Ministerial powers to frame regulations
Ministerial Powers to Frame Regulations
Ministerial powers to frame regulations refer to the authority granted to government ministers (or relevant executive officers) to create subordinate legislation—usually called regulations or rules—under the authority of an enabling Act of Parliament. This power is a key feature of delegated legislation or secondary legislation.
Key Features of Ministerial Regulation-Making Powers:
Delegated Legislation: Parliament delegates law-making powers to ministers or administrative bodies to create regulations that supplement the primary legislation.
Scope Defined by Enabling Act: The regulations must be made within the scope and purpose of the parent Act. The minister’s power is limited by the wording and intent of the statute.
Procedural Requirements: Often, regulations must follow specific procedures, such as consultation, publication, or parliamentary scrutiny (disallowance).
Binding Effect: Regulations have the force of law and are binding on the public, subject to limits set by the enabling Act.
Judicial Review: Courts can review regulations to ensure they do not exceed the delegated authority (ultra vires doctrine).
Important Case Laws on Ministerial Powers to Frame Regulations
1. The Case of Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]
Facts: Anisminic challenged a decision made under powers delegated to a government commission.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that errors of law made by bodies exercising delegated powers could be reviewed by courts despite clauses attempting to exclude judicial review.
Significance: This case limits ministerial power by emphasizing that regulations or decisions made under delegated powers are subject to judicial review if they exceed or misapply their authority.
2. R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995]
Facts: The Home Secretary failed to bring into force a compensation scheme authorized by an Act.
Judgment: The court ruled that the Home Secretary could not frustrate the intention of Parliament by refusing to exercise delegated powers to implement the scheme.
Significance: It illustrates that ministerial powers to make regulations must be exercised in accordance with the statute’s intent and not arbitrarily.
3. Sunbeam Corporation Ltd v. Victoria [1991]
Facts: A Victorian Minister made regulations under the Victorian Fair Trading Act concerning product safety.
Judgment: The court invalidated some regulations because they went beyond the scope of the enabling Act.
Significance: This case demonstrates the ultra vires principle — ministers cannot make regulations that exceed the authority granted by Parliament.
4. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v. Bond (1990)
Facts: The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made regulations regarding broadcasting licenses.
Judgment: The High Court emphasized that regulations must be consistent with the purpose of the enabling legislation.
Significance: The case confirms that the scope of ministerial regulation-making powers is strictly governed by the enabling Act and the principle of legality.
5. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UK Supreme Court
Facts: This famous constitutional case involved whether the government could use delegated powers to trigger Brexit.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that major changes to law require primary legislation, not just delegated legislation.
Significance: It sets a precedent that ministerial regulation-making powers cannot be used to make fundamental or politically sensitive changes without clear statutory authority.
6. Commissioner of State Revenue v. John Holland Pty Ltd (2009)
Facts: A dispute arose over tax regulations framed under ministerial powers.
Judgment: The court assessed whether the regulations were within the power conferred by the parent Act.
Significance: Reinforces that ministerial powers to make regulations are strictly confined by the terms of the enabling legislation.
Summary of Principles Established by These Cases:
Ultra Vires Doctrine: Ministers cannot make regulations beyond the powers delegated by the enabling Act.
Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to invalidate regulations or decisions that are unlawful or exceed delegated powers.
Purpose and Intent: Regulations must align with the purpose of the parent statute.
Limits on Major Policy Changes: Fundamental changes require primary legislation, not just regulations.
Ministerial Discretion is Not Absolute: Ministers must exercise regulation-making powers reasonably, not arbitrarily or inconsistently with statutory intent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments