U S vs Australia administrative law transparency
🇺🇸 UNITED STATES – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & TRANSPARENCY
Overview:
The United States places a high emphasis on transparency in administrative law. Key mechanisms include:
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 1946
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 1966
Sunshine Act 1976
These ensure public participation, access to government records, and openness of meetings.
✅ KEY CASES:
1. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978)
Facts: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had granted a license to Vermont Yankee to build a nuclear plant. The NRDC challenged the process, claiming the public wasn't given adequate procedural rights beyond APA requirements.
Issue: Could courts impose additional procedural requirements for transparency beyond those required by the APA?
Held: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot impose extra procedural steps on agencies. Agencies must follow the APA, but courts can't add new ones in the name of transparency.
Importance: Reinforced that transparency in rulemaking is defined by the APA. It limits judicial interference in administrative processes.
2. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)
Facts: FCC changed its policy on profanity during broadcasts and penalized Fox without prior notice.
Issue: Did the agency need to provide detailed explanations for its policy shift to ensure transparency?
Held: YES. The agency must provide a reasoned explanation when changing policies.
Importance: Reinforces that transparency is not just access but predictability and accountability, ensuring that the public and regulated entities understand agency behavior.
3. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Facts: Chevron challenged an EPA regulation defining the term “stationary source.”
Issue: Should courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers?
Held: YES, if the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable (Chevron deference).
Importance: While primarily about judicial deference, Chevron transparency lies in the requirement that agencies explain their interpretations, ensuring public understanding and legal accountability.
4. Department of the Air Force v. Rose (1976)
Facts: Law students requested disciplinary case summaries from the Air Force Academy under FOIA.
Issue: Could the Air Force deny access due to privacy or was disclosure necessary for transparency?
Held: Disclosure required under FOIA; only personal identifiers could be redacted.
Importance: Major case on FOIA; affirmed that the public has a right to know how institutions operate.
5. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. v. State Farm (1983)
Facts: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rescinded a rule requiring passive restraints in cars.
Issue: Was the rescission arbitrary and capricious without a detailed explanation?
Held: YES. Agencies must provide a clear, reasoned basis for major decisions.
Importance: Strengthens transparency by mandating clear rationales for rule changes, especially deregulation.
🇦🇺 AUSTRALIA – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & TRANSPARENCY
Overview:
Australia emphasizes transparency through:
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)
Freedom of Information Act 1982
AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) Act 1975
Judicial review is central, and agencies must provide statements of reasons for decisions.
✅ KEY CASES:
1. Kioa v West (1985)
Facts: Kioa, a Tongan national, faced deportation. The decision was made without giving him a chance to respond to adverse material.
Issue: Was there a denial of procedural fairness (transparency)?
Held: YES. The High Court held that even administrative decisions require natural justice, including notice of and a chance to respond to adverse information.
Importance: Landmark in embedding procedural fairness and transparency into administrative law. Open and fair process required even for discretionary decisions.
2. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995)
Facts: Teoh applied for residency. The decision-maker didn’t consider the best interests of his children, despite Australia ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Issue: Can ratified treaties (even if not enacted into domestic law) create legitimate expectations?
Held: YES. Ratification may give rise to a legitimate expectation that decision-makers will consider treaty obligations.
Importance: Transparency through legitimate expectation doctrine: government must explain why it deviates from expected international standards.
3. Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration (2012)
Facts: Involved offshore processing of asylum seekers.
Issue: Was the decision to detain and transfer refugees made with procedural fairness?
Held: The High Court ruled that procedural fairness must be applied to all administrative decision-making unless explicitly excluded.
Importance: Reinforced the role of transparency in detention and migration decisions, requiring agencies to justify actions.
4. Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Lam (2003)
Facts: Lam argued that the department breached a promise to contact school authorities before making a deportation decision affecting his children.
Issue: Was there a denial of legitimate expectation?
Held: No denial, because Lam did not suffer any practical injustice.
Importance: While narrowing legitimate expectation, it affirmed that transparency demands not just procedures but real impact on fairness.
5. McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006)
Facts: Journalist sought Treasury documents under the FOI Act. The department claimed exemption for sensitive material.
Issue: Should public interest override internal exemption claims?
Held: The High Court accepted that certain exemptions applied, even though public interest existed.
Importance: Revealed tensions between transparency and confidentiality, but affirmed the need for public interest tests under FOI.
6. Annetts v McCann (1990)
Facts: Parents weren’t informed or allowed to participate in the inquest into their son’s death in WA.
Issue: Was natural justice breached?
Held: YES. They had a right to be heard.
Importance: Key case affirming transparency and participation in inquisitorial proceedings.
🔍 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: US vs AUSTRALIA – TRANSPARENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
| Feature | United States 🇺🇸 | Australia 🇦🇺 |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Law | APA 1946, FOIA 1966 | ADJR Act 1977, FOI Act 1982 |
| Review Mechanism | Judicial Review, Chevron Deference | Judicial Review via ADJR and Common Law |
| Transparency Focus | Access to information, reasoned decisions | Procedural fairness, right to reasons |
| FOI Emphasis | Public right to documents (e.g., Rose) | Balanced by exemptions (e.g., McKinnon) |
| Public Participation | Notice-and-comment rulemaking | Limited direct participation |
| Case Law Focus | Explanation of rules, procedural compliance | Procedural fairness, legitimate expectations |
| Trend | Formal rule-based transparency | Fairness-oriented, human rights influence |
✅ CONCLUSION:
US administrative law transparency is more procedural and rule-based, focusing on openness of rulemaking, public access, and reasoned decision-making.
Australia, by contrast, leans towards fairness-based transparency, prioritizing natural justice, legitimate expectations, and access to reasons.
Both systems have robust FOI regimes, but case law in Australia places greater weight on participatory rights in individual decisions.
In practice, the US has stronger institutionalized mechanisms for transparency, while Australia relies more on judicially enforced fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments