v0.3

Consideration Matrix

Mapping what must be considered against what was actually considered

GlassCase Consideration Matrix v0.3 is a diagnostic tool for Australian administrative law. It synthesises established principles on mandatory considerations, discretionary weighting, and jurisdictional error. The matrix applies wherever validity depends on consideration of specified matters (FOI, migration, licensing, disciplinary regimes). Placement reflects legal characterisation, not subjective belief.

WHERE THIS FITS

Use it to map mandatory versus discretionary considerations, diagnose jurisdictional error (failure to consider mandatory matters), and structure review grounds for internal review or tribunal appeals.

2×2 Matrix

Mandatory consideration

Discretionary consideration

Jurisdictional error

No duty to consider

Doctrinal basis (non-exhaustive)

Show ▼

Lawful Compliance

Statutory criteria; jurisdictional facts; procedural fairness requirements. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 (mandatory relevant considerations identified from statute's subject matter, scope and purpose).

Lawful Discretion

Weighting and proportionality within bounds of legal reasonableness. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 (discretion must have "evident and intelligible justification"; decision within bounds cannot be impugned on weight alone).

Jurisdictional Error

Failure to take into account a consideration the decision-maker was bound to consider. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(e), (2)(b); Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39–40 (Mason J). Materiality may be required: a failure is not jurisdictional if “so insignificant that failure to consider it could not have materially affected the decision.”

No Duty to Consider

No general common law duty to consider irrelevant matters or give reasons for not considering them. Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 (no duty to give reasons absent statutory requirement or exceptional circumstances); Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 (standard of reasons depends on statutory context). Prohibited considerations under s 11B(4) FOI Act must not be taken into account.

Note: Inferred consideration

Consideration may be inferred from context even where reasons do not explicitly address a matter. Silence in reasons may still reveal failure to consider a relevant matter: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, [69], [82]–[91] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). The question is whether the matter was in fact considered, not merely mentioned.

Worked example: Licensing decision

A statute requires the decision-maker to consider an applicant's criminal history before granting a licence. The decision-maker approves the application without referencing the history in reasons.

Criminal history (statutory requirement) — not mentioned in reasons Jurisdictional error

Application fee paid (mandatory procedural step) — verified Lawful compliance

Weight given to minor 10-year-old offence — low weight assigned Lawful discretion

Applicant's political donations — not considered No duty

Worked example: Peko-Wallsend (Mandatory consideration failure)

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs decided to grant land to a Land Trust without considering material showing that a $280 million uranium deposit lay within the grant area — contrary to the factual assumption in the Commissioner's report. The Minister relied on a departmental brief that omitted this information.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd

(1986) 162 CLR 24

Read the judgment on AustLII

Correct location of Ranger 68 deposit (material fact affecting detriment assessment) — not considered Jurisdictional error

Commissioner's report and recommendation received — considered Lawful compliance

Policy judgment that traditional owners' entitlement outweighs detriment — weighed Lawful discretion

Arguments not correcting factual assumptions in the report — not required No duty

Result Decision invalid — a mandatory factual consideration relevant to detriment was not considered.

Reasoning chain

STEP 1 Identify mandatory consideration. The statute required the Commissioner to comment on detriment (Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) s 50(3)). Since the Commissioner cannot weigh detriment, the Minister is the sole forum — making detriment a mandatory consideration derived from the statutory scheme and purpose.

STEP 2 Was it considered? The departmental brief omitted the respondents' submissions showing the Commissioner's factual assumption was wrong. The Minister never saw this material. Where a Minister relies entirely on a departmental brief that omits a material fact he is bound to consider, the omission amounts to failure to consider that fact.

STEP 3 Was the omission material? The entire $280 million deposit lay within the grant area, not outside it as assumed. This was not "so insignificant" that it could not have affected the decision.

Key distinction: The court does not review the weight given to a consideration — that is for the decision-maker. The court asks only whether a mandatory consideration was considered at all. The Minister could have reached the same decision, but had to do so as an informed decision. Failure to consider is jurisdictional error. Disagreement over weight is not.

