Rise of statutory administrative law after the 1970s reforms
š Overview of the 1970s Administrative Law Reforms
Before the 1970s, judicial review of administrative action was mostly based on common law principles (e.g., natural justice, ultra vires, Wednesbury unreasonableness), through prerogative writs like certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
The Kerr Committee Report (1971) and the Bland Committee Report (1973) led to reforms aiming to make administrative law:
More accessible to the public,
Fairer in process and review,
More transparent in government decision-making.
These reforms introduced:
Merits review (AAT),
Statutory judicial review (ADJR Act),
Freedom of information, and
Independent complaint-handling (Ombudsman).
āļø Key Case Law and Detailed Analysis
Here are more than five significant cases that illustrate the principles and impact of statutory administrative law after the 1970s:
1. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Issue: Whether procedural fairness (natural justice) applied to a ministerial decision to deport a person under the Migration Act.
Facts: The Kioa family, who overstayed their visa, were ordered to be deported. The Ministerās delegate relied on adverse information without giving them a chance to respond.
Decision: The High Court held that procedural fairness was owed, and not providing an opportunity to respond breached that duty.
Legal Principle: Even where decisions are made under statute, natural justice applies unless clearly excluded. The modern doctrine of legitimate expectation was also discussed.
Why it matters: Kioa represents the High Courtās embrace of statutory fairness obligations and helped integrate natural justice into statutory administrative law frameworks.
2. Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Issue: Scope of judicial review of an administrative decision where government policy affected individual appointments.
Facts: Magistrate Quin lost his position due to changes in government policy. He sought judicial review.
Decision: The High Court held that courts cannot review government policy decisions unless there is a legal right infringed. Judicial review does not allow courts to evaluate policy merits.
Legal Principle: Judicial review is concerned with legality, not merits. Courts should not interfere in policy unless unlawfulness is shown.
Why it matters: Clarified limits of statutory judicial reviewāADJR Act doesnāt allow courts to review political decisions or policy preferences unless a legal error arises.
3. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Issue: Whether the Minister failed to consider a relevant consideration in making a land rights recommendation.
Facts: Peko-Wallsend claimed that the Minister did not consider their interest in the land when recommending it for Aboriginal land rights.
Decision: The High Court found that the Minister failed to consider a relevant matter, making the decision unlawful.
Legal Principle: Under statutory judicial review, failure to take into account relevant considerations is a ground of review (s 5(2)(b) ADJR Act).
Why it matters: It emphasized the importance of decision-making criteria and how statutory review frameworks control administrative discretion.
4. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Issue: Distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors.
Facts: A District Court judge wrongly admitted inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial, leading to review.
Decision: High Court held this was an error within jurisdiction, not a jurisdictional error.
Legal Principle: Judicial review under common law and under the ADJR Act mainly targets jurisdictional errorsāthose errors that go to the power to make the decision.
Why it matters: Clarified error of law doctrines under statutory administrative law and when such errors warrant quashing a decision.
5. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Issue: Whether a failure to fulfill a representation about procedure (a promise of a letter before a decision) constituted a breach of procedural fairness.
Facts: Lam was told heād receive a letter allowing him to respond before a decision affecting him would be made. He didnāt receive the letter.
Decision: The High Court held there was no practical unfairness, and thus no breach of procedural fairness.
Legal Principle: A failure to meet procedural expectations only invalidates a decision if real unfairness is shown.
Why it matters: Reinforced that statutory procedural fairness must cause material disadvantage to attract judicial relief.
6. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421
Issue: Whether a denial of a visa on the basis of irrelevant considerations, or failure to disclose information, breached procedural fairness.
Facts: The Tribunal relied on departmental information not disclosed to the applicant.
Decision: The High Court found a breach of procedural fairness because the applicant wasnāt given an opportunity to respond.
Legal Principle: The hearing rule is central to procedural fairnessāparties must know and have a chance to respond to adverse material.
Why it matters: Reinforces ADJR Act grounds such as denial of natural justice (s 5(1)(a)) and strengthens the right to be heard.
7. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Issue: Whether a refusal of an extension of time by the Migration Review Tribunal was legally unreasonable.
Facts: Li sought an extension after a minor delay; the Tribunal refused without adequate justification.
Decision: The High Court found the decision to be legally unreasonable.
Legal Principle: Introduced "legal unreasonableness" as a ground for judicial review ā a statutory decision must be rational and proportionate.
Why it matters: Expanded judicial review beyond Wednesbury unreasonableness and applied it in a statutory context under ADJR.
š§¾ Summary of Key Doctrines from These Cases
| Ground of Review | Statutory Basis (ADJR Act) | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of natural justice | s 5(1)(a) | Kioa v West, SZMTA, Ex parte Lam |
| Failure to consider relevant matters | s 5(2)(b) | Peko-Wallsend |
| Error of law | s 5(1)(f) | Craig v SA |
| Legal unreasonableness | Not explicit, but read into s 5(1)(e) | Minister v Li |
| Improper exercise of power | s 5(1)(e) | Quin |
š§ Key Impacts of Post-1970s Administrative Law Reforms
ā Positive Contributions:
Created accessible, transparent, and accountable review mechanisms.
Established a clear separation between merits review (AAT) and judicial review (Federal Court).
Expanded procedural fairness protections and codified review grounds.
Allowed citizens to challenge government actions without needing to invoke ancient common law writs.
š Continuing Issues:
Overlap between statutory and constitutional review grounds causes confusion.
Courts are sometimes cautious to intervene in policy-based decisions.
Procedural fairness is context-specific and not always guaranteed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments