MLL424 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – EXAM NOTES

Legislation
AATA = Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
ADJR Act = Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth)
Cth Constitution = Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
JA = Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Table of Contents
Topic 1: Introduction to administrative law .............................................................................................. 7
What is Administrative Law? ............................................................................................................... 7
Why do we need administrative law? .............................................................................................. 7
Rationale is accountability ............................................................................................................... 7
Why Should Governments be ‘Accountable’? ................................................................................. 7
Accountability for What? Administrate law values ........................................................................... 8
Administrative Law and Statutory Interpretation .............................................................................. 9
Historical and Constitutional Contexts ................................................................................................. 9
British Inheritance ............................................................................................................................ 9
British Inheritance: Impact on administrative law? .......................................................................... 9
Historical and Constitutional Contexts – US Inheritance ............................................................... 10
Historical and Constitutional Contexts – Distinctly Australian Features & History ........................ 10
New Administrative Law (Orthodox) Procedure ............................................................................ 11
Case Focus: NEAT v AWB (2003) HCA ........................................................................................ 11
Topic 2: Introduction to judicial review .................................................................................................. 13
Sources and eligibility of judicial review ............................................................................................ 13
Two fundamental distinctions: Legality/Merits and Fact/Law ........................................................ 13
Judicial review: review of legality ................................................................................................... 14
Statutory construction is key to judicial review .............................................................................. 15
Why can judges only review legal error? Separation of Powers ................................................... 15
Steps for getting judicial review ..................................................................................................... 15
Sources of Authority for Judicial review ............................................................................................ 15
1. Common law (traditional source) .......................................................................................... 16
2. Australian Constitution .......................................................................................................... 17
3. Statutory schemes ................................................................................................................ 19
Threshold criteria 1: Section 5 re ‘decisions’ ................................................................................. 19
Case Focus: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (HCA, 1990) ............................................ 20
Alternative Threshold criteria 2: Section 6 re ‘conduct for the purpose of making a decision’ ...... 20
Alternative Threshold criteria 3: Section 7 re ‘failure to make decision’ ........................................ 21
What decisions are subject to review under the ADJR Act? ......................................................... 22
Case Focus: Griffith University v Tang (HCA, 2005): .................................................................... 24

1
 Exclusions under Schedule 1 ........................................................................................................ 25
Constitutional considerations............................................................................................................. 25
Which court? Which jurisdiction? Which avenue? ............................................................................ 26
Justiciability ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Supervision by judiciary requires restraint: .................................................................................... 26
Other limits ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Justiciability: ................................................................................................................................... 27
Subject matter of the decision ....................................................................................................... 28
Limits to judicial review – standing .................................................................................................... 28
Who gets to be involved? .............................................................................................................. 28
Standing: ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Role of Attorney-General ............................................................................................................... 29
Amicus curiae: friend of the court .................................................................................................. 30
Standing: Should we have it? ........................................................................................................ 31
Topic 3: Introduction to grounds of review and procedural fairness ..................................................... 32
Introduction to grounds of review ...................................................................................................... 32
Statutory Grounds: ......................................................................................................................... 32
Distinguishing Fact and Law: ......................................................................................................... 32
Procedural fairness ............................................................................................................................ 33
Threshold Question – Does Procedural Fairness Apply? (Kioa test) ............................................ 34
Threshold Sub-Question – ‘Rights and Interests’ Affected ............................................................ 35
Threshold Sub-Question – ‘Direct and Immediate’ Effect.............................................................. 35
Multi-stage decision making .......................................................................................................... 37
Threshold Question – Is there a Statutory Exclusion? .................................................................. 37
Hearing Rule ...................................................................................................................................... 38
1. Notice ......................................................................................................................................... 38
2. Disclosure .................................................................................................................................. 39
Case Focus: Applicant Veal of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs (HCA, 2005) ........................................................................................................................ 39
3. Opportunity to Present Case in Response ................................................................................ 40
Case Focus: Re Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Ex Parte Lam
(HCA, 2003) ................................................................................................................................... 40
Bias Rule ........................................................................................................................................... 40
Actual bias ..................................................................................................................................... 40
%LDV5XOHʊ$SSUHKHQGHG%LDV .................................................................................................... 41
Case Focus: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legang (HCA, 2001) ........... 41
Situations Giving Rise to Bias ........................................................................................................ 42
1. Interests ..................................................................................................................................... 42
2. Conduct ...................................................................................................................................... 42
3. Association ................................................................................................................................. 43
4. Extraneous Information .............................................................................................................. 43
Exceptions to the bias rule ............................................................................................................. 43
Consequences of a denial of procedural fairness ......................................................................... 43

2
Topic 4: Determining the scope of the power ....................................................................................... 45
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Improper Delegation .......................................................................................................................... 45
Improper Delegation cf Agency ..................................................................................................... 45
Case Focus: O’Reilly v Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria ........................................... 46
Procedural Error ................................................................................................................................ 46
The wording of the statutory requirement ...................................................................................... 47
Significance of the procedure in the statutory scheme .................................................................. 47
The gravity of the procedural error ................................................................................................ 47
Timing of the procedure ................................................................................................................. 47
Case Focus: Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (HCA, 1998) ......................... 47
Case Focus: Forest & Forest Pty Ltd v Wilson (2017) .................................................................. 48
PreconGLWLRQVWRWKH([HUFLVHRI3RZHUʊ-XULVGLFWLRQDO)DFWV ........................................................ 48
Case Focus: Corporation of The City Of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (HCA,
2000) .............................................................................................................................................. 49
Objective jurisdictional facts .......................................................................................................... 49
Subjective opinions or beliefs ........................................................................................................ 49
Case Focus: M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) HCA (Malaysian
Solution case) ................................................................................................................................ 50
Misconceiving the Scope of the Power ............................................................................................. 50
Case Focus: New South Wales Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie (2014) ........ 51
Topic 5: Improper exercise of power ..................................................................................................... 54
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Irrelevant and Relevant Matters ........................................................................................................ 54
Relevant Matters ............................................................................................................................ 55
Case Focus: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd (1986)࿦HCA ........................... 55
5HOHYDQW0DWWHUVʊµ&RQVLGHUHG¶ .................................................................................................. 56
Case Focus: Tickner v Chapman (Full Federal Court, 1995) ‘Considered’ (secret women’s
business case) ............................................................................................................................... 56
Irrelevant Matters ........................................................................................................................... 57
Improper Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 57
Case Focus: R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) (aboriginal land rights case).. 58
Case Focus: Shop Distribution and Allied Employees’ Association v Minister for Industrial Affairs
(SA) ................................................................................................................................................ 58
Improper Purpose – Multiple Purposes ......................................................................................... 59
Fettering discretion ............................................................................................................................ 59
)HWWHULQJGLVFUHWLRQʊ$FWLQJXQGHU'LFWDWLRQ ............................................................................... 59
)HWWHULQJGLVFUHWLRQʊ,QIOH[LEOH$SSOLFDWLRQRI3ROLF\ ................................................................... 61
Case Focus: Rendell v Release On Licence Board (NSW Court Of Appeal, 1987) ..................... 61
Case Focus: Green v Daniels (1977) HCA .................................................................................... 61
No Evidence ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Additional statutory ground under s 5(1)(h) & 5(3) ADJR Act ....................................................... 62
Fraud ................................................................................................................................................. 63

3
 Case Focus: SZFDE v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) HCA ............................... 64
Bad Faith ........................................................................................................................................... 64
Unreasonableness ............................................................................................................................. 65
Case Focus: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) HCA ....................................... 65
Irrationality and illogicality.................................................................................................................. 66
Case Focus: Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) HCA ....................................................... 67
Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................................ 67
Case Focus: Luongo v ACT Planning and Land Authority (2013) ................................................. 67
Topic 6: Consequences of unlawful action (Remedies) ........................................................................ 68
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Remedies – Common Law Model ..................................................................................................... 68
Certiorari ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Prohibition ...................................................................................................................................... 70
Mandamus ..................................................................................................................................... 70
Equitable Remedies .......................................................................................................................... 71
Injunction ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Declaration ..................................................................................................................................... 71
ADJR Act Remedial Model ................................................................................................................ 72
Choosing Right Combination of Remedies ....................................................................................... 72
Discretion Not to Grant a Remedy .................................................................................................... 72
No Damages & Collateral Proceedings ............................................................................................. 72
Consequences of Unlawful Action ..................................................................................................... 73
Case Focus: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) HCA .............. 73
Case Focus: M61/2010E v Commonwealth (Offshore Processing Case) (2010) HCA ................ 73
Topic 7: Jurisdictional error and limits on judicial review ...................................................................... 76
Jurisdictional Error ............................................................................................................................. 76
Three approaches .......................................................................................................................... 76
1. Intention of Parliament ............................................................................................................... 76
2. Grounds & Nature of Decision-Maker ........................................................................................ 77
3. Functional Approach (Kirk) ........................................................................................................ 77
What errors are jurisdictional? ....................................................................................................... 77
Errors of law on the face of the record........................................................................................... 78
ADJR Act ....................................................................................................................................... 78
CL grounds for jurisdictional error .................................................................................................. 79
Privative clauses ................................................................................................................................ 79
Common law and Constitutional Judicial Review Grounds ........................................................... 79
How can privative clauses be justified? ......................................................................................... 79
What issues are at stake in the interpretation of privative clauses? .............................................. 80
Cth Privative Clauses - Hickman & Plaintiff S157 ......................................................................... 80
Case Focus: Plaintiff S 157/2002 (2003) HCA .............................................................................. 80
State Privative Clauses & Kirk - Pre Kirk ....................................................................................... 81
Case Focus: Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 ...................... 81

4
 Alternatives to Privative Clauses ................................................................................................... 83
No Invalidity Clauses ..................................................................................................................... 83
Case Focus: Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris (HCA, 2008) .................................................... 83
No Consideration Clause ............................................................................................................... 84
Time Limit Clauses ........................................................................................................................ 84
Clauses Restricting Access to Information .................................................................................... 84
Case Focus: Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33 .............. 84
Privative Clauses and Institutional Design..................................................................................... 85
Topic 8: Merits review and administrative review tribunals ................................................................... 88
Part 1: Merits Review ........................................................................................................................ 88
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 88
Nature of review: re-hearings and hearings de novo ........................................................................ 88
Nature of review: ............................................................................................................................ 88
Why do persons seek merits review? ................................................................................................ 89
Why do parliaments provide merits review?...................................................................................... 89
Which decisions are suitable for merits review? ............................................................................... 89
Internal and external merits review ................................................................................................... 90
Internal review................................................................................................................................ 90
External review .............................................................................................................................. 90
Judicial review of, and appeals from, merits review decisions .......................................................... 91
Examples of legislation creating a right of merits review .................................................................. 91
Part 2: Administrative review tribunals .............................................................................................. 91
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 91
What is a tribunal? ............................................................................................................................. 91
Four usages ................................................................................................................................... 92
Constitutional issues for tribunals – Cth level.................................................................................... 92
Case Focus: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) HCA ............. 92
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOLVVXHVIRUWULEXQDOVʊ6WDWHWULEXQDOV ......................................................................... 93
Status of tribunal decisions................................................................................................................ 93
Issue of tribunal design...................................................................................................................... 93
Policy.............................................................................................................................................. 95
Case Focus: Drake No. 2 (AAT, 1979) .......................................................................................... 95
Appeal and review of tribunal decisions ........................................................................................ 95
The Australian administrative tribunal framework ............................................................................. 96
The Australian Administrative Tribunal .......................................................................................... 96
Case Focus: Collector Of Customs v Brian Lawlor Pty Ltd (Full Federal Court, 1979) ................. 96
Membership ................................................................................................................................... 96
Nature of review function ............................................................................................................... 96
Case Focus: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) HCA ...................................... 96
Standing and parties ...................................................................................................................... 97
Reasons ......................................................................................................................................... 97
Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 97

5
 Policy.............................................................................................................................................. 97
Appeals to Federal Court ............................................................................................................... 97
Specialist tribunals ......................................................................................................................... 98
State and Territory administrative tribunals ................................................................................... 98
Topic 9: Ombudsmen and freedom of information (FOI) ...................................................................... 99
The Ombudsmen ............................................................................................................................... 99
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 99
Features of ombudsmen ................................................................................................................ 99
Independence .............................................................................................................................. 100
Outcomes of investigation ........................................................................................................... 100
The ombudsmen and the rule of law ........................................................................................... 101
Ombudsmen & complaint dealing ................................................................................................ 101
Ombudsmen & legal compliance ................................................................................................. 101
Ombudsmen & other accountability functions ............................................................................. 102
Adapting to change ...................................................................................................................... 102
Finding a remedy ......................................................................................................................... 102
Other steps in legal compliance ................................................................................................... 102
A new context? ............................................................................................................................ 103
Information disclosure ..................................................................................................................... 103
Features of FOI legislation ........................................................................................................... 103
$Q$VVHVVPHQWʊ:KHUHDUHZHQRZ" ...................................................................................... 105
$Q$VVHVVPHQWʊ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQRIWKH)2,$FW ........................................................................ 105
$Q$VVHVVPHQWʊ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQRIWKH,QIRUPDWLRQ'LVFORVXUH$FW ................................. 106
Rights to Reasons ........................................................................................................................ 106

6
Topic 1: Introduction to administrative law

What is Administrative Law?

x Not immediately obvious (cf criminal law; contract; tort)
x Conceptual mess, not intelligent design (‘Accountability’ theme)
x %RXQGDULHVQRWFOHDUO\GHILQHGĺRQHRIWKHNH\LVVXHV
x Extremely important not just for law graduates who work in the public sector
o Individuals and corporation’s interaction with government and public sector agencies
o Administrative law applies to a range of non-government institutions e.g. AFL tribunal;
universities
x Primary focus on the legal accountability of the executive branch of government

Why do we need administrative law?

1. Power of the Executive
o Executive has lots of power and affects people far more often and more directly than other
arms of government e.g.
ƒ Confer, alter and abolish legal rights
ƒ Power to use force e.g. police; military
ƒ Threat to individual liberty
o Consequently, need for rigorous regimes of accountability
o Cf judiciary
ƒ Only deal with disputes that come before it
ƒ Depends on executive for enforcement
o Cf parliament
ƒ Makes laws and commands the purse
ƒ Executive enforces them
ƒ Also, executive largely controls parliament

2. Lack of accountability
o Cf judiciary
ƒ Courts conduct cases in open court
ƒ Provide reasons
ƒ Appeal
o Cf parliament
ƒ In public
ƒ Bicameralism
ƒ Accountability to people
ƒ Judicial review of legislative action
o Cf executive
ƒ Private
ƒ Traditionally no direct accountability (cf responsible government)
ƒ But concerns about role of Parliament including party discipline.
ƒ Increased size and complexity of modern government
o Hence need for judicial review of executive action
o And other accountability mechanisms such as:
ƒ merits review
ƒ ombudsmen etc

Rationale is accountability
x Primary focus on legal accountability but other forms will have impact e.g.
o justiciability
o beyond ‘black letter’ law to ‘soft’ law e.g.
ƒ policies and guidelines
x Non remediable legal error/non-jurisdictional legal error; non enforceability of tribunal decision.

Why Should Governments be ‘Accountable’?

1. Democratic

7
 o Administrative law strengthens the democratic process
ƒ Government action can be scrutinised and investigated
ƒ Publicises government action
ƒ Demanding reasons (under CL of Aus no requirement to give reasons as to decision
– starting point is that Aus Executive primarily operates in secret) – enhancing
democracy
ƒ Disclosure of information (default position no FOI but act changed that to create the
presumption that information is available to those who seek it)
ƒ Ensuring that government remains within limits of law made by democratically
elected representatives in parliament

2. Rule of law justification

o Rule of law rather than by ‘men’
ƒ Cf arbitrary rule (decision of one rather than of law)
o Administrative law imposes procedural requirements e.g. clear, public, consistent that are
integral to rule of law
o Also has a substantive content e.g. fundamental rights based on natural law?
ƒ More controversial
o One way of dividing up grounds of review is substantive cf procedural.
o Generally procedural protections rather than substantive protections
o Constitutional assumption e.g. s 75(v).

3. Separation of powers
o Distribution of power to protect individual liberty.
ƒ Splitting and checking of governmental powers ensures individual freedom would
be protected.
o Australian Constitution
ƒ Intention?
ƒ Necessary for federalism to have independent judiciary.
ƒ Expansion through Kable to States
o Also need independent judiciary to hold executive to account.

4. Individual rights
o To keep government within its bounds to protect individual against abuse.
ƒ Liberalism and commitment to liberty of individual.
o Emphasises need for individual redress.
o Judiciary best placed to protect individual against majoritarian oppression.
o Individual complaints (cf systemic review).
o Individual rights approach to administrative law hampered by lack of bill of rights (cf
Victoria)

Accountability for What? Administrate law values

x Legality focused – must be legal authorisation for the decision making
x Fairness – is the decision-making process fair?
x Rationality – one of the grounds of judicial review, however, set at a very high threshold
(traditionally idea is that government decision only becomes irrational if it is legal and it is so
irrational that no rational decision-maker could have come to that decision (legal standard))
merits review – doesn’t just look at legal rationality but also rationality in the more usual sense of
the word reasonable
x Integrity – idea of fidelity to public purposes (decisions made in the public purpose and decision-
makers avoid any conflict between their private interests and public interest) grounds of review
are fraud or lack of good faith
x Efficiency – the need to arrive at a decision that is practically efficient but equally satisfies the
legal standard expected
x Effectiveness

x These rationalities are reflected in grounds of review

x Accountable to parliament for efficiency and policy
x Accountable to courts for legality

8
x Integrity recent focus
x Tension between values e.g. efficiency versus fairness

Administrative Law and Statutory Interpretation

x Most administrative decisions are statutory – stat interpretation is critical in admin law
x Majority of executive’s powers sourced in statute
x Democratic reasons why the executive should interpret legislation correctly in accordance with
law parliament has made (as opposed to making its own laws contrary to rule of law) (deference)
x Statutory interpretation critical ‘fulcrum of administrative law cases’.
x Way to determine legal boundaries of power.

Historical and Constitutional Contexts

x Australian ‘hybrid’ system

British Inheritance
x Responsible Government
x ‘Westminster’ system; SROLWLFDODFFRXQWDELOLW\UH/HJLVODWXUHļ([HFXWLYH FI86V\VWHP 
x Collective cf individual ministerial responsibility;
x Legislature ‘commands the purse’ taxation; expenditure

British Inheritance: Impact on administrative law?

x Cabinet secrecy and politLFDODFFRXQWDELOLW\ĺ ‘non justiciability’ (courts will not review – would
undermine some of the essential features of Westminster system)
x Individual ministerial responsibility (political accountability) retarding development of
administrative law (less emphasis on legal accountability)
x British Inheritance
o Diceyan conception of Rule of Law
ƒ Albert Venn Dicey (1835-1922) Professor of English Law at Oxford; Introduction to
the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)
ƒ Equality before the law i.e. same law for governors and governed administered and
enforced by independent judiciary
ƒ contra public law/private law divide; droit administrative and Conceal D'états
(French);
ƒ 7ULEXQDOV ĺ 'LVOLNH RI VSHFLDOLVW FRXUWV DQG WULEXQDOV ĺ FRPSURPLVLQJ RI judicial
independence (see e.g. Heydon J’s judgment in Kirk ĺ$XVWUDOLDQ&RQVWLWXWLRQĺ
Federal Court (1976); Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) (1975)
• e.g. trespass
o Hampered development of Administrative Law in Australia (Wolfgang Friedman, Principles
of Australia Administrative Law (1950))
o Protection of rights by ordinary law (‘bottom up’ remedies) contra Bills of Rights (‘top down’
rights) cf UK and Human Rights Act 1997 8. ĺVictorian Charter
o Influence in drafting of Constitution e.g. lack of recognition of administrative law (cf s 75(v)),
tribunals, administrative courts, rights (cf remedies)).
o Prerogative Writs & Equitable Remedies
o Australia terra nulliusµVHWWOHG¶ĺ by the British
ƒ inherited English legal system;
ƒ System of ‘writs’ as ‘tool of governance’ for Westminster to supervise local officials
(e.g. ‘justices of the peace’) in 17th century; habeas corpus; certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus.
x Writs hard-wired into our constitution (s 75(5) Cth Constitution), but have British origin:
o Certiorari writs
ƒ Court of King’s/Queen’s Bench; certification of ‘the record’; scrutiny to ascertain
whether disclosed legal HUURUĺ ‘quashing’ of decision
ƒ Relevance today:
• Commonwealth jurisdiction and orders ‘in the nature of…’ (e.g.. Victoria);
• SupeULRUFRXUWMXGLFLDOVFUXWLQ\UHHUURURIODZĺµPDQLIHVW¶OHJDOHUURURUHUURU
of law ‘on the face of the record’ cf transcript or reasons or evidence (cf
‘appeal’ ‘de novo’ or ‘miscarriage of justice’).

9
 o Prohibition
ƒ Prohibited from making unlawful decision or engaging in unlawful activity
o Mandamus
ƒ Order a person to perform some legal duty e.g. licence applications.
x General Observations
o ‘Jurisdictional’ error of law re prohibition and mandamus
o Development of Cabinet Government & centralised civil service in 19th FHQWĺDSSOLFDWLRQ
of writs to public servants and public corporations
o Formulary system’ of pleading e.g. requirement of ‘judicial function’; mandamus &
requirement of public duty; reforms of 1870’s (Judicature Acts 1875-77).
o 3UHURJDWLYH ZULW SURFHGXUH GHFUHH RU RUGHU µQLVL¶ REWDLQHG µH[ SDUWH¶ ĺ KHDULQJ ZKHUH
UHVSRQGHQW PXVW µVKRZ FDXVH¶ ĺ RUGHU µDEVROXWH¶ RU µGLVFKDUJHG¶ SURVHFXWRUDSSOLFDQW
respondent e.g. R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia.
o Deployment of equitable remedies (e.g. declarations and injunctions) in public law to avoid
technicalities of prerogative writs.

Historical and Constitutional Contexts – US Inheritance

x Federalism e.g. separate (but integrated: see Kirk) administrative law systems.
o Intergovernmental co-operation
x Separation of powers
o but note States e.g. Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal; NSW Land and
Environment Court cf Cth Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’))

Historical and Constitutional Contexts – Distinctly Australian Features & History

x Post Federation to 1970s
o Australian Constitution provides framework
o Creation of High Court as ultimate court of appeal in relation to both state and federal
jurisdictions (cf US Supreme Court) (Constitution s 73)
o Insertion of s 75(v) (cf Marburg v Madison)
o Section 75(iii), (v) as making explicit the constitutional ‘assumption’ of the rule of law.
ƒ Section 75(v):
• original jurisdiction (e.g. Boilermakers’ Case);
• mandamus, prohibition and injunction cf certiorari and declaration;
• ‘officer of Commonwealth’ (e.g. (Cth) Ministers; (Cth) Tribunal members;
(Cth) public servants;
• Also (Cth) superior court justices (!);
• Entrenchment of remedies, not substantive law? Cf ‘entrenched minimum
standard of judicial review [T6]?
• Note jurisdiction now also conferred on Federal Court (Judiciary Act 1903, s
39B)
o Federalism & role of the High Court re appellate jurisdiction from States and original
jurisdiction.
o Separation of powers and accommodation of tribunals within executive branch of
government; recognition of ‘innominate functions’ that could be performed by either court
or tribunal (i.e. ‘chameleon principle’)
x 1970s onwards – ‘the New Administrative Law’
o 1) Introduction – Why?
ƒ Establishment of ‘welfare state’ post WWII
ƒ Technicality cf merits/justice
ƒ Patchy ‘system’
ƒ Reforms in UK
ƒ $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 5HYLHZ &RPPLWWHH   ĺ µ.HUU &RPPLWWHH 5HSRUW¶   DV
recommending:
• Establishment of ‘generalist’ merits review tribunal; awareness of
constitutional and legal limitations of judicial review.
• Establishment of new Federal Court and simplified procedure to obtain
judicial review.
o Federal Court
ƒ Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth);

10
 ƒ Main forum (note establishment of Federal Magistrates’ Court in 2000 (now Federal
Circuit Court)).
o Cth AAT
ƒ Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
ƒ Jurisdiction to ‘review’ a ‘decision’ conferred by enactment (i.e. ‘opt in’) (s 25(1));
ƒ Flexible procedure & ‘rules of evidence’ (s 33(1));
ƒ Powers on review i.e. ‘…the Tribunal may exercise all the powers and discretions
that are conferred…on the person who made the decision’ (s 43(1)) including
powers to make decision in substitution of original decision (s 43(1)(c)(I));
ƒ Appeal on ‘question of law’ to Federal Court (s 44(1)).
ƒ ‘Opt in’ regime
o ADJR Act
ƒ Focus on ‘grounds’ of review (ss 5,6), rather than remedies;
ƒ Order for review; ss 5, 6;
ƒ All you need to establish is an error of law
ƒ Dichotomy between ‘decision’ (s 5) and ‘conduct related to making of decision (s 6);
ƒ ‘Declaratory’ of common law and ‘ambulatory’ e.g. ‘natural justice’ ground (ss
5(1)(a), 6(1)(a)) but note key “reforms” e.g.
• Jurisdictional error (ss 5(1)(c), 6(1)(c)),
• Record (see s 5(1)(f)) and
• Requirement to give reasons on request (s 13; note also AAT Act, s 28);
ƒ ‘Opt out’ regime (cf AAT Act)
• Decisions made under Cth enactment with administrative character, then
reviewable under ADJR

