There’s fairness and there’s procedural fairness
The Issue
1. The ‘hearing rule’ – people who will be affected by a proposed decision must be given an opportunity to express their views to the decision maker.
2. The ‘bias rule’ – the decision maker must be impartial and must have no personal stake in the matter to be decided.
![18-procedural-fairness-procedure](https://checkmatehumanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/18-procedural-fairness-procedure.png)
![18-curve-01](https://checkmatehumanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/18-curve-01.png)
![18-curve-02](https://checkmatehumanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/18-curve-02.png)
Procedural fairness has been codified in some pieces of Australian legislation and restricted in others.[3] While the application of procedural fairness rules apply primarily to administrative and government decisions, it is unquestionably a cornerstone to our common understanding of justice.
Chief Justice French said in 2010: “I do not think it too bold to say that the notion of procedural fairness would be widely regarded within the Australian community as indispensable to justice. If the notion of a ‘fair go’ means anything in this context, it must mean that before a decision is made affecting a person’s interests, they should have a right to be heard by an impartial decision-maker.”
Our View
![yin-yang](https://checkmatehumanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/yin-yang.png)
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/federal-government-loses-major-robodebt-case/11742494
[2] https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/best-practice-guide-2-natural-justice.pdf
[3] http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj07oct10.pdf