Nature and scope of administrative law in Australia
⚖️ Nature and Scope of Administrative Law in Australia
🧾 I. Introduction
Administrative Law is the branch of public law that governs the activities of government agencies and officials. It focuses on:
The powers and functions of administrative bodies
The limits on these powers
The procedures they must follow
The rights and remedies available to individuals affected by administrative decisions
🔍 II. Nature of Administrative Law
Regulates exercise of government power outside the courts and legislature
Ensures that public authorities act lawfully, fairly, and reasonably
Balances efficient government administration with individual rights protection
Provides mechanisms for accountability, such as judicial review
🔎 III. Scope of Administrative Law
Delegated legislation (rules, regulations)
Administrative decision-making (grants, licenses, permits)
Judicial review of administrative action
Procedural fairness (natural justice)
Ombudsman and other oversight bodies
Remedies: injunction, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, damages
📚 IV. Landmark Case Laws (4–5 Detailed Cases)
✅ 1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
📌 Facts:
The case concerned a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.
The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s decision as being made unfairly and without proper reasons.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The High Court held that administrative decisions must be made according to the rules of procedural fairness.
Decisions must be rational and made with a proper exercise of discretion.
The decision-maker is required to provide adequate reasons where the law demands it.
🔑 Principle:
Procedural fairness is a core principle of administrative law.
The requirement to provide reasons helps ensure transparency and accountability.
✅ 2. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
📌 Facts:
The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal refused to renew a license.
The licensee argued that the decision was unreasonable and failed to observe natural justice.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The High Court stated that decisions must be reasonable and based on relevant considerations.
Introduced the concept of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” to Australian administrative law.
The Court clarified that courts will not interfere with decisions simply because they disagree but will intervene if decisions are irrational or made in bad faith.
🔑 Principle:
Judicial review includes grounds of unreasonableness and procedural fairness.
Decision-makers must consider all relevant matters and avoid irrelevant ones.
✅ 3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
📌 Facts:
The plaintiff challenged a decision under the Migration Act, which included a privative clause trying to exclude judicial review.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The High Court held that constitutional judicial review under Section 75(v) of the Constitution cannot be ousted by privative clauses.
Jurisdictional errors made by administrative bodies remain reviewable.
🔑 Principle:
Judicial review protects against jurisdictional error.
Privative clauses cannot shield unlawful administrative action from judicial scrutiny.
✅ 4. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
📌 Facts:
The Minister for Immigration refused entry permits to the Kioa family without giving them an opportunity to respond to adverse evidence.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The High Court established that natural justice requires that persons affected by decisions have a right to be heard.
This includes the right to know the case against them and to respond.
🔑 Principle:
Natural justice (procedural fairness) applies broadly in administrative decisions.
Decisions without fairness may be quashed on judicial review.
✅ 5. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
📌 Facts:
Dispute over land claims and whether the Minister properly considered all relevant factors in making a decision.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Court held that the Minister must take into account all relevant considerations and ignore irrelevant ones.
Failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error.
🔑 Principle:
Proper exercise of administrative discretion requires considering relevant factors.
Judicial review will intervene when discretion is abused.
📘 V. Summary Table of Principles
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) | Procedural fairness and adequate reasons required |
| Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) | Reasonableness and natural justice in administrative decisions |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) | Judicial review cannot be excluded by privative clauses |
| Kioa v West (1985) | Right to be heard (natural justice) |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) | Consideration of relevant and exclusion of irrelevant factors |
🧠 VI. Conclusion
Administrative law in Australia ensures government accountability by requiring that administrative decisions be:
Lawful (within power)
Fair (observing natural justice)
Reasonable (not arbitrary or irrational)
Accountable (subject to judicial review)
These principles protect individuals and uphold the rule of law in the administrative process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments