The structure and operation of some primary Australian administrative law institutions and mechanisms, including their constitutional, statutory and common law bases, primary aspects of their practice and procedure and the remedies they provide
Australian Administrative Law: Institutions and Mechanisms
Administrative law in Australia regulates the actions of government agencies and officials to ensure lawful, fair, and reasonable decisions. It is underpinned by:
Constitutional Basis: The Australian Constitution establishes the framework for judicial review through Chapter III courts (Federal Court, High Court).
Statutory Basis: Various statutes govern administrative review and tribunal processes, including:
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)
Migration Act 1958
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Common Law Basis: The principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and judicial review evolved through case law.
Key Institutions and Mechanisms
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
A statutory body providing merits review of a wide range of administrative decisions.
It does not review legality but reassesses the facts and policy to make the “correct or preferable” decision.
Procedures are less formal than courts, promoting accessibility.
Federal Court and High Court
Exercise judicial review under the ADJR Act and constitutional writs (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition).
Review legality, procedural fairness, and jurisdictional error of administrative decisions.
Ombudsman
Investigates complaints about maladministration by government agencies.
Makes recommendations but does not have binding powers.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Mechanism
Allows access to government documents and information.
Overseen by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Merits Review and Judicial Review
Merits Review: Examines the substance and merits of the decision (e.g., AAT).
Judicial Review: Examines the legality of the decision-making process (e.g., Federal Court).
Key Aspects of Practice and Procedure
Application Process: Applications for review are generally made in writing, specifying the decision to be reviewed.
Hearings: May be oral or on documents, depending on the tribunal or court.
Evidence: Tribunals have more flexible evidentiary rules compared to courts.
Remedies: Include quashing of decisions, orders for reconsideration, declarations, injunctions, and sometimes compensation.
Important Case Laws in Australian Administrative Law
1. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003)
Issue: Limits on Parliament’s power to restrict judicial review of administrative decisions.
Facts: Parliament tried to limit judicial review under the Migration Act by including privative clauses preventing courts from reviewing certain decisions.
Held: The High Court ruled that privative clauses cannot exclude judicial review for jurisdictional errors because judicial review is a constitutional guarantee under Chapter III.
Significance: Reinforced the supremacy of judicial review and invalidated statutory attempts to oust court supervision of administrative decisions.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010)
Issue: Procedural fairness in refugee status determination.
Facts: The Minister refused refugee status without giving proper reasons or opportunity for the applicant to respond.
Held: The High Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires the decision-maker to give reasons and allow affected parties a chance to respond to adverse material.
Significance: Affirmed the principle of procedural fairness as fundamental in administrative decision-making.
3. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990)
Issue: Jurisdictional error and natural justice in administrative decisions.
Facts: The Tribunal made a decision without considering relevant evidence and failed to provide a fair hearing.
Held: The High Court held the decision invalid due to jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice.
Significance: Clarified the concepts of jurisdictional error and procedural fairness, forming key principles of judicial review.
4. Kioa v West (1985)
Issue: Procedural fairness in deportation decisions.
Facts: The Minister made a deportation order without disclosing adverse information to the affected person.
Held: The High Court held that natural justice applies to administrative decisions affecting rights, requiring disclosure and opportunity to respond.
Significance: Landmark case establishing that procedural fairness applies broadly to administrative decisions.
5. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003)
Issue: Grounds for judicial review – irrationality and unreasonableness.
Facts: Applicant challenged refusal of visa on grounds of irrationality.
Held: The High Court ruled that decisions must be rational and reasonable, and courts can intervene when decisions are illogical or lack an evident basis.
Significance: Affirmed irrationality as a ground for judicial review, promoting reasoned decision-making.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) | Limits on judicial review | Privative clauses cannot exclude jurisdictional error review |
| Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) | Procedural fairness | Decision-makers must give reasons and hearing opportunities |
| Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) | Jurisdictional error & natural justice | Decisions invalid for ignoring fairness and jurisdictional limits |
| Kioa v West (1985) | Procedural fairness in deportation | Natural justice applies broadly to administrative decisions |
| Ex parte Lam (2003) | Irrationality as ground for review | Courts can review decisions for irrationality |
RELATED Blog
0 comments