"The ground of failure to take into account a relevant consideration can only be made out if a decision-maker fails to take into account a consideration which he is bound to take into account in making that decision." Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39 (Mason J)

"If the Minister relies entirely on a departmental summary which fails to bring to his attention a material fact which he is bound to consider, and which cannot be dismissed as insignificant or insubstantial, the consequence will be that he will have failed to take that material fact into account." Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 30 (Gibbs CJ)

Show legal reasoning

Show ▼

Statutory construction. Whether a consideration is mandatory depends on the statutory scheme and purpose. Section 50(3) required the Commissioner to comment on detriment. R v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 69; (1982) 158 CLR 327 held the Commissioner must comment on detriment but cannot weigh it in deciding whether to recommend a grant. This made the Minister the only decision-maker who could balance detriment against the claims of traditional owners. If the Minister were merely entitled — not bound — to consider detriment, affected parties would have no forum in which their interests could compel consideration.

Departmental knowledge. Material in the possession of the Department is treated as being in the possession of the Minister (Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration [1980] 2 NZLR 130 (CA)). Where the Minister relies entirely on a departmental brief that omits a material fact he is bound to consider, and which cannot be dismissed as insignificant or insubstantial, the consequence is that the Minister has failed to take that fact into account.

Materiality. An omitted consideration must not be "so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision" (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 40 (Mason J)). Later cases formalise this as an interpretive presumption: Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34 held that jurisdictional error requires materiality unless the statute indicates otherwise; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA; CQZ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; BEG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 3 applied this to procedural fairness.

Limitation. The Minister is not required to consider every argument advanced in submissions. The obligation extends only to material revealing that the Commissioner's comments were based on an erroneous view of the facts — not to every legal or rhetorical argument received.

Matrix diagnostic: The Consideration Matrix distinguishes mandatory considerations (must be addressed), discretionary weighting (for the decision-maker), and jurisdictional error (failure to consider a mandatory matter). Peko-Wallsend is the foundational authority for this analytical model.

What this matrix does not do

Determine the merits of a decision
Assess whether the weight given was correct
Replace statutory interpretation or legal advice
Identify all considerations (that requires reading the empowering statute)

How to Use This Matrix

Audit decisions: Map considerations from reasons documents or decision records against the matrix to identify structural issues—mandatory matters not addressed, irrelevant matters relied upon, or weighting applied where none was permitted.
Review preparation: Use the matrix to frame grounds for internal review or tribunal appeals. The bottom-left quadrant (jurisdictional error) identifies reviewable failures under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(e), (2)(b).
Training and education: Teach decision-makers and law students how to distinguish mandatory from discretionary considerations and recognise when silence in reasons may indicate jurisdictional error.

This matrix is a diagnostic tool, not a substitute for reading the empowering statute or obtaining legal advice. It applies across administrative regimes wherever validity depends on proper consideration of specified matters.

Related Tools

FOI Redaction Taxonomy — Practical coding scheme for analysing FOI redactions across Australian jurisdictions.
Institutional Stress Mapper — Map institutional stress signals over time using observable data.
Use & Privacy — How GlassCase works, data practices and legal information.

Version History

v0.3 (March 2026): First doctrinal implementation. Added Peko-Wallsend worked example with step-by-step reasoning chain, key quotations from the judgment, expandable legal reasoning section covering statutory construction, departmental knowledge, materiality (Hossain → SZMTA lineage), and submissions limitation. Demonstrates how a real High Court case maps onto the matrix diagnostic framework.

v0.2 (January 2026): Added doctrinal basis section with case authorities, worked licensing example, and "What this matrix does not do" limitations.

v0.1 (December 2025): Initial release. Synthesises Peko-Wallsend, Li, and related authorities into a 2×2 diagnostic framework.

How to cite (APA 7): GlassCase. (2026, March). Consideration Matrix (Version 0.3). https://glasscase.org/consideration-matrix.html

Licence: CC BY 4.0. Not legal advice.