Introducing the Administrative Conflict Series (February–June) AC/001
Starting with Misfeasance
Over the next five months (February to June 2026), I will be publishing and convening a focused series of “TalkAbout” conversations on Administrative Conflict: what happens when public decision-making causes harm, when systems become unresponsive, and when individuals and communities find themselves drawn into disputes with government institutions.
This is not a series about “litigation strategy” in the narrow sense. It is about understanding the conflict ecology of public administration before filing claims and jumping to remedies.
Administrative harm is often experienced through delay, technicality, indifference, or what can feel like institutional denial. But the pathways available in response are rarely simple, and the first legal concept that comes to mind is not always the most constructive first move.
The purpose of this stream is to build clarity, sequencing, and practical vocabulary for responsible engagement with administrative harm. In doing so, we will draw on recent Australian Royal Commission Reports, including the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and the Royal Commission into Defence & Veteran Suicide.
Why begin with misfeasance?
Our first TalkAbout session begins with misfeasance in public office, a common law tort that is sometimes invoked when people feel seriously wronged by government action. Misfeasance can seem like the natural label for institutional abuse. But it is a high-threshold cause of action with strict elements, and it is difficult to establish in practice.
It is also important to distinguish misfeasance from maladministration: many administrative failures are serious, and even unlawful, without meeting the threshold for this tort.
The Robodebt Royal Commission itself noted, cautiously, that “elements of the tort… appear[ed] to exist,” while also emphasising that people may have different remedies, including discretionary redress pathways where litigation is not available.
That tension is central to this series. Misfeasance is an important horizon concept, but it is rarely the first step in an effective pathway toward accountability or repair.
Administrative conflict before remedy escalation
The deeper aim of this series is to examine the anatomy of administrative conflict. Many administrative disputes escalate not only because of the underlying decision, but because of breakdowns in:
communication
transparency
evidence handling
institutional responsiveness
dignity and trust
Administrative conflict is often relational and systemic. It requires mapping, not just accusation.
As a post-lawyer, my preferred approach is to re-sequence advocacy energy into constructive, evidence-led engagement — including, where possible, through structured negotiation and repair-oriented pathways.
Connecting administrative harm and privacy governance
At the same time, WorkAccord will also be exploring a parallel stream on Privacy Protection, Compliance & Management. These topics are not separate.
Robodebt illustrates why.
Modern administration increasingly operates through information systems: data matching, automated inference, compliance algorithms, and large-scale exchanges of personal information between agencies. In that environment, administrative harm is often mediated through defective informational practices.
This is why we are drawing early connections between the two streams, beginning with what might be called informational misfeasance: the exercise of coercive administrative power through unreliable or poorly governed personal information.
The Robodebt Royal Commission raised serious questions about data quality, transparency, and possible breaches of the Australian Privacy Principles, particularly around accuracy, notice, and the lawful use and disclosure of personal information.
These are not merely technical privacy issues. They are part of the integrity infrastructure of administrative justice.
What this series will cover through June
Between now and June, the Administrative Conflict stream will develop a practical pathways map for responding to administrative harm, including:
Misfeasance in public office (high-threshold horizon concepts) — February
The Commonwealth CDDA scheme (Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration) — March
Act of Grace payments and discretionary repair — April
Ethical leadership themes: moral injury, moral courage, moral imagination, and moral accord — May
Responsible decision-making and public responsibility where trust is at stake — June
This is a series for veteran and community advocates (lay and professional), integrity and complaints professionals, governance and risk practitioners, and lawyers and non-lawyers seeking precise language and constructive pathways.
Post-Law Peacemaking in the administrative state
The animating question of this stream is simple:
How do we respond to administrative harm in ways that remain credible, grounded, and oriented toward repair — especially in a digital state where power increasingly moves through information?
Misfeasance may be part of the landscape. But it is limited by its legal architecture of demand - statement of claim - defence. Post-Law Peacemaking begins earlier: with listening, learning, mapping, and making a responsible pathway toward administrative justice.
I’m hoping that these conversations will support a more precise vocabulary of administrative conflict, more careful sequencing in understanding harm and redress, and more humane repair in the administrative state.