New Administrative Law (Orthodox) Procedure

x 1st Instance Decision
o ĺµ,QWHUQDO¶ 0HULWV 5HYLHZ
o ĺµ([WHUQDO¶ 0HULWV 5HYLHZ $$7 
o ĺV³DSSHDO´UHµHUURURIODZ¶25ADJR Act ‘order for review’ re (legal) ‘grounds’
o ĺ)HGHUDO&RXUW VLQJOHMXVWLFH)XOO&RXUW 
o ĺ+LJK&RXUWµDSSHOODWH¶MXULVGLFWLRQ (s 73 Cth Constitution)
x Complications:
o Statutory (e.g. compulsory internal review? Interposition of specialist tribunals)
o ADJR Act review of decisions pre AAT?;
o Original jurisdiction of High Court i.e. s 75(v) re officer of Commonwealth;
o Conferral of ‘constitutional’ (a.k.a. ‘conferred common law’) jurisdiction on Federal Court
(Judiciary Act, s 39B).
x Constraints:
o Efficacy of merits review cf judicial review;
o Costs of judicial review cf merits review.
o Judicial review remedies discretionary.
x More recent trends
o Sidelining of ADJR Act
o Privative clauses
o Migration decisions
x Return to prerogative remedies
o ‘Constitutionalisation’ of administrative law
o Reconvergence and integration
o Integrity
o Privatisation outsourcing; management of commercial government enterprises (e.g.
Medibank Private); ‘wicked problems’ e.g. climate change disagreement; co-ordinated
action.
ƒ FOI and life of Commonwealth Information Commissioner.
ƒ Integrity Agencies e.g. Victoria; NSW.

Case Focus: NEAT v AWB (2003) HCA

Facts
x NEAT makes six applications to Wheat Export Authority (‘WEA’) for consent to export bulk wheat
x Refused because AWB International (‘AWBI’) failed to give approval

11
x Application under ADJR Act
x AWBI company incorporated under Corporations Law
x Wholly owned subsidiary of AWB
x AWB shares owned by wheat growers
x Object of maximizing returns for growers
Law
x Wheat Marketing Act 1989 (Cth)
o Prohibition on export of wheat without WEA’s consent (s 57(1))
o AWBI exempt from prohibition (i.e. statutory monopoly) (s 57(1A)
o Requirement of WEA to consult with AWBI re further licences
ƒ Right of veto exercisable by AWBI (ss 57(3A), (3B)) (‘single desk policy’)
Issue
x Argued by NEAT:
o ADJR Act review
ƒ ‘decision of administrative character’ or conduct related etc.
ƒ ‘made under enactment’
o NEAT’s applications not considered on merits
ƒ inflexible application of policy
ƒ relevant & irrelevant considerations
Held
x 1989 Act gives WEA power to refuse licence, not AWBI
x i.e. WEA’s decision is the ‘operative and determinative decision’
x cf AWBI does not owe existence to 1989 Act
x Regulated under Corporations Law
x AWBI’s capacity to grant or withhold approval not derived from 1989 Act, but from Corporations
Law
x AWBI’s ‘decision’ re approval not made ‘under (1989) enactment’
x Not an ‘administrative’ decision
x ‘merits’ of application derived from 1989 Act but AWBI not under any duty under 1989 Act to
consider ‘public’ considerations
x AWBI under obligation to maximize returns
x No ‘sensible accommodation’ possible between public and private considerations.
Dissent (Kirby J)
x Constitutional context
x All repositories of public power subject to legal constraint
x Given changes in delivery of government services question very important
x AWBI effectively controls exercise of public power by WEA
x ADJR Act
o Focus on decision, not nature of body
o Critical issue is nature of the power, not body exercising it (e.g. Datafin)
o Remedial purpose of ADJR Act advanced by generous construction
x ADJR Act
o ‘Under an enactment’
o Statutory origin not critical but statutory nexus
o Decision is made ‘executing or carrying into effect laws of Cth’
o AWBI integrated into statutory scheme
o Private decision of AWBI only takes on its legal character by force of Act.
x ADJR Act
o ‘administrative decision’
o All criteria point towards AWBI’s decision as a ‘public function’ including ‘statutory veto’
o WEA decision would be administrative so AWBI’s decision surely is as they interact with
each other
o Interests effected by AWBI’s decision much broader than private interests
o Without administrative review, AWBI not legally accountable

12