Executive accountability in Melbourne’s government
Executive Accountability in Melbourne’s Government
What is Executive Accountability?
Executive accountability means that the executive branch (government ministers, departments, agencies) must be responsible to the legislature, the judiciary, and the public. They must act lawfully, transparently, and fairly, and can be held answerable for their actions.
In Victoria (Melbourne’s state), executive accountability is ensured by:
Parliamentary control and oversight (Question Time, committees)
Judicial review of administrative actions
Ombudsman investigations
Freedom of Information laws
Public Service Codes and ethical standards
Mechanisms of Executive Accountability
Judicial Review: Courts review the legality, reasonableness, and procedural fairness of executive decisions.
Parliamentary Oversight: Ministers answer to Parliament for government policies and administrative actions.
Ombudsman Role: Independent investigation of complaints against government administration.
Statutory Commissions: Bodies like the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission oversee compliance.
Administrative Appeals: Tribunals and review bodies provide further accountability.
Important Case Laws on Executive Accountability in Victoria (Melbourne’s Government)
1. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) (High Court of Australia)
Facts: The Minister made a deportation decision without considering an international treaty (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
Held: The High Court ruled that ratification of treaties creates a legitimate expectation that the executive will consider treaty obligations.
Significance: Established the principle that executive decisions are accountable to international obligations and must consider them in decision-making, reinforcing fairness.
2. Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth (2003)
Facts: A statutory provision attempted to exclude judicial review of migration decisions.
Held: The High Court held that Parliament cannot completely exclude judicial review of executive decisions involving jurisdictional error.
Significance: Reinforces judicial accountability over the executive by limiting Parliament’s ability to exclude review.
3. Mulligan v. Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd (2008)
Facts: Concerned a government agency’s refusal to provide information.
Held: Court emphasized transparency and accountability under Freedom of Information laws.
Significance: Demonstrates the role of transparency in executive accountability.
4. Brennan v. Comcare (2007)
Facts: The decision involved reviewing administrative decisions made by government bodies regarding worker’s compensation.
Held: The court held that government decisions must be made fairly and lawfully, or they may be set aside.
Significance: Highlights judicial enforcement of administrative fairness.
5. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003)
Facts: Concerned procedural fairness in immigration detention.
Held: The court reinforced that executive actions affecting liberty must observe procedural fairness.
Significance: Strong accountability check on executive power relating to personal liberty.
Summary Table:
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Teoh (1995) | Legitimate expectation that executive considers international treaties |
| Plaintiff S157 (2003) | Judicial review cannot be completely ousted by Parliament |
| Mulligan (2008) | Transparency under FOI laws enhances executive accountability |
| Brennan (2007) | Administrative decisions must be lawful and fair |
| Ex parte Lam (2003) | Procedural fairness in executive detention decisions |
Conclusion
Executive accountability in Melbourne’s government is maintained through judicial oversight, parliamentary scrutiny, and transparency mechanisms.
The courts play a vital role in reviewing executive actions, ensuring legality, fairness, and adherence to human rights.
Parliamentary and statutory bodies further monitor and hold the executive accountable.
These mechanisms ensure that executive power is exercised responsibly and within the law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments