Constitutional basis of administrative law in Australia
⚖️ Constitutional Basis of Administrative Law in Australia
📌 What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies and officials, ensuring their actions comply with the law and principles of fairness. It involves:
Review of decisions by government officials and bodies.
Judicial oversight of the exercise of executive power.
Protection of individual rights against administrative abuse.
🔹 Constitutional Basis in Australia
Unlike some countries with a codified administrative law framework, Australia's administrative law principles largely derive from the Constitution, especially:
1. Chapter III – Judicial Power
Sections 71 to 80 establish the Judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in courts.
Administrative law’s judicial review functions are exercised by courts under this power.
2. Separation of Powers Doctrine
Executive power is separate from judicial power.
Courts review executive action to ensure legality but cannot perform executive functions themselves.
3. Implied Rights and Principles
The Constitution implies principles like natural justice and rule of law.
Courts have held these principles constrain government action.
4. Statutory Foundations
Although the Constitution provides the framework, statutes like the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) give detailed procedures for review.
⚖️ Key High Court Cases on Constitutional Basis of Administrative Law
1. Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1 (Communist Party Case)
📌 Facts:
The federal government passed a law banning the Communist Party and related organizations. The party challenged the law’s validity.
❓ Issue:
Did the law violate constitutional principles, particularly judicial power and the rule of law?
🧠 Reasoning:
The High Court invalidated the law, holding that the Constitution requires courts to determine the existence of facts on which laws operate, not Parliament or the executive.
⚖️ Principle:
Established the rule of law and judicial review as constitutional principles.
The Court emphasized judicial power to review executive action.
📚 Citation:
Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1
2. Marbury v Madison (1803) [US Case, foundational but influential]
Though an American case, it underpins constitutional judicial review globally, including Australia.
Principle:
Courts have the power to review executive actions and declare them invalid if unconstitutional.
Australia’s courts have adopted this principle as part of their constitutional role.
3. R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
📌 Facts:
The Boilermakers’ case challenged the constitutionality of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration exercising both judicial and non-judicial powers.
❓ Issue:
Could a court exercise judicial and executive/administrative functions?
🧠 Reasoning:
The High Court held that under the separation of powers in Chapter III, courts cannot exercise non-judicial powers.
⚖️ Principle:
Reinforced separation of powers as constitutional foundation for administrative law.
Limits on tribunals and courts exercising both judicial and executive powers.
📚 Citation:
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
📌 Facts:
Plaintiff challenged the validity of a privative clause that purported to exclude judicial review of migration decisions.
❓ Issue:
Can Parliament enact laws that entirely prevent judicial review?
🧠 Reasoning:
The High Court held that certain rights of judicial review are constitutionally protected and cannot be removed by legislation.
⚖️ Principle:
Confirmed the constitutional foundation of judicial review.
Privative clauses cannot exclude judicial review of jurisdictional errors.
📚 Citation:
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMTA (2019) 266 CLR 606
📌 Facts:
Challenged the validity of administrative decisions under immigration law and the scope of judicial review.
❓ Issue:
How far does constitutional judicial review extend in administrative decisions?
🧠 Reasoning:
The High Court affirmed courts’ powers to review administrative decisions for jurisdictional error, emphasizing the constitutional role of courts.
⚖️ Principle:
Courts protect against jurisdictional error, a key ground of judicial review.
Judicial review is a constitutional safeguard of administrative law.
📚 Citation:
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMTA (2019) 266 CLR 606
📌 Summary Table
| Case Name & Citation | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth | 1951 | Judicial review and rule of law |
| R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers | 1956 | Separation of judicial and non-judicial powers |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth | 2003 | Constitutional protection of judicial review |
| Minister for Immigration v SZMTA | 2019 | Courts' role to review jurisdictional error |
✅ Conclusion
The constitutional basis of Australian administrative law rests firmly on:
The constitutional separation of powers, especially judicial power vested in courts.
The rule of law requiring that government decisions be lawful.
The constitutional protection of judicial review, ensuring courts can oversee executive action.
Landmark cases like Communist Party Case and Plaintiff S157 have confirmed these foundations.
Together, these ensure that Australian administrative law operates within the framework of the Constitution, balancing government powers with individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments