No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
This paper considers the impact of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (eth) (“the Act”) in the area of personnel management in the Australian Public Service (the“APS”). It is written from the perspective of a lawyer, rather than that of a public administrator.
The paper is in four parts, dealing with: the place of personnel management in the “new administrative law”; developments in the area of review of personnel decisions since the Act came into force; the reasons for these developments, and the extent to which they may be attributed to different aspects of the Act; and assessment of the changes that have occurred.
Revised version of a paper presented at the Conference “Ten Years of the Federal Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act” in September 1990.
1 This paper is based on a thesis by the author on a similar topic: N Williams, Review of Personnel Decisions in the Australian Public Service under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, July 1989, a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the Degree of Master of Public Law of the Australian National University.
2 Report of Committee of Review of Prerogative Wril Procedures, PP No 56 of 1973.
3 Ibid 7.
4 R Gyles QC, “Cc:mmentary” (1983) 14 FL Rev 182, 184.
5 N Williams, supra n l, 18-20.
6 Dixon v Commonwealth (1981) 61 Al..R 173 and Allsell v Wells (1982) 43 Al..R 41.
7 (1981) 36 Al..R 287.
8 PAC Chairmen's Circular, 1982/1, 25 January 1982.
9 R v Wells; u parte An.rell (1982) SS FLR 281.
10 PAC Chairmen's Circular, 1982/4, 24 March 1982.
11 AMual Report of the Public Service Board, 1982, 3
12 (1981) 37 AI.R 297.
13 G Flick, Admi11istrative Tribunals, the Threat of Over-Judicialisatio11, unpublished paper delivered to the Repatriation Review Tribunal Conference, 1981, 99.
14 The guidelines were annaed to the PAC Chairmen's Circular, 1982/23, 22November 1982.
15 PAC Chairmen's Circular, 1983/17, 16 December 1983.
16 (1982) 43 AI.R 41.
17 AGPS, Canberra, 1984.
18 lbidv.
19 Ibid esp 7-9.
20 Guidelines on Promotional Appeal CommiJtee Procedures, (1988).
21 N Williams,supran l, 107-108
22 Dixon v Commonwealth (1981) 61 ALR 173.
23 (1983) 49 ALR 123.
24 See eg the Report of the Review of Commonwealth Administration (1983), 49 and AMual Report of the Public Service Board 1983, 5.
25 P Wilenski, “Administrative Law and the Public Service” (1985) 12 Rupert Journal 6.
26 lbid7.
27 Dixon and Ansell. S"f'ra n 6.
28 Information obtained from an interview with Mr J Pearce, a lawyer then employed by the ACOA, on 21 March 1989.
29 Report of tM Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, pp No 144 of 1987, Ch 11.
30 This view was put in an interview conducted between the author and Mr H Whitton, then of the Merit Protection & Review Agency on 17 February 1989, and with Mr J Pean:e, then a lawyer employed by the Administrative & Clerical Officen Association on 21 March 1989.
31 These observations were derived from interviews that the author conducted with Mr S Magee and Mr M Devine, Promotion Appeal Committee Convenon, on 23 February 1989 in Canberra. See also S Magee, “Staff Selection - The Use of Written References” (1988) Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 145.
32 A C Hutchison, “The Rise and Ruse of Administrative Law and Scholarship” (1985) 48 MLR 293, 316.