Administrative Law Study Notes
i
Table of Contents Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law ..................... 1 What is administrative law? ...................................................................................................... 1
What it attempts to achieve ......................................................................................... 1
Values & principles of administrative law .................................................................... 1
The rationale for administrative law ......................................................................................... 2
Accountability in an Administrative sense ............................................................................... 2
Different forms of accountability.................................................................................. 2
Historical Foundations of Administrative law ............................................................... 3
Accountability mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 4
Judicial review ............................................................................................................... 4
Merits review ................................................................................................................ 4
3 types of appeal rights.................................................................................... 4
Merits Review Tribunal .................................................................................... 5
Accountability across the public/private divide ...................................................................... 6
Criticisms ....................................................................................................................... 6
Constitutional considerations .................................................................................................... 7
Separation of powers .................................................................................................... 7
Legislative power ............................................................................................. 7
Judicial power .................................................................................................. 8
Defining a Ch III court ......................................................................... 8
Conferral of functions on Fed Administrative Tribunals ..................... 8
Conferral of functions on Fed Executive Agencies ............................. 9
Conferral of functions upon Ch III courts ............................................ 9
Appointment of Ch III judges to Tribunals etc .................................... 9
Federal jurisdiction ............................................................................. 9
The Separation of Powers & the Rule of Law ............................................................ 10
Differing concerns of the judicial & executive agencies ............................................. 10
Responsible Government............................................................................................ 10
Delegation & the Separation of Powers Doctrine ..................................................... 10
Reasons for delegating legislative power ...................................................... 11
Administrative Law Study Notes
ii
Topic 2 (Part 1): Rule-making & Control of Subordinate Legislation ............. 12 Subordinate (AKA Delegated) legislation ............................................................................... 12
The different types of subordinate legislation & examples........................................ 12
Regulations .................................................................................................... 12
By-laws ........................................................................................................... 13
Statutory rules ............................................................................................... 13
Ordinances ..................................................................................................... 13
Proclamations ................................................................................................ 13
Other types of statutory instruments ............................................................ 13
Disallowable instrument ................................................................................ 13
Quasi-legislation v Delegated legislation .................................................................... 14
Advantages & Disadvantages of Administrative Rules ............................................. 14
Accountability & Control of subordinate legislation .................................................. 15
Public Consultation on proposed rule-making .............................................. 15
Internal Executive Controls ............................................................................ 15
Publication of Subordinate Legislation .......................................................... 15
Judicial Review ............................................................................................... 15
Other Mechanisms of Administrative Law Review ........................................ 15
Characteristics of a legislative instrument .................................................................. 16
The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth) ............................................................... 16
Senate Scrutiny Committees ....................................................................................... 16
The Senate Regulations & Ordinances Committee ....................................... 16
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills .............................. 17
Supervision of Subordinate legislation by the courts ............................................... 18
Minister for Primary Industries & Energy v Austral Fisheries P/L (1993) ...... 18
Standing ......................................................................................................... 18
Questions of validity ...................................................................................... 18
Topic 2 (Part 2): Executive Policies, Directions & Representations ............... 19 Sources of Executive power ..................................................................................................... 19
Prerogative powers ..................................................................................................... 20
The Tampa case ............................................................................................. 20
Implied nationhood power ......................................................................................... 20
Administrative Law Study Notes
iii
Victoria v Cth & Hayden (1975) ..................................................................... 20
Categories of Executive Decision-Maker .................................................................... 20
The role of policy in Govt administration ................................................................... 21
Green v Daniels .............................................................................................. 22
Discretion v Policy .......................................................................................... 22
Sir Mason, 'That 20th C Growth Industry, Judicial or Tribunal Review' ........ 22
Wilcox J, 'Judicial Review & Pubic Policy' ...................................................... 23
Curtis, 'Crossing the Frontier btw Law & Administration' ............................. 23
Woodward, 'Does admin law expect too much of the administration?' ....... 23
'Soft' Law ..................................................................................................................... 23
Advantages & Disadvantages......................................................................... 24
Executive Powers & Duties ..................................................................................................... 24
Mandatory powers ..................................................................................................... 24
Discretionary powers .................................................................................................. 25
The legal status of Executive Policies ..................................................................................... 25
Non-fettering & non-abdication rules ........................................................................ 26
Re Abrams & Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade (2007) ......................................... 27
Howells v Nagrad Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) ............................................................... 27
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister for Technology (1971) ............................................ 27
Wetzel v District Court of NSW (1998) ....................................................................... 27
Peninsula Anglican Boys' School v Ryan (1985) ......................................................... 28
R v Moore; Ex parte Australian Telephone & Phonogram Officers Assoc (1980) ...... 28
Telstra Corp Ltd v Kendall (1995) ............................................................................... 28
The legal consequence of ignoring or breaching a policy ...................................................... 28
Nikac v Minister for Immigration, Local Govt & Ethnic Affairs (1988) ...................... 29
Gerah Imports P/L v Minister for Industry, Technology & Commerce (1987) ............ 29
Minister for Immigration, Local Govt & Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) ........................ 30
Ministerial Directions .............................................................................................................. 30
Where statute gives discretion to head of dept ......................................................... 30
R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air P/L (1965) ................................................... 30
Ansett Transport Industries (Ops) P/L v Cth (1977) ...................................... 31
Where statute gives discretion to independent body ................................................ 31
Administrative Law Study Notes
iv
Bread Manufacturers of NSW v Evans (1981) ................................................ 31
Statutory Directions ................................................................................................................ 32
NSW Farmers Assoc v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1990) .................... 32
Riddell v Secretary, Dept of Social Security (1993) ..................................................... 32
Smoker v Pharmacy Restructuring Auth (1994) ......................................................... 32
Project Blue Sky Inc v Aust Broadcasting Auth (1998) ............................................... 33
Administrative Tribunals & Govt Policy ................................................................................. 33
Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) .............................. 34
Re Goodson & Secretary, Dept of Employmt, Educ & Youth Training Affairs (1996) . 34
Re Jetopay P/L & Aust Fisheries Management Auth (1993) ...................................... 34
Hneidi v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2010) ............................................ 35
Representations & Estoppel .................................................................................................... 35
Minister for Immigration, Local Govt & Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) ................... 36
Attorney-General v Quin (1990) ................................................................................. 36
Contractual fetters on Govt authority ..................................................................................... 37
Ansett Transport Industries (Ops) P/L v Cth (1977) ................................................... 37
Topic 3: Access to Government Information – FOI – Privacy - Reasons ......... 38 Background .............................................................................................................................. 38
Criticisms of FOI Act ................................................................................................................. 38
Australian Information Commissioner ..................................................................................... 38
Fees & Charges to Access ......................................................................................................... 39
Baljurda Comprhnsve Consulting P/L & The Aust Agency for Intl Dvlpmt (2011) ...... 39
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ................................................................................... 39
Coverage of the Act .................................................................................................... 40
Docs of an agency .......................................................................................... 40
Official doc of Minister .................................................................................. 40
On behalf of Agencies .................................................................................... 40
Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General (2013) ............................ 40
Parnell & PM of Australia (No 2) (2011) ....................................................... 40
2009-2010 Reforms .................................................................................................... 41
Exempt documents ..................................................................................................... 41
2 Level Test .................................................................................................... 41
Administrative Law Study Notes
v
Completely Exempt docs .................................................................. 41
Conditionally Exempt docs ............................................................... 42
2010 Reform legislation – impt changes to exempt docs .............................. 42
Aust Broadcasting Corp v Cth Ombudsman (2012) ......................... 43
Legal Right of Access ................................................................................................... 43
Procedure for Access .................................................................................................. 43
Deferral of Access ....................................................................................................... 44
Refusing Access ........................................................................................................... 44
The "Public Interest" Test .......................................................................................... 44
Review of FOI decisions .............................................................................................. 45
Docs containing personal information .......................................................... 45
Review, Complaint & Appeal ..................................................................................... 46
Internal Agency Review ................................................................................. 46
Information Commissioner Review ............................................................... 46
IC Proceedings................................................................................................ 46
AAT Review .................................................................................................... 47
Federal Court Review ..................................................................................... 47
Information Publication Scheme ............................................................................... 47
Privacy ........................................................................................................................ 48
Re Le & Secretary, Dept of Education, Science & Training (2006) ................ 48
Reasons for Decisions ................................................................................................ 49
Statutory right to reasons .............................................................................. 49
Judicial scrutiny of reasons ............................................................................ 49
Circumstances where DM may refuse to provide reasons ............................ 49
Topic 4: The Framework for Challenging & Controlling Govt Action: Judicial Review .. 51
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 51
Sir Gerard Brennan, 'The Purpose & Scope of Judicial Review' .................................. 51
Sir William Wade, 'Constitutional Fundamentals' ...................................................... 51
Error of Law ................................................................................................................. 52
Judicial Review & Statutory Interpretation ................................................................ 52
The Framework for Judicial Review ........................................................................................ 52
Common law – Past history ........................................................................................ 52
Administrative Law Study Notes
vi
Statutory Judicial Review ........................................................................................... 53
Judicial Review under Statutory Schemes ..................................................... 53
Indirect judicial review ................................................................................... 53
Commonwealth: The Federal Court ....................................................................................... 54
The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ................................. 54
The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ...................................................................................... 54
Associated & Accrued Jurisdiction ........................................................................................... 55
Associated Jurisdiction ................................................................................................ 55
Accrued Jurisdiction .................................................................................................... 55
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ........................................................................................... 56
2001 – Introduction of Part 8 ........................................................................ 56
2005 – FMC given exclusive jurisdiction of judicial reviews .......................... 56
State & Territory Jurisdiction on Federal Matters ................................................................... 57
The High Court's original jurisdiction ....................................................................................... 57
Justiciability ............................................................................................................................. 58
Sir Anthony Mason, 'The High Court as Gatekeeper' ................................................. 58
A judiciable 'matter' .................................................................................................... 58
Judicial review of prerogative powers ........................................................................ 59
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) ........... 59
Minister for Arts, Heritage & Env v Peko-Wallsend (1987) ........................... 60
Hicks v Ruddock (2007) ................................................................................. 61
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ................................................... 61
What is judicially reviewable under ADJR Act? .......................................................... 61
Justiciability under ADJR Act ....................................................................................... 62
'Decision' ..................................................................................................................... 62
Right to Life Assoc (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Dept of Human Serv (1995) ........ 63
Kelson v Forward (1995) ............................................................................... 63
Edelston v Health Insurance Commission (1990) .......................................... 63
Century Yuasa Batteries v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1997) .......... 63
Peverill v Meir (1989) .................................................................................... 64
Of an 'administrative character' ................................................................................. 64
Federal Airports Corp v Aerolineas Argentinas (1997) .................................. 64
Administrative Law Study Notes
vii
Roche Products v National Drugs & Poisons Schedule Committee (2007) .... 64
Decisions made 'under an enactment' ....................................................................... 65
Electricity Supply Assoc of Aust v ACCC (2001) ............................................. 65
Griffith University v Tang (2005) ................................................................... 65
General Newspapers P/L v Telstra Corp (1993) ............................................ 65
ANU v Burns (1982) ....................................................................................... 65
Judicial Review across the public/private divide ........................................................ 66
Forbes v NSW Trotting Club (1979) ............................................................... 66
R v Panel Takeovers & Mergers; Ex parte Datafin plc (1987) ....................... 67
NEAT Domestic Trading v AWB (2003) ......................................................... 68
Govt Commercial Activity .......................................................................................... 69
Admin Review Council, 'Govt Business Enterprises & Cth Admin Law' ......... 69
Private Law functions of govt ..................................................................................... 69
Topic 5: The Framework for Challenging & Controlling Govt Action: Merits Review ... 70
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 70
LW Maher, 'The Aust Experiment in Merits Review Tribunals' .................................. 70
H MacNaughton, 'Future Directions for Administrative Tribunals' ............................ 71
Admin Review Council, 'Better Decisions: Review of Cth MRTs' ................................ 71
ALRC, 'Review of the Adversarial System of Litigation: Fed Tribunal Proceedings' .... 71
P Bayne, 'Tribunals in the System of Govt' ................................................................. 72
J McMillan, 'The Ombudsman & the Rule of Law' ...................................................... 72
Internal Review ....................................................................................................................... 72
Advantages & Disadvantages ...................................................................................... 73
Specialist Tribunals .................................................................................................................. 73
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ................................................................................. 74
Cth Tribunal Framework .......................................................................................................... 74
Persons who may apply to Tribunal ............................................................................ 74
Parties to a proceeding ............................................................................................... 74
2005 amendments ...................................................................................................... 74
NSW Tribunal Framework: ADT .............................................................................................. 75
Appeals .................................................................................................................................... 75
Tribunal Independence of Govt ............................................................................................... 76
Administrative Law Study Notes
viii
3 major themes arise in the analysis of tribunal independence ................................. 76
Merits Review: The Concept & Scope .................................................................................... 77
Re Greenham & Minister for Capital Territory (1979) ............................................... 77
Sir Gerard Brennan, 'The Anatomy of an Administrative Decision' ............................ 77
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) ............................................... 78
Re Visa Cancellation Applicant & Minister for Immigration (2011) ........................... 79
Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive P/L (1979) .......................... 79
Esber v Cth (1992) ....................................................................................................... 80
Review of Policy ...................................................................................................................... 81
Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) ......................................... 81
Re Drake & Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) ........................ 82
Procedure & Evidence in Administrative Tribunals ............................................................... 82
Admin Review Council, 'Better Decisions: Review of Cth MRTs' ................................ 83
Re Farnaby & Repatriation Commission (2007) ......................................................... 83
Common Structural Models for Tribunal Procedure ............................................................... 83
Proto-typical models that influence legislative design of Aust tribunals ................... 83
Statutory Guidance ................................................................................................................. 84
The Process of Review in Administrative Tribunals ............................................................... 85
Procedure .................................................................................................................... 86
Sullivan v Dept of Transport (1978) .............................................................. 86
Australian Postal Commission v Hayes (1989) .............................................. 87
Re Pochi & Minister for Immig & Ethnic Affairs (1979) ................................. 87
Uelese v Minister for Immigration (2015) ..................................................... 88
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) ................................ 88
Epeabaka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) ........... 89
Re Jebb & Repatriation Commission (2005) .................................................. 89
AAT Appeals ............................................................................................................... 89
Topic 6: Other Methods of Administrative Law Review: Ombudsman – HR Agencies - ADR ....91
The Commonwealth Ombudsman .......................................................................................... 91
History ......................................................................................................................... 91
Criticisms of the shift (in nature of Ombudsman work over time) ........................... 92
Advantages & Disadvantages ...................................................................................... 92
Administrative Law Study Notes
ix
Statutory Framework for Ombudsman Offices .......................................................... 93
Role & Functions of the Ombudsman ......................................................................... 94
3 major roles .................................................................................................. 95
Guiding principle ............................................................................................ 95
Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) confers 5 specialist roles .................................. 95
Matter of Administration ............................................................................................ 95
Advisory opinion ............................................................................................ 96
Re Ref under s11 Ombudsman Act for Advisory Opinion (1979) ..... 96
Investigations ................................................................................................. 97
Production of docs ......................................................................................... 97
Reports & Recommendations ........................................................................ 97
Chairperson of ATSIC v Cth Ombudsman (1995) .............................. 97
Human Rights Agencies ........................................................................................................... 97
Cth Human Rights & Anti-discrimination scheme ...................................................... 97
Typical procedure for a complaint .............................................................................. 98
Other function of AHRC .............................................................................................. 99
State & Territory HR & Anti-discrimination schemes ................................................. 99
Discrimination ............................................................................................................. 99
Purvis v NSW Dept of Education & Training (2003) .................................... 100
Human Rights ............................................................................................................ 100
Momcilovic v R (2011) ................................................................................. 101
International Bodies .................................................................................................. 101
Toonen v Australia (1994) ........................................................................... 102
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Administrative Law ........................................................ 102
Commonwealth ........................................................................................... 102
States & Territories ...................................................................................... 102
Mediation .................................................................................................................. 103
Conciliation ............................................................................................................... 103
Advantages & Disadvantages of ADR........................................................................ 103
Internal Review ......................................................................................................... 104
Advantages .................................................................................................. 104
Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 105
Administrative Law Study Notes
x
Customer Service Charters or Codes of Conduct ................................................................... 105
Topic 7: Standing to Seek Review – Common law & Statutory Tests for Standing ...... 106
Common categories of standing ............................................................................... 106
The Role of Standing in Public Law Litigation ...................................................................... 106
Justifications for the restrictive test ......................................................................... 106
The case against restricting standing in public law litigation ................................... 107
The Role of the Attorney-General ............................................................................ 108
Statutory Provisions ..................................................................................... 108
Standing at Common Law ..................................................................................................... 108
Australian Conservation Foundation v Cth (1980) ................................................. 108
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) ........................................................................ 110
Shop Distributive & Allied Employees Assoc v Minister for Indust Affairs ................ 110
Specific Remedies ..................................................................................................... 111
Non-Statutory Remedies ............................................................................. 111
Declaration & Injunction ................................................................. 111
Writ of Mandamus .......................................................................... 111
Habeas Corpus ................................................................................ 111
Certiorari & Prohibition .................................................................. 111
Re McBain; Ex parte Aust Catholic Bishops Conf (2002) ... 111
Standing in ADJR Act ............................................................................................................. 112
"persons aggrieved" .................................................................................................. 112
Aust Inst of Marine & Power Engineers v Secretary, Dept of Transport (1986) ....... 113
North Coast Env Council Inc v Minister for Resources (1994) .................................. 113
Right to Life Assoc (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Dept of Human Services (1995) ............. 114
Ogle v Strickland (1987) ........................................................................................... 114
Alphapharm Pty Ltd v SmithKline Beecham (Aust) Pty Ltd (1994) ........................... 115
Standing in the AAT ............................................................................................................... 115
Re Control Investments P/L & Aust Broadcasting Tribunal (No 1) (1980) ................ 116
Re Gay Solidarity & Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1983) .................... 117
Re McHattan & Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) ................................................ 117
Special Issues ......................................................................................................................... 117
Open Standing .......................................................................................................... 117
Administrative Law Study Notes
xi
Truth About Motorways P/L v Macquarie Infra Investmt Mgmt (2000) ..... 117
Joinder & Amicus Curiae .......................................................................................... 118
Intervention ................................................................................................. 118
Amicus Curiae .............................................................................................. 118
US Tobacco Co v Minister for Consumer Affairs (1988) ................. 119
Topic 8 (Part 1): Judicial Review & the Criteria for Lawful Decision-Making ...... 120
The Legality/Merits Distinction ............................................................................................ 120
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) ......... 120
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans (1982) 3 All ER 141 ................... 121
Green v Daniels (1977) ............................................................................................. 122
Attorney-General v Quin (1990) ............................................................................... 122
Formulating the Grounds for Judicial Review ...................................................................... 122
Other approaches to Judicial Review........................................................................ 123
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) ......... 123
Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) ............................. 123
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) ................ 124
Judicial Substitution of a new Decision ................................................................................ 124
"State of Mind" or "Subjective Language" in Legislation .................................................... 125
Liversage v Sir John Anderson (1942) ........................................................................ 125
R v Connell; Ex parte The Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407 .............. 126
The Jurisdictional (or Objective) Fact Concept ...................................................................... 127
Who decides whether a jurisdictional fact has been satisfied? .............................. 127
When should a statutory requirement be classified as a jurisdictional fact? .......... 127
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55 ............... 127
Corp of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) ............ 128
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2011) ...................... 128
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) ......................................... 129
Other statutory requirements that have been found to be jurisdictional facts ....... 130
Criticism of jurisdictional fact ................................................................................... 130
The Jurisprudential Foundation of Judicial Review ............................................................. 131
Common law ............................................................................................................. 131
Administrative Law Study Notes
xii
Narrow Ultra vires........................................................................................ 132
Broad ultra vires ........................................................................................... 132
Denial of Natural Justice or Procedural Fairness ......................................... 132
Jurisdictional Error ....................................................................................... 133
Judicial Deference or Restraint ................................................................................. 133
Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Assoc v Bonner (1984) ............ 133
Corp of City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) ..... 134
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) .................... 134
Judicial Restraint in the Scrutiny of Administrative Decisions .................................. 135
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) ........... 135
Topic 8 (Part 2): Unauthorised Decision-Making ........................................ 136 The Scope of the Principle of Legality .................................................................................... 136
Examples ................................................................................................................... 136
Different forms of Govt legal entities ................................................................................... 137
Executive Agencies .................................................................................................... 137
Statutory Agencies .................................................................................................... 137
Govt Corporations ..................................................................................................... 137
The Principle of Legality – Foundation Cases ....................................................................... 137
A v Heydon (No 2) (1984) ......................................................................................... 138
Church of Scientology v Woodward (1982) .............................................................. 138
Congreve v Home Office (1976) ............................................................................... 139
Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) ............................................................................... 139
Executive Power as a source of Legal Authority for Govt Action .......................................... 140
Where govt authorities derive their authority from their existence & role ............. 140
Examples ...................................................................................................... 140
Clough v Leahy (1904) .............................................................................................. 140
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Vadarlis (2001) ........................ 141
The Presumption of Regularity .............................................................................................. 141
Relevant Principles of Statutory Construction ..................................................................... 142
Common Law Approaches, Assumptions & Presumptions .................................................. 143
Implied incidental power .......................................................................................... 143
Herscu v The Queen (1991) ......................................................................... 143
Administrative Law Study Notes
xiii
Kent v Johnson (1972) ................................................................................. 143
Established freedoms & immunities ......................................................................... 143
Coco v The Queen (1994) ............................................................................ 144
Evans v State of New South Wales (2008) .................................................. 144
Pecuniary burdens & penalties ................................................................................. 144
The statutory requirement for 'reasonable grounds' to support a decision ............ 144
McKinnon v Secretary, Dept of Treasury (2006) ......................................... 145
Goldie v Cth (2002) ...................................................................................... 145
Other interpretative principles that are of equal importance .................................. 145
Subordinate Legislation ........................................................................................................ 145
Grounds for judicial review under ADJR Act for delegated legislation ..................... 145
Re Gold Coast City Council By-Laws (1994) ................................................. 146
The Complement/Supplement Distinction ............................................................... 146
Shanahan v Scott (1957) ............................................................................. 146
Morton v Union Steamship Co of NZ Ltd (1951) ......................................... 147
The Regulate/Prohibit Distinction ............................................................................ 147
Foley v Padley (1984) .................................................................................. 147
The Means/End Distinction ...................................................................................... 148
Paull v Munday (1976) ................................................................................ 148
Unreasonableness as a Test of Validity ................................................................................ 148
Reasonable proportionality & the Purpose/Subject Matter distinction .................. 149
South Australia v Tanner (1989) ................................................................. 149
Vanstone v Clark (2005) .............................................................................. 149
The Decision-Maker .................................................................................................. 150
Re Ref under Section 11 Ombudsman Act 1976 for Advisory Opinion ......... 150
O'Reilly v Commissioner of State Bank of Victoria (1982) ........................... 151
Delegation & Agency ............................................................................................................. 151
Cassell v The Queen (2000) ...................................................................................... 152
Pattenden v Commissioner of Taxation (2008) ........................................................ 152
Other Special Issues ............................................................................................................... 153
Legislative requirements as a criterion for validity................................................... 153
Recital of statutory authority to take action ............................................................ 153
Administrative Law Study Notes
xiv
Mercantile Mutual Life Ins Co Ltd v Aust Securities Commission (1993) .... 153
Certainty as an implied statutory requirement ........................................................ 153
King Gee Clothing Co Pty Ltd v Cth (1945) .................................................. 153
Topic 9: The Criteria for Lawful Decision-Making – Part 1: Legislative Scope & Purpose . 155
Acting for an unauthorised purpose ..................................................................................... 155
The authorised statutory purpose ............................................................................ 155
Multiple purposes ..................................................................................................... 155
Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell (1925) AC 338 ........................................... 156
R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170 ............................ 156
Samrein P/L v Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Draining Board (1982) ................. 157
Schlieske v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1988) 84 ALR 719 ................ 157
The difficulty in establishing unauthorised purpose by a process of inference ....... 157
Haneef v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) ............................ 157
Park Oh Ho v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1988) ................. 157
South Australia v Slipper (2004) 135 FCR 259 .............................................. 158
Warringah Shire Council v Minister for the Environment (1991) ................ 158
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 164 ........... 158
Considering irrelevant matters ............................................................................................. 159
The criteria of relevance ........................................................................................... 159
The matters that were considered ........................................................................... 159
Public interest ........................................................................................................... 160
Policy as an irrelevant consideration ...................................................................... 160
Cases where govt policy has been accepted as relevant consideration ...... 161
Evidence of an irrelevant consideration ................................................................... 161
Effect of an unauthorised purpose or irrelevant consideration ............................... 161
Failing to consider relevant matters ..................................................................................... 162
Obligation to consider .............................................................................................. 162
Failure to consider .................................................................................................... 163
Other issues .............................................................................................................. 163
Sean Investments v Mackellar (1981) 38 ALR 363 ....................................... 163
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) ....................... 164
Tickner v Chapman (sub nom Norvill v Chapman) (1995) ........................... 164
Administrative Law Study Notes
xv
Hindi v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1988) ........................... 165
Relevant considerations & Statutory interpretation ................................................ 165
Topic 9: The Criteria for Lawful Decision-Making – Part 2: Law, Fact & Evidence ........................... 166
The blurring btw legality & merits ............................................................................ 166
No Evidence ........................................................................................................................... 166
No evidence as a ground at common law................................................................. 166
The Queen v Aust Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melb Steve .......... 167
Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) ..................................... 167
Tisdall v Webber (2011) .............................................................................. 168
"No evidence" as a ground for judicial review under ADJR Act .......................................... 168
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam (2002) ............. 169
No evidence, probative evidence & administrative fact-finding ......................................... 169
Judicial Review of fact-finding errors ................................................................................... 171
Certiorari for error of law on the face of the record ................................................ 171
Jurisdictional error .................................................................................................... 171
The Law/Fact distinction as a generic legal concept ............................................................ 172
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises (1993) .............................................. 172
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) ........................................................................ 173
Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert (1996) ............................................................ 173
Topic 10: The Criteria for Lawful Decision-Making – Part 1: Breach of Statutory Duty .... 174
Statutory duty to make decision or exercise a power ......................................................... 174
Tickner v Bropho (1993) 40 FCR 183 ......................................................................... 175
Wei v Minister for Immigration, Local Govt & Ethnic Affairs .................................... 175
Thornton v Repatriation Commission (1981) 3 ALD 281 ........................................... 176
Statutory duty to provide a service ...................................................................................... 176
Midginberri Station Pty Ltd v Langhorne (1985) ...................................................... 177
Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Cit ............. 177
Yarmirr v Aust Telecommunications Corp (1990) .................................................... 178
Statutory duty to Enforce & Implement the Law ................................................................. 179
R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Ex parte Blackburn (1968) ......................... 179
Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed ................. 179
Administrative Law Study Notes
xvi
Topic 10: The Criteria for Lawful Decision-Making – Part 2: Wednesbury unreasonableness, good administration & the outer limits of legality ................. 180
The development of Wednesbury unreasonableness ........................................................... 180
Al-Kateb v Goodwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 .................................................................. 180
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp (1948) ........................... 180
Wednesbury unreasonableness: The border btw legality & merits .................................... 182
Types of Wednesbury unreasonableness .............................................................................. 182
Illustrative cases & categories .................................................................................. 182
Re Minister for Immig & Mult Affairs; Ex parte Applic S20/2002 ................ 183
Lack of plausible justification .................................................................................... 183
Parramatta City Council v Pestell (1972) .................................................... 183
Director of Animal & Plant Quarantine v Aust Pork Ltd (2005) .................. 183
Capricious use of power ........................................................................................... 184
Edelston v Wilcox (1988) ............................................................................. 184
Evidentiary weighting ............................................................................................... 184
Duty of Inquiry .......................................................................................................... 185
Prasad v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1985) ........................ 185
Unjustified unequal treatment ................................................................................. 186
Sunshine Broadcasters Ltd v Duncan (1988) ............................................... 186
Proportionality .......................................................................................................... 186
Bad Faith & Fraud .................................................................................................................. 186
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) .................................................. 187
Statutory unreasonableness ................................................................................................. 188
Topic 11: Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness – Application –
The Hearing Rule – Rule against Bias .................................................. 190 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 190
Rationale for the doctrine (procedural fairness) .................................................................. 191
Historical development ............................................................................................. 191
When natural justice applies ................................................................................................. 192
Cooper v Board of Works for Wandsworth District (1863) ...................................... 193
John v Rees (1969) 2 All ER 274................................................................................. 193
Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40 ................................................................................... 193
Administrative Law Study Notes
xvii
The Hearing Rule: General Tests ........................................................................................... 194
Legitimate expectation ............................................................................................. 194
Examples of matters held to have given rise to legitimate exp ................... 194
Examples of rights/interests subject to req's of procedural fairness .......... 194
The most commonly identified principle sources where leg exp arise ....... 195
Sources recog'd as capable of giving rise to legit exp .................................. 195
Kioa v West (1985) ...................................................................................... 195
FAI Insurance Ltd v Winneke (1982) ............................................................ 196
South Australia v O'Shea (1987) ................................................................. 196
Re Minister for Immigration & Mult Affairs; Ex parte Miah ........................ 197
Special Factors .......................................................................................................... 197
Notice & capacity ......................................................................................... 197
Tentative findings ........................................................................................ 198
Failure to use opportunity ........................................................................... 198
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) ........................................ 198
Annetts v McCann (1990) ............................................................................ 198
Haoucher v Minister for Immig & Ethnic Affairs (1990) .............................. 198
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) ...................................................... 199
Minister of State of Immig & Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) ......................... 199
Re Minister for Immig & Multicult Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) ................ 200
South Australia v Slipper (2004) .................................................................. 201
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v MIMA (2005) ...................................................... 202
The No Bias Rule .................................................................................................................... 203
The 3 categories of bias ............................................................................................ 203
Ibester v Knox City Council (2015) HCA 20 ................................................................ 203
Forms of Bias ............................................................................................................. 204
Ebner v Official Trustee of Bankrupcty (2000) HCA 63 ................................ 204
Prejudgment ............................................................................................................. 205
Minister for Immig & Multicult Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507................. 206
British American Tobacco Aust Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) ....................... 206
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 ............................................................ 207
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438 ...................................... 207
Administrative Law Study Notes
xviii
Consequences of a breach of the rules of procedural fairness ............................................. 208
The Limits of Procedural Fairness .......................................................................................... 208
Topic 12: Remedying unlawful Govt action – Part 1: The Consequences of unlawful DM ...... 210
Rival theories of invalidity ......................................................................................... 210
Principle of Legality ............................................................................................................... 210
Consequences ........................................................................................................... 210
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 210
Separation of Powers & the Presumption of Regularity ..................................................... 211
Consequences of this principle ................................................................................. 211
Wattmaster Alco Pty Ltd v Button (1986) ................................................................ 212
Park Oh Ho v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) .............................. 212
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) ...................... 213
Breach of Associated Statutory Requirements .................................................................... 213
Project Blue Sky Inc v Aust Broadcasting Authority (1988) ...................................... 214
Aust Broadcasting Corp v Redmore Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 456 .............................. 214
Protection of invalidity by Parliament: Privative/ouster/preclusion clause ...................... 215
Guiding principles ..................................................................................................... 215
Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124 ....................................................................... 216
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476 .................. 216
Jurisdictional Error & Invalidity ............................................................................................ 217
Consequences ........................................................................................................... 217
Matters which have NOT given rise to jurisdictional error ....................................... 218
Jurisdictional Error & non-jurisdictional error ..................................................................... 219
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 183 ............................................................. 219
Jadwan Pty Ltd v Secretary, Dept of Health & Aged Care (2003) ............................ 220
Severance & Invalidity .......................................................................................................... 221
Evans v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2003) ............................ 221
Topic 12: Remedying unlawful Govt action – Part 2: Judicial Review Remedies ... 222
Effect of Remedies ................................................................................................................ 222
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 ................................ 222
Certiorari ................................................................................................................................ 223
