress of any investigation.
The Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment in the ACT is a sort of environmental ombudsman. The Commissioner is established under the Commissioner for the Environment Act 1993 and has some powers and authority to investigate environmental decisions and actions of the ACT Government. The Commissioner can investigate:
The Commissioner is not authorised to investigate actions taken by certain bodies such as judges, magistrates, the Ombudsman or a panel conducting an inquiry into an environmental impact statement under Chapter 8 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) [s.12(2)]. Complaints are made by contacting the Commissioner’s office. The Commissioner has certain discretionary powers in making decisions on whether or not to investigate certain complaints [s.14]. If the Commissioner decides not to investigate, they must give reasons in the Annual Report [s.14(8)].
If the Commissioner does investigate a complaint the Commissioner has to prepare a report which must be provided to the Minister within 28 days of completion [s.21]. The report must be tabled in the Assembly by the Minister within 15 sitting days of receiving the report. [s.22].
The law described in this Fact Sheet is current at 31 March 2010.
The ACT EDO Fact Sheets have been designed to give readers plain English background knowledge to planning and environmental decision making in the ACT. They cannot replace the need for professional legal advice in individual cases. Please contact us as we may be able to provide additional advice.
While every effort has been made to ensure the content is as accurate as possible, the EDO does not accept any responsibility for any loss or disadvantage resulting from reliance or use of this work.
Duplication and reproduction of the information provided in any ACT EDO Fact Sheet is permitted with acknowledgment of the ACT EDO as source.
The ACT EDO Fact Sheets Project was carried out with the assistance of funds made available by the ACT Government under the ACT Environment Grants Program.