How to describe and critically analyse the values and fundamental principles of administrative law and the administrative law institutions and mechanisms designed to regulate the exercise of public power by executive governments in Australia
Administrative Law in Australia: Values, Principles, Institutions, and Case Law
1. Core Values and Fundamental Principles of Australian Administrative Law
Australian administrative law is primarily concerned with regulating the exercise of public power by the executive branch of government, ensuring that such power is exercised lawfully, fairly, and reasonably. The core values and principles include:
a) Legality
The principle that executive power must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law.
Public authorities cannot act beyond the powers conferred by legislation (ultra vires doctrine).
b) Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)
The right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).
The rule against bias or apprehension of bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Ensures decisions are made on a fair and unbiased basis.
c) Reasonableness and Rationality
Decisions must not be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The Wednesbury unreasonableness standard is often applied.
d) Transparency and Accountability
Government actions should be open to scrutiny.
Administrative bodies must provide reasons and be accountable to courts or tribunals.
e) Access to Justice and Remedies
Citizens have the right to seek judicial review.
Availability of effective remedies against unlawful administrative actions.
2. Administrative Law Institutions and Mechanisms in Australia
a) Judicial Review by Courts
The Federal Court and State Supreme Courts oversee judicial review of administrative actions.
Review is grounded in statutes such as the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
Courts ensure legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
b) Merits Review Bodies
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviews the merits of certain administrative decisions, allowing reconsideration of facts, law, and policy.
c) Ombudsman
Independent office that investigates complaints about administrative conduct.
Promotes accountability through investigation and recommendations.
d) Parliamentary Oversight
Committees scrutinize executive agencies and can hold inquiries into administrative actions.
e) Freedom of Information (FOI)
FOI laws enable public access to government documents, fostering transparency.
3. Critical Analysis of Values and Mechanisms
Legality and judicial review are essential to prevent abuse of power, but courts often show deference to specialized agencies on technical matters.
Procedural fairness promotes trust but can increase administrative burden and delay.
Merits review through bodies like the AAT enhances fairness but raises questions about separation of powers.
Ombudsman and FOI laws improve transparency but depend on political will and resource allocation.
There is an ongoing tension between efficient governance and rights protection.
The Wednesbury standard for reasonableness is criticized for being too deferential, leading to calls for a more robust standard (like proportionality).
4. Landmark Australian Case Laws
a) Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1
Facts:
The Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 attempted to ban the Communist Party, but the Communist Party challenged the law’s validity.
Decision:
The High Court held that the law was invalid because the executive power must conform to constitutional limits.
The case affirmed the principle of legality and judicial supremacy in reviewing executive action.
Demonstrated that Parliament cannot confer on the executive power beyond constitutional bounds.
Importance:
Landmark case on the rule of law and limits on executive power.
Established that legality is a fundamental principle.
b) Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
Kioa, a non-citizen, was subject to deportation without being given an opportunity to respond to adverse allegations.
Decision:
The High Court expanded the scope of procedural fairness, holding that natural justice applies broadly to administrative decisions affecting rights.
Decision-making bodies must provide a fair hearing, even if not mandated explicitly by statute.
Importance:
Established procedural fairness as a cornerstone principle in administrative law.
Emphasized fairness beyond formal legal requirements.
c) Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
An immigration decision to refuse a protection visa was challenged for being irrational.
Decision:
The High Court ruled that the decision was legally unreasonable (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Emphasized the limits of reasonableness review, confirming that courts can invalidate decisions that no reasonable decision-maker could make.
Importance:
Clarified the standard of reasonableness.
Strengthened the court’s role in curbing arbitrary administrative decisions.
d) Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
This case examined whether privative clauses (limiting judicial review) could exclude all forms of judicial scrutiny.
Decision:
The High Court held that some basic constitutional guarantees cannot be excluded, even by privative clauses.
Judicial review of legality and jurisdictional error remains a constitutional safeguard.
Importance:
Affirmed judicial review as a constitutional safeguard.
Emphasized the supremacy of the rule of law in administrative law.
e) Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
Lam challenged the validity of a decision refusing refugee status, alleging jurisdictional error.
Decision:
The High Court reiterated the centrality of jurisdictional error as a ground for judicial review.
Errors going to jurisdiction invalidate decisions regardless of merits.
Importance:
Highlighted the key concept of jurisdictional error in controlling executive power.
Strengthened the framework for judicial review.
5. Summary: How to Describe and Critically Analyse
Describe the core values such as legality, procedural fairness, reasonableness, and accountability, grounding them in the Australian constitutional and statutory framework.
Discuss the institutions: courts (judicial review), merits review tribunals, Ombudsman, parliamentary oversight, and FOI mechanisms.
Critically analyze tensions and limitations: for instance, the balance between executive efficiency and individual rights, deference vs. judicial activism, and adequacy of review standards.
Use case law to illustrate the evolution and application of these principles and mechanisms.
Highlight contemporary debates, such as the need for stronger transparency measures, reform of review standards, or expanding the Ombudsman’s powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments