This book is only available in PDF format 
Published: 15 August, 2006
Pages: 113

Introduction

Making one’s mind up can be difficult enough at the best of times.

The task is all the more difficult when one is presented with conflicting views and advice from different people, all of whom might be affected by the decision; all of whom are trying to exert their influence in different ways.

Given their interests in the decision, it is likely to be best not to ignore them. But how much should they be told about what is being contemplated? Should they be given all that there is? That will delay the decision. They will want to say something more.

Help may be needed to make the decision. How much help should be obtained? Others might process information, advise and report. A system might be needed to provide some structure. A policy might assist in case similar decisions are needed in the future. But will that cause more problems that it solves? Will it get people’s hopes up? How consistent does one then have to be?

Once the relevant papers, comments, submissions, reports and summaries are together, how will the decision be made? How can challenge best be prevented? How, and in what way, will everyone be told? What is the extent of the exposure if the decision is wrong, or has been gone about in the wrong way? If only this was all black and white.

The reality is that no single approach to decision-making will apply to all cases. Any attempt to formulate general rules about the ability to review public decisions and the grounds of review can only be at a reasonably high level of abstraction.