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 ................................. 223
Administrative Law Study Notes
xix
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 ............................................................. 224
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149 ................................................... 224
Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW (2010) 239 CLR 531 .................................................. 224
Prohibition ............................................................................................................................. 225
Mandamus ............................................................................................................................. 225
Commissioner of State Revenue (VIC) v Royal Insurance Aust Ltd (1994) ............... 226
Habeas Corpus ....................................................................................................................... 226
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Vadarlis (2001) ........................ 227
Injunction ............................................................................................................................... 227
Declaration ............................................................................................................................ 228
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) .......................................... 228
Statutory Judicial Review Remedies ..................................................................................... 228
Conyngham v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1986) ............................. 230
'Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration' Scheme (CCDA) ........... 230
Judicial discretion to refuse relief ............................................................................. 232
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
1
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
TXT = R Creyke & J McMillan, Control of Government Action: Text, Cases and Commentary, 3rd ed, 2012
What is administrative law? (TXT255-256)
Administrative law is about the control of government action
The control of actions by govt agencies
This includes Govt depts, Ministers, Govt business enterprises, regulatory bodies & public servants
Purpose = to safeguard the rights and interests of people and corporations in their dealings with government agencies (TXT 1.2.14)
It focuses on powers that:-
o … are executive, legislative or quasi-judicial
o … have a governmental or public aspect to them & warrants extra accountability (such as judicial reviews & merit appeals)
o … that confer some measure of discretion on an official body (whether explicitly, impliedly or by necessity)
It is not just about placing controls on govt action or safeguarding the rights of individuals in their dealings with the state
It provides a means to facilitate good, accountable govt administration & improves the quality of administrative decisions & administrative decision-making processes
Administrative law attempts to achieve its purpose in 3 main ways:- (TXT13)
(1) Review of decision-making – admin law confers a right to challenge a govt decision where a person feels aggrieved
…by applying to court for judicial review, appealing to administrative tribunal to review merits or legality of decision, complaining to Ombudsman or an anti-disc or HR agency, or seek internal review within an agency
(2) Protection of information rights – admin law controls govt info practices …through FOI legis which confers right of public access to govt docs; privacy legis which regulates the
handling of personal info within govt; administrative review legis which confers right to written statement of reasons for decision; whistleblower protection legis which protects ppl for disclosing info about unlawful/unethical activity that might otherwise attract sanctions
(3) Public accountability of govt processes -
The values/principles of administrative law are:- (TXT14)
Administrative justice: the philosophy that administrative decision-making should properly safeguard the rights & interests of individuals
Executive accountability: ensuring those who exercise the state's executive & coercive powers can be called upon to justify what they have done
Good administration: administrative decision-making should conform to 'universally accepted standards' (such as rationality, fairness, consistency & transparency)
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
2
The Rationale of Administrative Law
"Red light approach" – admin law protects the rights & interests of indvls & prevents abuse of state power (the checks & balances approach)
"Green light approach" – admin law upholds the standards of good administration, promoting good govt through openness, fairness, accountability, accessibility, participation, rationality etc
"Legal approach" – admin law forces administrators to account for past breaches
"Regulatory approach" – admin law attempts to regulate future decision-making & focuses on promoting good decision-making as it happens
Accountability in an Administrative State – TXT3
The community relies heavily on the provision of services by govts
Our democracy demands that govt be accountable for the control of management of these services
Accountability is now embedded in govt practice & has become 1 of the cornerstone values of a modern, open society
Different forms of Accountability – TXT9
There are 4 different forms of accountability that provide a framework for control of govt action
Political accountability – implemented formally through parliamentary system in accordance with the principles of responsible govt
o Diff parliamentary processes that ensure accountability incl Q time, debates, parl committee enquiries, annual reports to parl, program performance statements from executive agencies etc
o Govt accountability through parl is about lines of authority & answerability o The system of responsible govt incorporates a set of moral & behavioural assumptions about how
govt should function in the public interest (closely linked to representative democracy & govt as a PT)
Financial accountability – implemented formally through constitutional & statutory controls on finance & monitored chiefly by Auditor-General & key committees of parliament
o A major function of govt is to raise & expend money
o Main focus is financial probity & efficiency & effectiveness of govt programs
o It is the verification of the official use of money from the public account
o Plays a key role in assembling info about whether govt agencies are complying with legislative & other rules & making that info available to parl & public
o Purpose is to enliven govt accountability & democratic governance
o A statutory framework of precise rules & directions have been developed for this purpose
o The scheme for financial accountability pivots on the role of parl to ensure proper accounting for the taxes & other charges drawn from the public (parl control of finance)
o Diff parl processes ensure accountability incl the req for legislative approval for taxation & expenditure, parl estimate committees examine executive activity & govt programs recurrently, detailed Q'ng of Ministers & public servants appearing before committees, parl public accounts committee keep long-term gaze on financial system generally & annual reports to parl of all govt agencies contain financial statements of the agencies & auditor-general carries out 2 forms of audit
Administrative law accountability – include courts, tribunals, oversight bodies (eg. Ombudsman) and legislation that confers rights on members of public to access govt docs & be provided with reasons for decision
o Grown in prominence over last 50yrs
o Safeguard the rights & interests of ppl & corps in dealing with govt agencies
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
3
o 3 main ways to achieve purpose (review of decision-making; protection of information rights; public accountability of govt processes)
o
Ethical responsibility & integrity of govt employees – plays a large role in safeguarding rights & interests of public
o Through codes of conduct, ethics advisory services, policies on conflicts of interest, training and govt service charters
Historical Foundations of Administrative Law – TXT24
Late 1960s – early 1970s: Cth govt established a series of committees to review & make recommendations to administrative law
1968: The appointment of Kerr committee marked the 1st comprehensive review of Cth admin law
Kerr committee anticipated there was need for more detailed research on Aust law & govt before its new proposed system was established
1973: Bland committee was established & both these committees resulted in the development of the current system of federal admin law
Most significant developments:-
The establishment of the Federal Court by the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to mainly handle the expected increase in federal judicial review applications
o Similar concerns prompted the creation of Federal Magistrates Court in 1999 (renamed the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in April 2013
Reformed judicial review – The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR) codified/simplified the principles for judicial review, reforming the procedures for commencing a judicial review proceeding, conferring supervisory jurisdiction on a specialist Cth superior court (Federal Court)
The establishment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which was a generalist administrative tribunal with power to engage in merit reviews of administrative decisions through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AATA)
A right to seek written statements of reasons for administrative decisions:-
o s13 ADJR
o s28 AATA
o s25D Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (AIA) amplifies this right even further
A right to access docs held by govts & a right to update/correct personal information held by govt under Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI)
The establishment of a Cth Ombudsman with power to investigate govt maladministration (either from complaint or Ombudsman's own initiative) through Ombudsman Act 1975 (Cth)
The establishment of an admin law "watchdog", namely the Administrative Review Council with the responsibility of keeping Cth admin law system under review & monitoring developments in admin law: s51 AATA
The passage of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
The widespread adoption by govt agencies of customer service charters & complaint procedures
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
4
Accountability Mechanisms
The main administrative law accountability mechanisms are:-
Judicial Review (court)
o Guided by principles of legality: AG (NSW) v Quinn (1990)
o Administrators cannot act ultra vires (beyond power)
Merits Review (tribunal)
o What is correct or preferable decision: Drake v MIEA (1979)
Investigative Review (ombudsman)
o Extensive investigative powers but can only make recommendations
Judicial Review
Judicial review of an administrative action involves a supervisory review by a court of an action by an official or govt dept or agency
"action" may include – making an administrative decision, delay in making a decision, a failure or refusal to make a decision
Judicial review will only benefit persons aggrieved by a decision where they can demonstrate the decision was not authorised by law or was made through an unauthorised or unlawful process
If successful the matter will be sent back to the original decision-maker to re-decide
Judicial review does not involve re-examination or re-evaluation of the evidence
The decision-maker's findings of fact cannot usually be challenged
The court is concerned with whether govt agency had power to take that action & whether they followed the correct processes provided by law to do so
This includes whether agency reasonably & honestly believed that the outcome was best available option
Only concerned with legality & procedures
The court is NOT concerned with merits of the action (eg. Whether it a correct or preferable result)
Section 75 Constitution gives HC jurisdiction to undertake judicial review of administrative action
1983 – Parl amended Judiciary Act 1903 to permit such writs to be sought in FCA too: s39B
Federal Court later amended its Rules to provide for initiating an action under ACJR jointly with an action under s75(v) Constitution – SG??
Merits Review – Activity 2.1-2.7
There are 3 types of appeal rights:-
Strict appeals: appeals in the strictest sense
o They are limited to error or law or excess of jurisdiction as at date of original decision: Duralla Pty Ltd v Plant (1984) 2 FCR 342
o They operate in similar matter to judicial review proceedings
o New evidence cannot be taken into account: Petreski v Cargill (1987) 18 FCR 68
o Strict appeals are appeals that go to the Full Court of the Federal Court & HCA
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
5
Re-hearing appeals: most common form of appeals
o Requires an appellate court to form its own indpt view of evidence from the transcript
o Most S&T appeals are by way of re-hearing
o The law as it stands as at date of re-hearing must be applied
Hearing de novo: the court/tribunal stands in shoes of original decision-maker
o Appellate court hears the whole matter afresh
o All evidence may be led again & appellate court forms its own view of the witnesses & evidence
o Applications to AAT from decisions of administrators & appeals to the Planning and Enviro Courts from the decisions of local authorities are these
Merits Review Tribunal
A more useful administrative review process (where available)
Case can be re-examined
New evidence can be introduced
All the material & circumstances re-evaluated afresh by another decision-maker who must make what the decision-maker considers to be correct or preferable decision in accordance with the evidence, the law & procedural fairness
The reviewing decision-maker is usually a multi-member panel
o However where an Act authorises a Minister to delegate a statutory power, the Minister may review decisions by the delegate authorising that power
A decision-maker may often (not always) review or reconsider their own decisions on request
o However some courts may hold the decision-maker is functus officio (out of the picture) once the decision is made & not authorised to re-visit that decision later: Comptroller-General of Customs v Kawasaki Motors (1991) 32 FCR 219; Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
This was another reform suggested by Kerr Committee
1976 – AAT was established under AATA to review decision which it had jurisdiction for under that Act or other Cth Acts or Regulations
Not every administrative decision is reviewable by AAT – there must be specific legislation giving a person the right to apply to AAT in order for the decision to be reviewed by the tribunal
o Contrast - ADJR provides judicial review by FC of any administrative decisions made under Cth legislation (with a few specified exceptions)
AATA provides for an appeal from decisions of the Tribunal on Q of law to FC: s44 AATA
AAT is intended to be a general rather than specialist tribunal, being the first tribunal established to review decisions relating to broad range of matters across diff govt portfolios
To assist in gaining the relevant expertise in all the relevant areas, the tribunal was divided into divisions (veteran's appeals division, taxation appeals division, security appeals division & a general division)
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
6
Function = conduct a complete rehearing of the case & decide (to its own satisfaction) every relevant matter with regard to material available at the time of review
o Contrast – judicial review is limited to Q of whether original decision was defensible at time it was made
Accountability across the Public/Private divide – SG18 & TXT30
The recent trend in Western countries is for govts to devolve functions to private sector bodies whenever the function can be delivered more efficiently/effectively
Consequence – now much harder to draw a boundary line btw the public & private sectors
The 3 main forms/methods are:-
Privatisation: a function formally discharged by govt agency is discharged by a body that is wholly or partly under private ownership, often as a result of a public sale or share float of the govt interest (eg. CBA, Qantas & Telstra)
Commercialisation: govts impose a private sector business structure (incl commercial methods & profit goals) on an agency that is owned & controlled by govt
o This is done without changing the legal structure of the govt business (eg. It may remain a statutory authority or executive agency) OR the body might be incorporated & managed under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
o GBE – govt business enterprise (common term used but it also applies to some privatised bodies under jt govt & private ownership – eg. Australia Post, HIC & Defence Housing Australia)
Contracting out: A govt service will be delivered to the public using a private sector body pursuant to a contract entered into with a govt agency
o The delivery of the function is funded by govt but provided by private sector body
(eg. Employment services by job network providers & management of immigration detention centres)
Criticisms: (TXT35)
× The purity of the binary divide is being eroded
× Progressively some administrative law mechanisms are being applied to private sector bodies
o Eg. Ombudsman's authority at Cth level over postal industry services (whether public or private) & Privacy Commissioner's protection of personal data held by certain private sector institutions (eg. Banks & other lenders) & national privacy principles now have a wide application to the private sector
The following institutions (in UK & Aus) are 'public' enough to warrant judicial review of their decision-making processes even though they are not considered arms of the govt:-
Industry panels set up to self-regulate takeovers on the London Stock Exchange: R v Panel on Take-Overs & Mergers, Ex parte Datafin plc (1987) QB 815; 2 WLR 699
Charitable societies (eg. RSPCA) – esp when they are given statutory power to initiate prosecutions: D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1978) AC 171
Political parties (esp when they are officially reg'd by law): Clarke v Australian Labor Party (SA Branch) (1999) 74 SASR 109
Private schools: Pearlman v Keepers & Governors of Harrow School (1979) 1 All ER 365
Racecourse stewards: Heatley v Tas Racing & Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487; Calvin v Carr (1980) AC 574
Trade unions: Annamunthodo v Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (1961) AC 945
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
7
Universities: Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99
Principles of admin law have permeated some areas of private law:-
Eg. When a private club adopts a constitution or rules (with legal status of a contract among its members) – the courts assume it is an implied condition of the contract that the club's council or committee will exercise its powers (eg. To expel a member) in a procedurally fair way
The courts look at public-law cases involving public decision-makers when trying to work out precisely what the members are 'impliedly contracted' to require
Private sector frequently operates in similar way as some areas of govt (eg):-
The creation of private sector ombudsmen for banking, telecommunications & insurance (industry ombudsmen often have power derived from contract to make enforceable rulings)
Greater use of mediation & indpt review mechanisms
Extending the reach of privacy legislation to private sector
Requiring certain services (eg. DRs & credit rating agencies) to give indvls access to their own personal info
Constitutional Considerations – SG15 & TXT225
The Constitutional principles underpinning administrative law are:-
Separation of Powers
Parliamentary Sovereignty
The Rule of Law – the govt must act according to law & have a legal source of authority
Responsible Govt – refers to ministerial responsibility
Separation of Powers – TXT264
The legislature makes laws/rules - the executive put the laws into operation (by administering & applying the rules in indvl cases) - the judiciary interprets law (and resolves indvl disputes concerning the making or administration of the rules)
It prevents monopoly of power & provides checks and balances
Although the Constitution mixes the executive & legislative powers to some degree & HC has permitted some overlap when exercising those powers
There is a strict separation of judicial power (eg. Only a Chapter III court can exercise judicial power of the Cth & a Chapter III court cannot exercise the executive or legislative power of the Cth)
Legislative power
Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co P/L v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73 – there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation of legislative authority to the executive (TXT265 & SG19 & Activity 1.3.5)
o The permissibility of the delegation to the executive rests on premise that the delegating parliament does not forfeit supremacy – it can repeal, amend, enact, revoke or override legislation of its delegates
o So HC held Parl could delegate its law-making powers provided that it stayed within the parameters set out in the primary legislation:-
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
8
o HOWEVER in Wotton v QLD (2012) HCA 2 HC held that conformity of delegated legislation should be tested as a 2-stage process (whether parent Act authorised violations of Constitutional rights & whether the challenged regulations confirm to parent Act – SG20 (fn32))
Judicial Power
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermaker's Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 – HC majority held that federal judicial power can be conferred only upon a Chapter III court (court mentioned in s71 Constitution – HC, FC, FMA & FamC) & those courts can only exercise judicial power (TXT267 & Activity 1.4.1)
Defining a Chapter III Court:-
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (2010) 113 ALD 1 – HC held that a state legislature cannot deprive a State SC of its capacity to review decisions of inferior courts & tribunals on ground of jurisdictional error (TXT269 & Activity 1.4.3)
