Administrative law and responsible government
Administrative Law and Responsible Government
I. Introduction
Administrative law governs the actions and decisions of government officials and bodies. It ensures that decisions made by public authorities are lawful, fair, and reasonable.
Responsible government is a key feature of the Westminster system adopted in Australia. It refers to the principle that executive government (ministers and public servants) is accountable to the legislature (Parliament), and ultimately to the public.
The two are deeply linked:
Administrative law holds public officials accountable through legal mechanisms (e.g., judicial review, tribunals).
Responsible government ensures political and institutional accountability.
Together, they form a dual system of accountability — legal and political.
II. Key Principles of Administrative Law
Legality – Decision-makers must act within their lawful authority.
Procedural Fairness – Right to be heard and a fair process.
Reasonableness – Decisions must not be arbitrary or irrational.
Right to Reasons – In some cases, decision-makers must provide reasons.
Reviewability – Access to judicial or merits review.
III. Key Principles of Responsible Government
Ministerial Responsibility – Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their departments.
Transparency – Government decisions should be open and explainable.
Parliamentary Oversight – Question time, committees, and public reports ensure scrutiny.
Accountability to the Electorate – Ultimately, ministers must retain public trust.
IV. Case Law Demonstrating Administrative Law and Responsible Government
Below are six major cases that reflect how administrative law enforces responsible government principles.
1. A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532 (ASIS Case)
Facts:
Officers from the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) were involved in a covert operation. The Commonwealth tried to shield them from legal accountability, claiming they acted on executive orders.
Issue:
Can executive instructions override the law?
Held:
The High Court ruled executive action is subject to the rule of law. Public officials cannot rely on government orders to break the law.
Significance:
Reinforces ministerial and public servant accountability.
Upholds legality and rule of law over executive discretion.
Demonstrates limits of executive power even under responsible government.
2. R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170
Facts:
A delegation of ministerial powers under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act was challenged.
Issue:
Was the delegation consistent with the principle of ministerial accountability?
Held:
The Court upheld the delegation but emphasized that ministers remain accountable for the exercise of delegated authority.
Significance:
Even when functions are delegated, ministerial responsibility remains intact.
Reflects the core of responsible government within administrative practice.
3. Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 274
Facts:
The Minister failed to consider relevant information while making a heritage declaration affecting mining rights.
Issue:
Did the Minister act lawfully in omitting relevant considerations?
Held:
The Federal Court found the Minister failed to consider relevant factors, rendering the decision invalid.
Significance:
Highlights accountability through legality and judicial oversight.
Shows how administrative law checks ministerial discretion.
Ministers are not above scrutiny even in politically sensitive decisions.
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
A refugee sought judicial review of a migration decision, but a privative clause in the Migration Act tried to oust court jurisdiction.
Issue:
Can Parliament prevent judicial review of administrative decisions?
Held:
The High Court ruled that judicial review is constitutionally protected under s 75(v) of the Constitution.
Significance:
Protects judicial oversight as a key aspect of responsible government.
Ensures administrative accountability cannot be removed by legislation.
Reinforces that public officials must act within legal bounds.
5. Attorney-General (Cth) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Facts:
Quin, a former magistrate, challenged a decision not to reappoint him based on new judicial selection policies.
Issue:
Could the court force the executive to adhere to past policies?
Held:
The High Court rejected intervention, stating courts cannot dictate government policy but can review the legality of decisions.
Significance:
Demonstrates the limits of judicial power under responsible government.
Shows balance between judicial review and executive discretion.
Ministers are accountable to Parliament for policy, but to courts for lawfulness.
6. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Te (2002) 212 CLR 162
Facts:
The Minister ordered the deportation of a permanent resident who had committed a criminal offence.
Issue:
Was the Minister's decision reviewable?
Held:
Yes. The Court held the Minister must act according to law and fair process.
Significance:
Reinforces the legal limits on ministerial discretion.
Reflects how administrative law supports the accountability mechanisms under responsible government.
V. How the Two Interact
| Administrative Law | Responsible Government | Connection |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial review of administrative actions | Parliamentary and ministerial accountability | Both uphold the rule of law |
| Merits and procedural review through tribunals (e.g. AAT) | Political scrutiny through Parliament | Both ensure decisions are explainable and correctable |
| Legal remedies for unlawful decisions | Political consequences for mismanagement | Together, they enforce accountability and transparency |
| Limits on executive discretion | Ministerial responsibility for public servants | Ensures responsible governance |
VI. Conclusion
Administrative law and responsible government are two vital pillars of Australian democracy.
Administrative law ensures government decisions comply with the law and respect individual rights.
Responsible government ensures that public officials and ministers answer to Parliament and the public.
Through key High Court and Federal Court decisions, these principles are reinforced to maintain a system where power is exercised legally, transparently, and accountably.
RELATED Blog
0 comments