How law is used to hold executive governments in Australia to account
How Law Holds Executive Governments Accountable in Australia
Overview
In Australia, the rule of law and constitutional principles ensure that the executive government is accountable to the people and operates within legal limits. The law provides multiple mechanisms to hold the executive accountable, such as:
Judicial Review: Courts can review executive decisions and actions to ensure they comply with the law.
Parliamentary Oversight: Parliament exercises scrutiny through inquiries, question time, and committees.
Constitutional Checks: The Australian Constitution imposes limits on executive power.
Statutory Controls: Legislation such as the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) provides grounds for reviewing executive decisions.
Principles of Administrative Law: Including natural justice, procedural fairness, and legality.
Key Mechanisms of Accountability
Judicial Review
Courts can declare executive acts invalid if they exceed legal authority (ultra vires), violate procedural fairness, or are otherwise unlawful.
Separation of Powers
The judicial branch acts independently to check executive power.
Parliamentary Oversight
Parliamentarians question ministers and oversee administration.
Freedom of Information Laws
Enable public access to government information, promoting transparency.
Anti-corruption Bodies
Independent commissions investigate misconduct in public administration.
Landmark Australian Case Laws on Executive Accountability
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts: Mr. Li’s visa was canceled by a delegate of the Minister without proper consideration of his circumstances.
Issue: Whether the decision complied with procedural fairness and the statutory requirements.
Judgment: The High Court held that administrative decisions must be made lawfully and fairly. The decision was quashed due to failure to observe procedural fairness.
Significance: Reinforced judicial review as a tool to hold the executive accountable for fairness in decision-making.
2. Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts: Plaintiff challenged the validity of a migration decision and the attempt to exclude judicial review by legislation.
Issue: Whether Parliament can restrict judicial review of executive decisions through privative clauses.
Judgment: The High Court held that constitutional limits prevent Parliament from excluding judicial review of executive action entirely.
Significance: Affirmed the judiciary's role in maintaining executive accountability and upheld the constitutional right to judicial review.
3. Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1
Facts: The government attempted to ban the Communist Party through legislation.
Issue: Whether the legislation was valid and whether the executive could act based on its own findings without judicial oversight.
Judgment: The High Court declared the legislation invalid, stating that the executive cannot act without legal authority and must be subject to judicial review.
Significance: Established the principle that the executive must act within legal limits and is accountable to the law.
4. Brown v. Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328
Facts: The government enacted laws restricting protests near forestry operations.
Issue: Whether the laws impermissibly burdened freedom of political communication.
Judgment: The High Court invalidated parts of the law as disproportionate and unconstitutional.
Significance: Demonstrated how courts can check executive power that infringes on constitutional freedoms.
5. R v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
Facts: The case dealt with the separation of judicial and executive powers.
Issue: Whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could exercise both judicial and non-judicial functions.
Judgment: The High Court held that the separation of powers requires a clear distinction between judicial and executive functions.
Significance: Reinforced the constitutional safeguard ensuring executive power does not interfere with judicial independence, underpinning executive accountability.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Principle | Accountability Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Minister for Immigration v. Li | Procedural fairness & lawful decision-making | Judicial review of administrative action |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth | Limits on privative clauses; judicial review | Constitutional protection of judicial review |
| Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth | Executive must act within legal authority | Judicial invalidation of unlawful executive acts |
| Brown v. Tasmania | Protection of constitutional freedoms | Judicial check on executive legislation |
| R v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society | Separation of powers | Constitutional separation of executive and judicial powers |
Conclusion
In Australia, law holds the executive government accountable primarily through judicial review, constitutional safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny, and statutory controls. The High Court plays a pivotal role by ensuring executive decisions comply with legal standards and fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments