U S vs Australian administrative fairness
Administrative Fairness: U.S. vs. Australian Context
Administrative fairness refers to the procedural rights of individuals in dealings with administrative agencies, including the right to be heard, the right to notice, and the right to an unbiased decision-maker. Both the U.S. and Australia have developed robust doctrines of administrative fairness, but their legal frameworks and case law differ, reflecting distinct constitutional and statutory contexts.
United States: Administrative Fairness and Key Case Law
In the U.S., administrative fairness is rooted primarily in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and in various statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
1. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Facts: Welfare recipients were denied benefits without a prior hearing.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that due process requires a pre-termination hearing before welfare benefits can be cut off.
Significance: Established that administrative decisions affecting important interests require notice and opportunity to be heard.
2. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
Facts: A challenge to termination of Social Security disability benefits without a hearing.
Holding: The Court established the Mathews balancing test for due process, balancing:
The private interest affected.
The risk of erroneous deprivation without procedures.
The government’s interest, including fiscal and administrative burdens.
Significance: A flexible approach to procedural fairness depending on context.
3. Withrow v. Larkin (1975)
Facts: Physician’s license was suspended after administrative investigation and hearing.
Holding: The Court ruled that combining investigative and adjudicative functions in one agency does not necessarily violate due process.
Significance: Addressed bias and impartiality concerns, allowing some degree of agency self-investigation.
4. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915)
Facts: State agency increased tax assessments for a large class without individual hearings.
Holding: The Court held that when decisions affect large groups generally, individual hearings are not required.
Significance: Distinguishes between legislative-type rulemaking and adjudicative decisions requiring fairness.
5. Morgan v. United States (1936)
Facts: Agency official held ex parte communications influencing an administrative hearing.
Holding: The Court ruled such ex parte contacts violated due process, requiring a fair hearing.
Significance: Reinforces the right to an impartial decision-maker and the prohibition on ex parte influence.
6. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889)
Facts: Immigration decision without a hearing was challenged.
Holding: Recognized broad plenary power of the political branches but noted limits on administrative fairness depending on statutory interpretation.
Significance: Immigration cases often test administrative fairness in contexts of executive discretion.
Australia: Administrative Fairness and Key Case Law
In Australia, administrative fairness is largely governed by the common law principles of natural justice, codified partially by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and influenced by the Commonwealth Constitution.
1. Kioa v. West (1985)
Facts: A deportation decision was made without giving the affected party an opportunity to respond to adverse information.
Holding: The High Court held that natural justice requires a fair hearing before adverse decisions are made.
Significance: Landmark case establishing the modern Australian approach to procedural fairness (natural justice).
2. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Wu Shan Liang (1996)
Facts: Applicant challenged refusal of a visa on procedural fairness grounds.
Holding: The Court emphasized the scope of procedural fairness varies depending on context, including statutory framework and decision impact.
Significance: Affirms flexibility in procedural fairness, similar to Mathews balancing test in the U.S.
3. Briggs v. James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989)
Facts: Related to administrative decisions affecting compensation claims.
Holding: Australian courts reinforced that administrative decisions must be free from bias and must follow fair procedures.
Significance: Addresses impartiality and due process in administrative hearings.
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth (2003)
Facts: Challenged a privative clause seeking to limit judicial review of administrative decisions.
Holding: The High Court held that some judicial review rights are constitutionally protected, limiting Parliament’s ability to exclude review.
Significance: Supports the principle that administrative fairness is justiciable and protected.
5. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003)
Facts: Concerned the scope of procedural fairness in migration decisions.
Holding: Procedural fairness extends to providing reasons and an opportunity to respond to adverse material.
Significance: Reinforces transparency and fairness in administrative decision-making.
6. Annetts v. McCann (1990)
Facts: Relatives of a deceased person challenged a coroner’s decision without being heard.
Holding: The court found procedural fairness applies to administrative inquiries and investigations.
Significance: Extends natural justice to non-adjudicative administrative decisions.
Comparative Summary
| Aspect | United States | Australia |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Foundation | Due Process Clause (5th, 14th Amendments); APA | Common law natural justice; ADJR Act; Constitution |
| Procedural Fairness | Notice, hearing, impartiality; Mathews test | Natural justice; fairness varies with context |
| Judicial Review Scope | Broad, with strong constitutional backing | Strong, protected against privative clauses |
| Bias/Impartiality | Prohibited ex parte communications; combined functions allowed with caution | Strongly enforced, including in inquiries |
| Flexibility | Context-dependent (Mathews test) | Context and statute-dependent (Wu Shan Liang) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments