Quick questions on Open Government and Administrative Law: WACE Year 12 Politics and Law

The ombudsman is an independent officer who investigates complaints about the administrative actions of government departments and agencies, focusing on maladministration such as unreasonable delay, error, unfairness or failure to follow proper process. The ombudsman can investigate, make findings and recommend remedies, and report to Parliament, which adds political pressure. Its strength is that it is free, accessible and investigative. Its main limitation is that its recommendations are not legally binding, so it relies on persuasion and publicity rather than enforceable orders.

Judicial review is different: a court reviews the legality of a decision, not its merits. It asks whether the decision-maker had the power, followed a lawful process (including natural justice), considered relevant matters and ignored irrelevant ones, and acted reasonably. If the decision is unlawful, the court can quash it and send it back to be remade, but it generally cannot substitute its own decision on the merits. Judicial review enforces the rule of law over the executive and is grounded in the courts' supervisory role.

When you evaluate, judge the system as a layered set of checks. Strengths include multiple complementary avenues (cheap merits review, free ombudsman investigation, and authoritative judicial review), reinforced by open-government laws. Weaknesses include the cost and complexity of judicial review, the non-binding nature of ombudsman recommendations, FOI exemptions and delays, and the ability of Parliament to limit review rights through privative clauses. Use a contemporary example, such as the Robodebt scheme, where a royal commission and litigation exposed unlawful automated decision-making, to show both the failure that prompted accountability and the mechanisms that ultimately responded.