The values and principles underpinning administrative law and administrative law institutions in Australia
Administrative Law in Australia: Core Values and Principles
🔹 What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law in Australia governs how public officials and government bodies make decisions and ensures they are:
Lawful
Rational
Procedurally fair
Accountable
It provides legal remedies to people affected by government action and allows judicial, merits, and ombudsman review.
🏛️ Core Values and Principles of Australian Administrative Law
Legality
All government decisions must have a legal basis and stay within the boundaries of statutory authority.
Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)
Decision-makers must act fairly — including the right to a hearing and the rule against bias.
Reasonableness
Decisions must not be arbitrary or irrational. A decision must be one that a reasonable decision-maker would make.
Accountability
Public officials must be accountable through tribunals, courts, ombudsman offices, and parliamentary scrutiny.
Transparency
Reasons for decisions should be accessible, and processes should be open to review and oversight.
Access to Review
Affected individuals must have access to judicial review, merits review, and ombudsman complaints.
⚖️ Key Administrative Law Institutions in Australia
| Institution | Role |
|---|---|
| Federal Court of Australia | Judicial review of administrative decisions |
| Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) | Independent merits review |
| Commonwealth Ombudsman | Investigates complaints about government agencies |
| Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) | Reviews Freedom of Information decisions |
| Human Rights Commission | Reviews administrative actions impacting human rights |
📚 Key Case Laws: Detailed Explanation
1. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
Mr. and Mrs. Kioa, Tongan nationals, overstayed their visas. The Department of Immigration made a deportation decision based partly on an adverse report without giving them an opportunity to respond.
Issue:
Was the decision invalid due to breach of natural justice?
Held:
The High Court held that procedural fairness applied. Affected persons should be given the opportunity to respond to adverse material.
Principle:
Procedural fairness is a common law duty in administrative decision-making, especially when decisions adversely affect rights, interests, or expectations.
2. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273
Facts:
Mr. Teoh, a Malaysian national, faced deportation. The Department failed to consider Australia’s obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though it was ratified (but not enacted in law).
Issue:
Could ratified international obligations create a legitimate expectation in administrative law?
Held:
Yes. The High Court held that ratification of a treaty can give rise to a legitimate expectation that decision-makers will act in accordance with it.
Principle:
A legitimate expectation arises when the government has publicly committed to certain conduct (e.g., a treaty), and administrative fairness requires consideration of that expectation.
3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
An asylum seeker’s visa application was rejected. The government claimed that a privative clause in the law ousted judicial review.
Issue:
Can judicial review be excluded by statute?
Held:
The High Court held that judicial review under Section 75(v) of the Constitution is entrenched and cannot be excluded. Errors of law (including jurisdictional error) are always reviewable.
Principle:
Judicial review is constitutionally protected, and privative clauses cannot prevent courts from reviewing unlawful administrative action.
4. Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
Mr. Lam, a refugee, claimed that the immigration department breached his legitimate expectation to be consulted about his children’s welfare before cancelling his visa.
Issue:
Was there a procedural fairness breach due to unmet legitimate expectation?
Held:
The High Court ruled that legitimate expectation alone does not create a legal right. There must be actual unfairness suffered by the person.
Principle:
The existence of a legitimate expectation is not enough. A failure to meet that expectation must result in practical injustice or unfairness.
5. Hot Holdings v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Facts:
A mining exploration licence was granted to one company over another. The Minister consulted an advisor with a financial interest in the decision.
Issue:
Did this create apprehended bias?
Held:
The High Court found that the decision may be legally flawed due to the risk of bias, as the advisor’s financial interest could influence the decision.
Principle:
A decision-maker must avoid situations of bias or even the appearance of bias. Administrative decisions are invalid if affected by apprehended bias.
📋 Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Kioa v West (1985) | Natural justice applies to administrative decisions affecting rights |
| Teoh (1995) | Ratified treaties can create legitimate expectations |
| Plaintiff S157 (2003) | Judicial review is constitutionally entrenched |
| Ex parte Lam (2003) | Breach of legitimate expectation requires actual unfairness |
| Hot Holdings (2002) | Administrative decisions must be free from bias or conflict of interest |
📌 Conclusion
Australian administrative law is built on constitutional principles, common law protections, and statutory frameworks that aim to:
Control abuse of public power
Ensure government accountability
Protect individual rights and interests
The courts, tribunals, ombudsman, and review bodies together ensure that public decision-making aligns with democratic values of fairness, legality, transparency, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments