The concept of accountability in Australian administration
🔍 I. Concept of Accountability in Australian Administration
Accountability in public administration means that:
Government officials must justify their decisions and actions to oversight bodies, courts, parliament, and the public.
Public power is subject to limits, and misuse of power can result in consequences.
Decisions must be lawful, rational, procedurally fair, and consistent with policy and statutory authority.
Key Elements:
Judicial review of administrative decisions
Merits review through tribunals (e.g., AAT)
Ombudsman investigations
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests
Ministerial and parliamentary accountability
Audit and financial review (e.g., Auditor-General)
⚖️ II. Key Case Law Demonstrating Accountability in Australian Administration
1. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Facts:
The Minister denied refugee visas, and the applicants claimed the decision was unreasonable and lacked proper reasoning.
Issue:
Were the Minister’s decisions subject to judicial review for unreasonableness and failure to consider relevant facts?
Decision:
The High Court reaffirmed that judicial review is not about substituting the court’s view for that of the decision-maker. However, decision-makers must show rationality and consistency in administrative decision-making.
Significance:
Clarified the limits of judicial review.
Highlighted the importance of transparency and proper reasoning in administrative decision-making.
Acknowledged that administrative decisions are still subject to scrutiny for legality.
2. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
Mr. and Mrs. Kioa, unlawful immigrants, were served with deportation notices without being given a chance to respond to adverse allegations.
Issue:
Was there a denial of procedural fairness in failing to give the applicants a hearing?
Decision:
The High Court ruled in favour of the applicants, holding that procedural fairness (natural justice) is a fundamental part of administrative decision-making unless excluded by statute.
Significance:
Landmark case that entrenched procedural fairness in Australian administrative law.
Established that adverse information must be disclosed to affected persons before decisions are made.
Reinforced accountability by requiring fair treatment in decision-making.
3. Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144
Facts:
The Australian Government sought to transfer asylum seekers to Malaysia under a bilateral agreement. The plaintiff challenged the legality of the arrangement.
Issue:
Was the Minister’s decision to declare Malaysia a suitable destination under the Migration Act lawful?
Decision:
The High Court found that Malaysia did not offer sufficient protections under international law, and the Minister’s declaration was invalid.
Significance:
A major win for executive accountability.
Demonstrated the constitutional limits on administrative power.
Reinforced the need for adherence to legislative criteria when exercising discretion.
4. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
Mr. Lam was promised by the Department that a decision affecting him would not be made until a certain letter was received. The decision was made earlier.
Issue:
Did the broken promise breach procedural fairness?
Decision:
The High Court ruled that while the decision-maker did not follow the promise, there was no practical unfairness, so the decision was valid.
Significance:
Refined the doctrine of procedural fairness by introducing the “practical injustice” test.
Showed that accountability is not just about technical failures, but about substantive unfairness.
Reinforced the idea that fairness must be meaningful and consequential.
5. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Facts:
Parents of a deceased child challenged the coroner’s inquiry process, which excluded them from participation.
Issue:
Did the coroner owe the parents procedural fairness?
Decision:
Yes. The High Court held that procedural fairness applies to administrative inquiries, especially where individuals are directly and significantly affected.
Significance:
Broadened the application of procedural fairness.
Reinforced institutional accountability in statutory inquiries.
Emphasized the duty of openness and inclusivity in administrative procedures.
6. Hot Holdings v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Facts:
A ministerial decision to grant a mining exploration licence was challenged on the grounds of bias and improper influence.
Issue:
Was the decision affected by apprehended bias or failure to properly consider applications?
Decision:
The High Court ruled that the decision was not invalid, but the case clarified how perceptions of fairness and impartiality must be managed in ministerial decisions.
Significance:
Emphasized that decision-makers must avoid both actual and perceived bias.
Reinforced the importance of transparency and integrity in administrative processes.
Showed that accountability includes the appearance of fairness.
🏛️ III. Broader Mechanisms Supporting Accountability
In addition to case law, Australia’s administrative accountability is also maintained through:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – provides merits review of decisions.
Commonwealth Ombudsman – investigates complaints about government services.
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) – audits the financial performance of government entities.
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) – promotes transparency and public access to government documents.
Judicial review under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
✅ Conclusion
Accountability in Australian administration is foundational to good governance. The courts have consistently reinforced:
The need for lawful and reasonable decision-making.
The obligation to provide procedural fairness.
The limits on executive discretion and ministerial power.
Through landmark cases like Kioa, Wu Shan Liang, and Plaintiff M70, the High Court has shaped a legal framework where public officials are not above the law, and affected individuals have a right to challenge unjust decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments