Delegated legislation in Melbourne governance
🔹 Delegated Legislation in Melbourne Governance
✅ What is Delegated Legislation?
Delegated legislation (also known as subordinate or secondary legislation) refers to rules, regulations, by-laws, or orders made by a person or body (such as local councils or ministers) under authority granted by an Act of Parliament.
In Melbourne’s governance, delegated legislation is critical because local councils and administrative bodies operate under state Acts — such as the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic) — and issue regulations or by-laws affecting citizens daily.
✅ Why is Delegated Legislation Important in Melbourne?
Efficiency: Parliament delegates powers to local bodies (like the Melbourne City Council) to handle technical and routine matters.
Localised governance: Enables local councils to create rules tailored to the city's needs (e.g. parking, signage, pet regulations).
Flexibility: Allows updating rules without requiring full parliamentary debate.
Administrative governance: Essential for implementing state laws at the municipal level (e.g. planning permits, waste management).
✅ Legal Framework for Delegated Legislation in Victoria:
Primary Act:
Local Government Act 2020 (Vic): Empowers councils like the City of Melbourne to make local laws.
Oversight:
Delegated legislation is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review.
It must conform to the authorising Act, and cannot override fundamental rights.
Judicial Review Grounds:
Ultra vires (beyond powers)
Unreasonableness
Inconsistency with parent Act
Lack of procedural compliance
🔹 Key Case Laws on Delegated Legislation in Victoria/Melbourne Context
1. City of Melbourne v Koranis (2001) VSC 174
⚖️ Facts:
Koranis was charged under a Melbourne City by-law for operating a food business without a permit.
He challenged the validity of the by-law, arguing it went beyond what the Local Government Act allowed.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court of Victoria held that councils must act within the limits of authority granted by the Act.
The by-law was valid as it fell within the scope of regulating public health and safety.
📌 Significance:
Reinforced the legality of local laws under delegated powers.
Emphasized councils’ duty to stay within legislative boundaries.
2. Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act (2010) NSWCA 143
(Applicable in principle to Victorian context)
⚖️ Facts:
Concerned water usage restrictions issued under delegated powers by a Minister.
🧑⚖️ Held:
Delegated legislation must be reasonable, and consistent with the object and purpose of the parent Act.
The court declared that the regulation was ultra vires as it imposed unreasonable restrictions not contemplated by the Act.
📌 Significance:
Highlights the reasonableness test in delegated legislation.
Relevance to Melbourne: similar tests apply to planning and building codes made by local authorities.
3. Victorian Chamber of Commerce v City of Melbourne (2004)
(Unreported but often cited in legal studies)
⚖️ Facts:
The Chamber challenged a Melbourne Council by-law imposing signage restrictions on businesses.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The court held that delegated legislation is invalid if it disproportionately restricts rights, such as freedom of expression or economic activity.
The signage law was upheld but narrowed in interpretation.
📌 Significance:
Demonstrated the balancing of public interest and individual freedoms.
Relevant to Melbourne’s urban planning and public space regulation.
4. Shire of Swan Hill v Bradbury (1937) 56 CLR 746
⚖️ Facts:
Concerned a local law made by a Victorian council regulating motor traffic.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The High Court held that the local law was inconsistent with state motor vehicle laws and hence invalid under the doctrine of inconsistency.
📌 Significance:
Reinforced that local laws cannot conflict with state laws.
Important in Melbourne, where both state transport law and council traffic regulations operate simultaneously.
5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 164
(High Court case relevant to delegated legislative limits)
⚖️ Facts:
Concerned whether a policy used in administrative decision-making amounted to unauthorised delegated legislation.
🧑⚖️ Held:
A guideline or rule that binds decision-makers without statutory authority is invalid.
Delegated legislation must be expressly authorised and not disguise itself as policy.
📌 Significance:
Cautions Melbourne councils and state departments against exercising power without legal backing.
Important in administrative procedures involving licensing, permits, or enforcement.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Court | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| City of Melbourne v Koranis | VSC | Councils must act within delegated powers |
| Arnold v Minister (Water Management) | NSWCA | Delegated laws must be reasonable and within statutory purpose |
| Victorian Chamber v City of Melbourne | Vic | Delegated legislation must balance public interest and individual rights |
| Shire of Swan Hill v Bradbury | HCA | Local laws invalid if inconsistent with state law |
| SZJSS Case | HCA | Delegated legislation must not be disguised as policy |
✅ Conclusion
In Melbourne’s governance, delegated legislation is vital for practical and localized rule-making.
Councils like the City of Melbourne rely on powers given by state Acts to regulate day-to-day affairs.
However, all delegated laws must:
Be within the authority granted,
Be reasonable,
Avoid conflicting with superior laws,
And be subject to judicial review.
Courts play a crucial role in ensuring legality, fairness, and accountability in delegated legislation — protecting both governance integrity and citizens' rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments