Central government structure and administrative powers
Central Government Structure and Administrative Powers
Overview
The central government is the core executive authority responsible for governing a country. In Australia (and many common law jurisdictions), the central government structure includes:
The Executive: The Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Ministers.
Departments and Agencies: Public service bodies that implement government policies.
Statutory Authorities: Bodies created by legislation to perform specific functions.
The Legislature (Parliament): Enacts laws that grant powers and set limits.
The Judiciary: Reviews administrative action to ensure legality.
Administrative Powers
Administrative powers are the powers exercised by government officials, departments, and agencies to implement laws, make decisions, and regulate public affairs. These powers can be:
Legislative (rule-making powers delegated by Parliament).
Executive (power to enforce laws, administer programs).
Quasi-judicial (decision-making powers affecting rights).
The separation of powers doctrine divides functions among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, but administrative law oversees how the executive exercises its powers.
Key Features of Central Government Administrative Powers
Delegated Legislation: Parliament delegates specific powers to ministers or agencies to create subordinate rules (regulations, orders).
Discretionary Powers: Many administrative decisions involve discretion within legal boundaries.
Accountability: Powers are subject to judicial review, parliamentary scrutiny, and executive oversight.
Procedural Fairness: Decisions affecting rights must follow fair procedures.
Statutory Authority: Government bodies exercise powers granted by statutes.
Limits and Checks: Judicial review limits unlawful, unreasonable, or improper use of powers.
Important Case Law Illustrating Central Government Structure and Administrative Powers
1. Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83
Facts: A dispute over whether a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Social Security had authority to make a particular decision.
Issue: Scope of delegated administrative powers.
Holding: The High Court held that delegated powers must be exercised within the limits of the statute and delegation instrument.
Significance: Clarified that administrative powers must be exercised by authorized persons and within legal boundaries.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Facts: The Minister’s delegate made a decision to refuse a visa without considering relevant evidence.
Issue: Whether the delegate properly exercised discretionary power.
Holding: The High Court held that decision-makers must take relevant considerations into account.
Significance: Emphasized proper exercise of administrative discretion and adherence to statutory criteria.
3. R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
Facts: Concerned the separation of powers and whether judicial functions could be assigned to administrative bodies.
Issue: Limits on administrative powers concerning judicial functions.
Holding: The High Court held that bodies exercising judicial power must comply with constitutional constraints.
Significance: Reinforced separation of powers and limits on administrative powers when performing judicial-like roles.
4. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts: The Minister failed to consider relevant factors in making a decision regarding mining leases.
Issue: Whether the Minister exercised statutory powers properly.
Holding: The High Court held that failure to consider mandatory factors constituted jurisdictional error.
Significance: Clarified limits on administrative powers—must consider relevant statutory criteria.
5. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts: The Commonwealth included a clause limiting judicial review of migration decisions.
Issue: Whether Parliament can restrict judicial oversight of administrative powers.
Holding: The High Court invalidated the ouster clause to preserve judicial review.
Significance: Affirmed judicial oversight as a key check on central government powers.
6. Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373
Facts: Banerji, a government employee, was disciplined for anonymous political tweets.
Issue: Scope of government’s administrative powers regarding employee conduct.
Holding: The High Court found that government has broad discretion but must act lawfully and reasonably.
Significance: Illustrated limits on administrative powers even in government employment matters.
Summary
The central government exercises administrative powers through ministers, agencies, and statutory bodies within a legal framework.
These powers are delegated and discretionary, but must conform to statutes and principles of fairness.
The judiciary plays a vital role in reviewing administrative action to ensure powers are lawfully exercised.
Case law consistently highlights the importance of lawful delegation, consideration of relevant factors, procedural fairness, and judicial oversight.
The separation of powers doctrine limits the government from encroaching on judicial functions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments