How do I request a statement of reasons for a government decision in Queensland?

Before spending any money on a court challenge, get the decision-maker to explain themselves. In Queensland, you have a statutory right to compel a government body to set out its reasoning in writing. That document — a statement of reasons — is almost always the most important piece of evidence in any subsequent judicial review application, and obtaining it costs nothing beyond a letter.

The Queensland Government’s overview of the statement of reasons process is available at qld.gov.au: Judicial Review .

What a Statement of Reasons Must Contain

Under s 32 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) , a statement of reasons is not a courtesy letter. The decision-maker is legally required to set out all of the following:

1. Findings on material questions of fact: Every factual finding that was relevant to the decision must be stated. Vague or incomplete factual findings are themselves a basis for review.
2. The evidence or other material on which those findings were based: The decision-maker must identify what they relied on, not just what they concluded.
3. The reasons for the decision: The actual reasoning process — why the findings of fact led to the outcome — must be disclosed. A bare conclusion is not sufficient.

This requirement is a powerful tool. Most administrative law errors become visible only when a decision-maker is forced to articulate their reasoning in structured form. Common errors that appear in statements of reasons include:

• A finding of fact for which there was no evidence in the material before the decision-maker (a ground for review in its own right under s 20(2)(f) of the Act)
• Reliance on a consideration that the legislation did not permit the decision-maker to take into account
• No engagement with a submission or piece of evidence that you put forward
• An incorrect statement of the legal test the decision-maker applied
• A conclusion that is internally inconsistent with the findings of fact

Any of these, if present, is potentially a ground for judicial review. The statement of reasons is where you go looking for them.

Who Can Request One

You must be a “person aggrieved” by a reviewable decision. The Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) defines this consistently with the common law: you must have a sufficient legal interest in the decision — a direct financial, proprietary, or statutory interest — beyond the interest shared by the general public.

This mirrors the standing requirement for judicial review itself. If you have standing to seek judicial review, you almost certainly have the right to request a statement of reasons. If you are unsure whether you qualify, seek legal advice before the request window closes.

Note that not every decision is a reviewable decision under the Act. Schedule 2 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) lists categories of decisions that are excluded from the right to a statement of reasons even where they would otherwise be reviewable. Decisions made under certain security, intelligence, and criminal intelligence legislation are common exclusions. If your decision falls into a Schedule 2 category, the statement of reasons right does not apply, though judicial review may still be available.

How to Make the Request

Write directly to the agency, council, minister, or other decision-maker that made the decision. There is no prescribed form. Your letter should:

• identify the decision being queried (date, reference number if known, nature of the decision)
• state that you are requesting a statement of reasons under s 32 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
• provide your name and postal or email address for the response
• be signed by you or your authorised representative

Citing the section number is important. A bare request for “reasons” gives the decision-maker the option to respond with an informal letter. A request under s 32 triggers the statutory obligation with its mandatory content requirements.

Keep a copy of the request and a record of when and how you sent it. The decision-maker’s 28-day response clock starts running from receipt.

Time Limits

Time limits in this area are strict at both stages.

Your request must be made within 28 days of being given written notice of the decision. If no written notice was given, the 28-day period runs from the day you became aware of the decision. If you miss this window, the decision-maker is not obliged to provide a statement and will generally refuse.

Once you make the request, the decision-maker has 28 days to provide the statement. If they fail to do so, that failure is itself a reviewable decision: you can apply to the Supreme Court for an order compelling production of the statement.

The Federal Equivalent

At the federal level, the equivalent right is found in s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act). The content requirements are substantially identical. The key differences are:

• The request must be made within 28 days of the decision
• The decision-maker has 28 days to respond
• The application is made to the Federal Court of Australia if the decision-maker refuses or fails to provide a statement
• Some decisions are excluded under Schedule 2 of the ADJR Act, including certain migration, security, and intelligence decisions

For decisions made under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the ART’s own procedural rules provide for access to the decision-maker’s file and reasons as part of the review process, which is often more comprehensive than a standalone s 13 request.

What If the Decision-Maker Refuses or Provides an Inadequate Statement?

A decision-maker may respond in one of three unsatisfactory ways:

Refusal on the basis that you are not a person aggrieved. If you believe this is incorrect, you can apply to the Supreme Court under s 33 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) for an order that the statement be provided. The court will determine whether you have the requisite interest.

Failure to respond within 28 days. The failure itself is reviewable. You can apply to the Supreme Court for an order compelling provision of the statement under s 33.

A statement that is inadequate on its face. If the statement provided does not meet the mandatory content requirements — for example, it states conclusions without identifying the evidence or reasoning — that inadequacy can itself be raised in any subsequent judicial review application and may amount to a ground of review in its own right.

In all three cases, the appropriate first step is to write to the decision-maker identifying the specific deficiency and requesting a supplementary statement. If they do not respond adequately, an application under s 33 follows.

What to Do With the Statement Once You Have It

Once you receive the statement of reasons, review it with the following questions in mind:

1. Are all the factual findings supported by evidence? If the decision-maker found a fact for which there was no evidence, that is a ground for judicial review.
2. Did the decision-maker apply the correct legal test? Compare the test stated in the reasons against the test in the legislation.
3. Did they take into account everything they were required to consider? Cross-check the statement against the relevant legislation to identify any mandatory considerations that are missing.
4. Did they exclude anything they were not supposed to consider? If an irrelevant factor appears in the reasons, that is a ground for review.
5. Is the reasoning internally consistent? A conclusion that contradicts the findings of fact stated earlier in the same document is a sign of legal error.

If the answers to these questions satisfy you that the decision was made lawfully — even if the outcome is disappointing — the statement has still served its purpose. It has saved you the cost of an application that would not have succeeded.

If errors are present, take the statement to a solicitor experienced in administrative law immediately. The clock for filing a judicial review application is already running.

Comparison: Queensland vs Federal

	Queensland	Federal
Legislation	Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 32	ADJR Act 1977 (Cth) s 13
Request window	28 days from written notice	28 days from decision
Response time	28 days	28 days
Enforcement if refused	Supreme Court under s 33	Federal Court
Exclusions	Schedule 2 of the QLD Act	Schedule 2 of the ADJR Act
Cost to request	Free	Free

Last updated: May 2026 — see also Ep 13: Administrative Law and Government Decisions | What is the difference between merits review and judicial review? | What is Administrative Law in Queensland?