South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1 – HC held a state legislature cannot confer upon a state court (incl lower state courts) a function that is incompatible with its role as a court that can exercise federal jurisdiction pursuant to Cth legislation enacted under s77(iii) Constitution (TXT269 & Activity 1.4.4)
Conferral of functions on Federal Administrative Tribunals:-
Precision Data Holdings Ltd v Wills (1991) 173 CLR 167; 104 ALR 317 – HC considered the distinction btw judicial & non-judicial functions (TXT277 & SG20 & Activity 1.5.1)
o They observed the discretionary authority conferred on a court which is 'exercised according to legal principle or by ref to an objective standard or test prescribed by the legislature' is more apt to be classified as a judicial function
o Whilst the discretionary authority exercised 'by ref to policy considerations or other matters not specified by the legislature' is more susceptible to be non-judicial
o This case upheld the conferral of an adjudicative function on an executive agency (the statutory scheme considered by the court was later restructured with Corps & Securities Panel being replaced with Takeovers Panel)
Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245; 127 ALR 1; 37 ALD 340 – HC had to consider whether power to make a binding 'determination' to award damages invalidly conferred judicial power on HREOC (TXT278 & SG20 & Activity 1.5.2)
o HC held the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) invalidly conferred judicial power upon HREOC
o The court accepted it was difficult to formulate a comprehensive defn of judicial power & observed that 'judicial power is the power exercised by courts & can only defined by ref to what courts do & the way in which they do it, rather than by recourse to any other classification of functions' (at 267)
o It concluded that while not every binding & authoritative decision made in the determination of a dispute constitutes the exercise of judicial power, it characterised the Commission's functions as 'judicial' in character for the following reasons:-
It decides controversies btw parties by determination of rights & duties based on existing facts & laws set out in the Act
It has power to determine whether laws or Regulations have been contravened
It has power to award punitive remedies (a power which is appropriately exclusive to judicial action)
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
9
The compulsory registration of HREOC's determination in Fed Ct renders it enforceable as an Order of the FC
o The court held (at 271) that ss 25ZAA, 25ZAB & 25ZAC combine to make a determination of HREOC binding, authoritative and enforceable, which invalidly purports to invest judicial power in the Cth
o The objective of the legislative scheme declared invalid was to simplify procedure for hearing discrimination claims by reducing prospect of hearing complaint twice – the scheme was subsequently altered to confer jurisdiction upon Federal Court & FMC to determine discrimination claims
Re Adams and the Tax Agents Board (1976) 1 ALD 251 – A tribunal cannot rule on the constitutional validity of legislation being applied by the tribunal (there was no conferral of federal judicial power on the tribunal) (TXT280 & SG21 & Activity 1.5.3)
o AAT confirmed that an administrative body had no power to definitively decide on the constitutional validity of a provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) because to do so would be an exercise of Cth judicial power
Conferral of functions on Federal Executive Agencies:-
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Govt & Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1; 110 ALR 97 – the court upheld the system of mandatory immigration detention established under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as an executive function BUT only on basis that it was non-punitive, did not rest on finding of criminal guilt & only applied to non-citizens arriving unlawfully in Australia (TXT282 & SG21 & Activity 1.6)
Conferral of functions upon Chapter III courts:-
Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307; 237 ALR 194; 81 ALJR 1414 – the HCA upheld the conferral upon Chapter III courts of the function of granting interim control orders under s104.4 of the Criminal Code (Cth) (counter-terrorism legislation) (TXT285 & SG22 & Activity 1.7)
o "Courts are now inevitably involved on the day-to-day basis in the consideration of what might be called 'policy' to a degree which was never seen when earlier habits of thought respecting Chapter III were formed" (at 350 per Gummow & Crennan JJ)
Appointment of Chapter III judges to Tribunals & to discharge executive functions:-
Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409; 24 ALR 577; 2 ALD 60 – FCA dismissed a challenge to the appointment of Davies J of the Federal Court as a Deputy President of the AAT because the principle (or exception) to explain this non-judicial work performed by a judge is that it is performed in their personal capacity (persona designata) (TXT289 & Activity 1.8.1)
Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1; 138 ALR 220 – HC declared the appointment of a Federal Court judge to perform the role of a reporter to govt under Aboriginal heritage protection legislation invalid (incompatibility principle explained & applied in this case) (TXT289 & Activity 1.8.2)
Federal Jurisdiction:-
Deputy Commission of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 168 – it was observed by Deane & Gaudron JJ in this case that 'Parliament cannot withdraw or diminish the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine… the validity or lawfulness of an impugned decision' (TXT293)
Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2007) 228 CLR 651; 234 ALR 114 – the observation noted in Richard Walter was put to test in this case where HCA held s486A
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
10
Migration Act was invalid (it provided that an application in HCA under s75(v) for a constitutional writ must be commenced within 84 days of a person being notified of a visa refusal decision) (TXT294 & Activity 1.9)
The Separation of Powers & the Rule of Law – SG17
Separation of powers is necessary to promote the rule of law
The operation of the rule of law is necessary for effective function of the separation of powers
When judges speak of 'govt policy' they usually mean a list of preferred outcomes that Ministers individually (or Cabinet collectively) want to see brought about
'Policy' tends to focus on results rather than processes & framed as broad goals rather than detailed steps or rules to be followed
However such goals are now law & should not be regarded as having the same force as law
Differing concerns of the judicial & executive branches – SG17
The judicial approach to the exercise of public power tends to be concerned with the resolution of a dispute between parties before the court
The executive are more likely to see a person as one of a larger class (eg. Centrelink customer, migrant, tax payer etc)
Because of this – a court is less likely (than the executive) to entertain arguments addressed to broader issues (such as cost or resource implications of an issue) or the inconvenience of a particular result
Eg. Palko v Minister for Immigration & Ethic Affairs (1987) 77 ALR 125 – Keely J commented that 'the proper construction of the Migration Act cannot be determined by reference to difficulties which may be encountered in practice; they are matters which may be addressed by the legislature'
BUT the courts are reluctant to interfere with what judges consider 'political' decisions
Eg. Minister for Arts, Heritage & Environment v Peko-Wallsend (1987) 15 FCR 274 – Federal Court concluded it would be inappropriate for court to set aside a Cabinet decision that involved 'complex policy issues' – Sheppard J said because it is 'essentially a political organisation' & the sanctions which bind it to act in accordance with law & in a rational manner are 'political' ones…
Responsible Government – SG18
The Constitution requires Ministers (executive) to be members of Parliament (legislative) & answerable to Parliament
They hold office as Ministers while they retain the confidence of House of Reps
As individuals – Q time in Parl, productions of docs to Parl, Ministers are personally responsible for their Dept
Collective – cabinet as a whole, answers for policies of the govt at the time
In Boilermakers the HCA held that the separation of powers doctrine has limited effect between the legislative and executive powers of the Cth & that there must be a much stricter separation btw judiciary & the other 2 branches of govt
Delegation & the Separation of Powers Doctrine – SG19
Delegated or subordinate legislation (statutory instruments, legislative instruments) = legislation made by a body which Parliament has delegated its legislative powers to
The power to make subordinate legislation is 1 of the most impt powers given to the executive/administrative arms of govt & an impt source of administrative powers
Topic 1: The Framework of Australian Administrative Law
11
The permissibility of the delegation to the executive rests on premise that the delegating parliament does not forfeit supremacy – it can repeal, amend, enact, revoke or override legislation of its delegates
Reasons for delegating legislative power:-
Pressure on parliamentary time – so more time can be devoted to consideration of essential principles in the legislation
More time & expertise – subject matter of modern legislation is technical & best left to agencies or depts that have the time & expertise
Legislation can never foresee all the contingencies & local conditions for which a provision must be made – best worked out in subordinate legislation
Greater flexibility – provides for a power of constant adaption to unknown future conditions without necessity of amending legislation
Sometimes there is a need for urgent legislative action – subordinate legislation is the most convenient remedy where available