A Minister's decision to call in a development application under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) is subject to the bias rule, but its content is significantly modified by the political nature of the decision-maker; lobbying, political donations, and ex parte communications do not without more establish apprehended bias in a ministerial context. The obligation to 'consider' representations under s 102(4) requires the Minister to read, identify, understand and evaluate them, but does not require the Minister to set out findings on material questions of fact. A breach of s 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) is a non-jurisdictional error by reason of s 58(6), and is therefore barred by the privative clause in s 231 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). The 'piggyback' clause in s 59 of the Human Rights Act does not create a separate judicial review ground.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.