Judicial Review of Public Consultation Processes: A Safeguard Against Tokenism?

Abstract

Concerns are commonly expressed that public consultation processes are administered in a tokenistic manner. This article examines Australian judicial review cases for whether the courts can adequately deal with such concerns. It does so by examining the scope of judicial review for the different elements of public consultation processes. Its primary findings are that Australian courts have relatively broad scope of review with regard to enforcing public notice requirements but relatively narrow scope of review with regard to supervising an administrator's consideration of submissions lodged by members of the public. It is then argued that the limitations in relation to supervising an administrator's consideration of submissions restrict courts from providing an effective safeguard against tokenistic consultation practices.