Historical development of administrative law in Melbourne and wider Australia
📘 Historical Development of Administrative Law in Australia (Including Melbourne)
Administrative law in Australia has evolved gradually, largely shaped by British legal heritage, federalism, statutory reforms, and judicial decisions. Its development mirrors Australia’s transition from a British colony to a mature constitutional democracy, with growing emphasis on government accountability and individual rights.
🕰️ Key Phases of Development
1. Colonial Period (Pre-1901)
Australian colonies, including Victoria (where Melbourne is located), inherited English common law traditions.
Administrative decisions were subject to judicial review using prerogative writs (e.g., mandamus, certiorari, prohibition).
No distinct administrative law system—executive accountability was limited.
2. Federation and Early 20th Century (1901–1970s)
With the Australian Constitution (1901), Australia adopted a federal system.
Administrative law was still mostly judge-made, based on common law doctrines.
Judicial review remained limited and procedural.
Gradual emergence of statutory bodies and tribunals to deal with specific areas (immigration, taxation, etc.).
3. Modern Administrative Law Era (Post-1970s Reforms)
This period marks the birth of modern administrative law in Australia.
Key developments included:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) Act 1975
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act)
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Ombudsman Act 1976
These reforms introduced:
Merits review by tribunals
Simplified judicial review
Statutory right to information
Independent complaint resolution (ombudsman)
Melbourne, as the capital of Victoria, followed suit with:
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) established in 1998
Victorian Ombudsman established in 1973
4. Contemporary Developments (2000s–Present)
Growing role of state-level tribunals (e.g., VCAT) and independent bodies (e.g., Victorian Ombudsman).
Increased judicial scrutiny of executive power, especially in migration law, detention, and ministerial discretion.
Ongoing tension between executive discretion and judicial oversight.
⚖️ Detailed Case Law (Australian)
Here are 5 key Australian cases that have significantly shaped administrative law:
🇦🇺 1. Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW (2010) 239 CLR 531
Facts:
Mr. Kirk challenged a conviction by the NSW Industrial Court, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction and breached natural justice.
Held:
The High Court held that judicial review is constitutionally protected under the separation of powers. State laws cannot remove the right to review jurisdictional errors.
Significance:
Landmark case on constitutional entrenchment of judicial review.
Cemented the inviolability of judicial review of administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error.
Applicable across all states, including Victoria (i.e., Melbourne).
🇦🇺 2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Facts:
The Minister refused a protection visa. The decision was challenged as illogical and unreasonable.
Held:
The High Court held that a decision could be reviewed for jurisdictional error if it was irrational, illogical, or unreasonable to the point of being legally flawed.
Significance:
Developed the doctrine of unreasonableness in Australian judicial review.
Ensured that even non-legalistic errors may render a decision invalid if they are extreme.
Relevant in merits vs judicial review distinction.
🇦🇺 3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
Migration laws tried to limit access to judicial review for certain administrative decisions.
Held:
The High Court struck down such provisions, ruling that Section 75(v) of the Constitution guarantees judicial review of administrative action by the High Court.
Significance:
Reinforced that Parliament cannot oust judicial review.
Protected individuals’ right to challenge executive decisions, even in sensitive areas like immigration.
🇦🇺 4. Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Facts:
A company challenged the Western Australian minister’s decision to award mining licenses, alleging bias and lack of procedural fairness.
Held:
The High Court upheld the decision but clarified the limits of procedural fairness in ministerial discretion.
Significance:
Important in balancing discretion and fairness in administrative decision-making.
Shows that procedural fairness may be modified based on context and statutory framework.
🇦🇺 5. Victoria v Master Builders’ Association (1995) 2 VR 121 (VCAT-related case)
Facts:
Dispute involving the jurisdiction of a Victorian tribunal over licensing decisions.
Held:
The Victorian Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s jurisdiction and reaffirmed the legitimacy of merits review mechanisms.
Significance:
Validated the role of tribunals like VCAT in Victoria’s administrative framework.
Emphasized that non-judicial forums can offer accessible, fair resolution of disputes.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Kirk (2010) | Constitutional judicial review | Entrenched judicial review in all states |
| SZMDS (2010) | Illogicality as jurisdictional error | Broadened grounds for review |
| S157 (2003) | Constitutional protection of review | Parliament can't oust High Court's review power |
| Hot Holdings (2002) | Limits of procedural fairness | Ministerial discretion reviewed in context |
| Master Builders (1995) | Tribunal legitimacy | Strengthened VCAT and state tribunal role |
🏛️ Role of Institutions in Melbourne / Victoria
| Institution | Function |
|---|---|
| VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) | Provides merits review of decisions in planning, licensing, tenancy, and more |
| Victorian Ombudsman | Investigates complaints about public sector bodies |
| Freedom of Information Commissioner | Promotes transparency and access to government documents |
| IBAC (Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission) | Investigates serious corruption in public sector |
| Victorian Supreme Court | Exercises judicial review of state-level administrative decisions |
🔚 Conclusion
The development of administrative law in Melbourne and Australia at large reflects a mature legal system’s effort to balance government power with individual rights.
Major Themes:
Judicial review is constitutionally protected (Kirk, S157).
Procedural fairness and rationality are key limits on administrative action (Kraipak, SZMDS).
Tribunals like VCAT offer accessible, specialized forums for dispute resolution.
State institutions (like Victorian Ombudsman) play a strong role in non-judicial accountability.
Australia, including Victoria, now has one of the most structured and rights-conscious administrative law systems in the world.
RELATED Blog
0 comments