Merits review in many ways embodies and requires all the features of good administrative decision making. Essay Example
The principles of good decision making are the foundations that make people, companies and institution make appropriate decisions regarding their daily activities and, or their lives. The principles of good decision making are the foundations that lay the standard of practice for all institutions, which states how people will conduct themselves in carrying out their duties, and lays the criteria and procedure in which all process should follow. This essay will examine three cases, which includes Pete and Reachout, Karen and the DSS, the Migration Review Tribunal video, Jen’s case, and the administrative problems and mistakes in these three cases, or scenarios will be discussed in detailed based on the principles of administration and sound decision making. This will be done in accordance with the rules, laws, and regulations that govern the different scenarios.
The features of administrative decision making process are central in the determination of this case. The features of good administrative decision making require that when making decisions the administrative requirements of the decision be considered. Legislation affects the decisions that are going to be made (P. &. Cane 24). Proper interpretation of the legislation requirements is fundamental in the determination of the section that is applicable in the decision to be made. A good administrative decision requires that a proper explanation and justifications be attached to the decisions made. The justifications and explanations need to be available to the people that the decision affects. Legislation entitles the aggrieved person to request for the summary of the decision taken. Duty of care is required in all administrative decisions in order to avoid causing harm or injury to other people (P. Cane 25).The breach of the fundamental duty of care can give rise to compensation or liability. Great administrative decisions require to adhere to the legal requirement of natural justice and procedural fairness. The code of fair practice is the principle of natural justice that all decisions should conform, consideration of fairness requires that a person must be told of the case that they are facing and given the right to be heard in reply (Groves 177). The principle of natural justice requires hearing before a decision is take, full disclosure of allegations levelled against anyone, or institution, and also the disclosure of all facts before any decision is made, and the person is given an adequate opportunity to respond and defend him, or herself (Groves 177). The decisions made are usually after fact finding. Facts can either be true or disputed, and also some other times the factual basis of making the decision may be far from being clear. The decision maker at this point faces the question of which side or version of the facts that they will take as the basis of making decisions. The policy used in decision aiming can be relied upon when it is consistent the legislation covering the activity.
The features of merits review process that are reflected in good decision making process includes the following; transparency, due diligence, managing interests, separation of duties, confidentiality, separation of duties, expert assessment, and no parallel assessment. In transparency, the criteria of assessing proposal should be published (P. Cane 30). All people should declare all their interests in order to manage interests in merits review, all proposals should be treated with confidence there should be expert reviews in the assessments. The merits review criteria and the assessment criteria should be separated. The principle of parallel review states that there should not be a review of the same proposal more than twice. In due diligence, all merits review should be carried out with professionalisms in the fraction to the investment and complication of the work (P. Cane 31).
$merits review ensures that professionalisms and due diligence is followed in the decision making process. The merits review ensures that the standards of practices is in accordance with the requirements or standards of the profession (P. Cane 32).
Karen and the Department of Social Security
The initial step of decision making is identifying the key issues that are required in the decision making process. In this process, Karen needed to identify the criteria for applying for unemployment benefits. This would require Karen to investigate the key rules and legislation’ required for applying unemployment benefits. Any relevant information about the unemployment benefits, and the standards of practice at the Department of Social Security to find any relevant information that is available to indicate a candidate’s compliance with the standards available. Karen would be required to examine the relevant rules and legislation, and the standards of practice and make sure she understands them; the standards of practices for the Department of Social Security will demonstrate the process that is followed by applicants in applying for unemployment benefits. The reading and understanding of the standards of practice would enable Karen to broaden her scope and understanding of the procedures to follow while applying for unemployment benefits. It will enable her to understand why things happen the way they do, look at issues from the Commonwealth Employment Service perspective. This would enable Karen to avoid any future conflicts, or misunderstandings with staff members at Department of Social Security.
The information that would be relevant for Karen’s application process includes initial whether she meets the criteria for applying for unemployment benefits. These would encompass to examine whether she meets the age requirements for applying for unemployment benefit. The criteria for and procedure applying for the unemployment benefits. The rule and regulations required for applying for the unemployment benefits. The normal standards of practice, which she is required to follow in applying for her unemployment benefits. The other significant factors are matters that would consider anyone ineligible to apply for unemployment benefits, and matters that would cause anyone to be dismissed from the program, and any other matters that are necessary for her unemployment benefits application process.
The basis of the assessment of Karen application process will be based on her meeting all the requirement of the Department of Social Security requirement. This includes the she must prove that she has attained the required age of 16 years, she is residing in Australia at that date that she will lodge her application forms. Karen would be required to demonstrate to the director that she is eligible for employment, and the reasons for her unemployment is not because of taking part in an illegal strike, or taking part in any unlawful activities that are otherwise prescribed in the rule and regulations governing the Department of Social Security. Karen would have to demonstrate that she is capable and willing to undertake any form of employment, and which in the director of Department of Social Security opinion would be appropriate for her to undertake. Karen would have to demonstrate that she has taken the necessary steps to gain gainful employment (P. Cane 34).
There exists a problem with the decision, because the decision because the directors policy is not consistent with the spirits and vision of the constitution. DSS does not carry out its functions with transparency, by ensuring that it publishes its application criteria. (P. &. Cane 35).
The issue of drug use by Pete has been a matter that needs further review, and the claim by the family members that ReachOut assist children, who are its clients, to ran away from their family is a matter that should be examined further. ReachOut organisation has lodged a review for the decision taken by licencing committee. With this matter arising that affects the operation of ReachOut, it should be given a chance to defend itself from the issues that have arisen. The ‘parents in peril’ should be party to the proceeding because they are the ones who lodged the claim again ReachOut. The aspects of good administration decision making require the licensing committee to establish all the facts regarding the case and Pete should be given a chance to respond to the allegations against him, and if Pete requires the summary of all the matters that led to the arriving to the decision, he should be given. Members of the licencing committee should carry their work with due diligence and transparency, and make decisions that have considered all material factors.
The vision of AAT to provide fair, impartial, and prompt review of administrative decisions would facilitate the proper handling and resolution of ReachOut issue (Groves 177). The general practice direction, which guides the resolution that are guided in section 37 of the appeals tribunal act are some of the characteristics that will guide this the tribunal process. The principles of sound administration guide all the committee against erroneous assumptions regarding the parties involved and actively manage unresolved and difficult cases (P. Cane).
In the Migration Review Tribunal
In this case, establishment of facts is one of the most important aspect in establishing facts. In any case once the facts are established and substantiated, it then becomes easy to make a decision regarding any issue (P. Cane 79). In fact, finding mission regarding this case, there are no clear facts or circumstances regarding SymornKhin age; she cannot clearly prove that she is over 60 years old. This rules her out of aged parents’ visa. In trying to establish whether she has more than one child in Cambodia, she vehemently denies having more than one child despite the documents indicating that she has adopted another child, Soucheat. She provides an inconclusive explanation regarding her situation, but when she is questioned regarding the second child, Bin, she provides inconclusive and evasive answers regarding her situation. The tribunal in this case has not been able to substantiate the facts of the case, SymornKhin’s evasiveness casts more doubt about her honesty. This cast doubts about Karen’s eligibility to qualify for family visa. A great deal of the people interaction with others is governed by perception. The need to establish facts in tribunals is usually in order to make the correct, fair, impartial, and appropriate decisions. In trying to establish the facts regarding this case, the judge had to ask questions, and SymornKhin’s did not answer all question appropriately (P. Cane 58). In some cases, especially regarding, the second child, Bin, she was evasive. Her inability to answer all question appropriately raised question marks regarding the validity of her information. This made all her statement either to seem false, and lies. The tribunal is governed by the rule of law regarding making decisions, and cannot deviate under any circumstances not to follow the law, and traditions. With this, I think that the tribunal would affirms the department’s decision to reject her application for Visa
This paper examined three scenarios Pete and ReachOut, Karen and the DSS, the Migration Review Tribunal video, Jen’s case. In the Pete and ReachOut case, this paper reviewed the decisions taken by the licence committee, identify the issues arising from the case, and coming up with appropriate measure of solving those issues and problems (Groves 177). In Karen and DSS, this paper established that DSS were within their mandate in withholding her unemployment benefits until the new school term began, in order to protect the institution from theft and fraud. In the Migration review tribunal video, Jen’s case; it was difficult to ascertain the facts about the case, so this paper established that SymornKhin, was not eligible to get either a family, or old parent Australian Visa.
Cane, P. & L. McDonald Principles of Administrative Law: Legal Regulation of Governance . London, UK: Oxford University Press , 2008.
Cane, Peter. Administrative law. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Groves, Matthew. “The Duty to Inquire in Tribunal Proceedings.” Sydney Law Review (2011): 177.
More Important Things