The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorCorder, Hughen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorHalley, Telana Deslinen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-28T07:01:28Z
dc.date.available2015-05-28T07:01:28Z
dc.date.issued2014en_ZA
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references.en_ZA
dc.description.abstract“Section 4 in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (the PAJA) is a great achievement for South African administrative law, and its very presence in the PAJA is likely to have a positive effect on the rate and quality of participation in administrative decision-making. Despite the accuracy of this statement, how costly is public participation to efficient administrative action? In terms of section 4 of the PAJA, in cases where an administrative action materially and adversely affects the rights of the public, to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an administrator, must decide whether to hold a public inquiry, follow a notice and comment procedure, follow both a public inquiry and notice and comment procedure, or where an administrator is empowered by any empowering provision, follow a procedure which is fair but different or to follow any procedure that gives effect to section 3 of the PAJA. However, if reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, an administrator may depart from the requirement to involve the public in the administrative decision. In determining whether a departure from the public participation procedure is reasonable and justifiable, several factors must be taken in account; one such factor is the need to promote an efficient administration and good governance. To what degree should the public accept this departure? The PAJA’s preamble sets out its purpose, which is to promote an efficient administration and good governance, and create a culture of accountability, openness and transparency in the public administration. It can thus be said that an efficient administration is an important aspect of just administrative action. This paper considers the instances where public bodies departed from the requirements of section 4 of the PAJA through a proper assessment of case law and case studies. It considers practical examples of administrative action by South African public entities and instances where the public participation process affected the efficiency of the administrator and the consequences thereof. This paper seeks to answer the question ‘Why is creating a culture of transparency and public participation so important to lawful, reasonable and procedural fair administrative action?’en_ZA
dc.identifier.apacitationHalley, T. D. (2014). <i>The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa</i>. (Thesis). University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11427/12973en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitationHalley, Telana Deslin. <i>"The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa."</i> Thesis., University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law, 2014. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/12973en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationHalley, T. 2014. The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa. University of Cape Town.en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - Thesis / Dissertation AU - Halley, Telana Deslin AB - “Section 4 in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (the PAJA) is a great achievement for South African administrative law, and its very presence in the PAJA is likely to have a positive effect on the rate and quality of participation in administrative decision-making. Despite the accuracy of this statement, how costly is public participation to efficient administrative action? In terms of section 4 of the PAJA, in cases where an administrative action materially and adversely affects the rights of the public, to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an administrator, must decide whether to hold a public inquiry, follow a notice and comment procedure, follow both a public inquiry and notice and comment procedure, or where an administrator is empowered by any empowering provision, follow a procedure which is fair but different or to follow any procedure that gives effect to section 3 of the PAJA. However, if reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, an administrator may depart from the requirement to involve the public in the administrative decision. In determining whether a departure from the public participation procedure is reasonable and justifiable, several factors must be taken in account; one such factor is the need to promote an efficient administration and good governance. To what degree should the public accept this departure? The PAJA’s preamble sets out its purpose, which is to promote an efficient administration and good governance, and create a culture of accountability, openness and transparency in the public administration. It can thus be said that an efficient administration is an important aspect of just administrative action. This paper considers the instances where public bodies departed from the requirements of section 4 of the PAJA through a proper assessment of case law and case studies. It considers practical examples of administrative action by South African public entities and instances where the public participation process affected the efficiency of the administrator and the consequences thereof. This paper seeks to answer the question ‘Why is creating a culture of transparency and public participation so important to lawful, reasonable and procedural fair administrative action?’ DA - 2014 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2014 T1 - The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa TI - The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/12973 ER - en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11427/12973
dc.identifier.vancouvercitationHalley TD. The right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africa. [Thesis]. University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Law ,Department of Public Law, 2014 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/12973en_ZA
dc.language.isoengen_ZA
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Public Lawen_ZA
dc.publisher.facultyFaculty of Lawen_ZA
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Cape Town
dc.subject.otherPublic Lawen_ZA
dc.titleThe right to be heard - worth the delay? A critical examination of public participation’s role in the efficiency of administrative action in democratic South Africaen_ZA
dc.typeMaster Thesis
dc.type.qualificationlevelMasters
dc.type.qualificationnameLLMen_ZA
uct.type.filetypeText
uct.type.filetypeImage
uct.type.publicationResearchen_ZA
uct.type.resourceThesisen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
thesis_law_2014_halley_td.pdf
Size:
637.07 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Masters