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