A person who is upset by a government decision should first try to telephone or write to the officer responsible for the decision. It is often more fruitful to discuss matters with the officer concerned rather than engage in formal correspondence with the Minister or the department. However, if legal action is taken the defendant would not be the officer but would be the person or body officially responsible for the matter under the law.

Negotiation is useful to find why a decision has been taken and whether the decision may be reconsidered. It should be remembered that time limits apply to some areas of review so that a right to appeal a decision should not be forgotten while a person negotiates. Negotiation alone is unlikely to change a decision. Once a decision is made it is generally only altered if it is shown that the decision maker did not have all of the facts.

Many departments have an internal review system so that other officers within the department may reconsider decisions. A person unhappy with a decision is often required to use that internal review procedure before other avenues are available. If the decision was made under Commonwealth law, the empowering Act will generally direct the appropriate avenues of appeal.

A person can use a number of different methods to review an unsatisfactory decision by a government body, including complaints to the decision maker, the responsible Minister or to the local Member of Parliament. Other alternatives, such as the Ombudsman, rely on persuasive powers rather than complaining to a body who can make decisions. There are also a large number of administrative tribunals. These are tribunal which review decisions and generally have the same powers as the original decision maker to vary or make new decisions. For more information on tribunals, see TRIBUNALS.

Sometimes there is only one body to which an appeal can be directed, (for example, the Migration Review Tribunal). In other cases, the decisions of these tribunals can be appealed to a higher tribunal, which is generally a tribunal that hears a wider range of matters. In the Commonwealth sphere, this is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, see administrative appeals tribunal. Under the State system this is the Administrative Appeals Division of the District Court, see state administrative appeals.

Often, two or three avenues of review may be available. To determine this, it is important to look closely at the statute under which a decision is made. The decision maker should assist in providing information about review rights. For example, a decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal can be the subject of a statutory appeal (alleging an error of law in the decision) or can be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Another example is Veteran's Review Board decisions which can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but which can also be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

In choosing a form of review, a number of factors need to be considered. This includes the speed and cost of the review, the issues that can be considered by the review body and the powers of that body to remedy defects in the original decision. The different categories of review that are available in the State or Commonwealth areas are the Ombudsman, the administrative tribunals and judicial review.