Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T01:18:18.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Administrative Law in the Commonwealth: Some Proposals for Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Harry Whitmore
Harry Whitmore*
Affiliation:
School of General Studies, Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is at last being recognized that there is need to reform the antiquated and costly apparatus of administrative law that we inherited frum England. Despite murmurs of dissatisfaction extending over many decades all that has been achieved so far by legislation amounts to little more than a tinkering with the machinery of adjudication in marginal areas. The problem is an old one. The public interest demands that administration, including the provision of multifarious services that are crucial to the community, be carried out as efficiently as possible. Equally the public interest demands that individual rights and expectations should not be overridden by an uncaring bureaucracy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 7 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Per Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971} All E.R. 1148, 1153Google Scholar.

2 The Committee originally comprised Mr Justice Kerr, as Chairman, with Mr. F. Mason Q.c.., Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, and Professor H. Whitmore. Mr Justice Mason was appomted to the N.S.W. Court of Appeal on 1 May 1969: he remained a member of the Committee but the new Solicitor–General, Mr R. J. Ellicott Q.C., was appointed as an additional member.

3 (1971) P,rl. Pap. No. 144.

4 Report, Ch. 2.

5 Ch. 3.

6 [1964] A.C. 40.

7 (1968) 42 A.L.J.R. 64.

8 See e.g., Ex parte The Angliss Group (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 150; Wiseman v. Borneman [1969] 3 All E.R. 275; The Queen v. Gaming Board for Jreat Britain;, Ex parte Benaim [1970] 2 All E.R. 528; Re Pergamon Press Ltd [1970] 3 All E.R. 535.

9 Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997.

10 Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147.

11 Conway v. Rimmer [1968] 1 All E.R. 874.

12 Home office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] 2 All E.R. 294; Dutton v. Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 2 W.L.R. 299.

13 Recent cases exemplifying the trend are discussed in Benjafield, D. G. and Whitmore, H, “Judicial Decisions Affecting Public Administration 1968-1971” (1971) 30 Public Administration 301Google Scholar.

14 [1971] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 192. Noted: this issue, infra p. 143.

15 Para. 12.

16 Para. 10.

17 Chs 6-9.

18 Para. 12.

19 Ch. 20.

20 See e.g., Sydney Morning Herald 15 October 1971.

21 Ch. 11 (Para. 246).

22 Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries (1957) cmd 218, para. 125.

23 The New Zealand experiment, including the views of the dissenting member, is fully described in the Report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, Ch. 7 paras 155-165.

24 Para. 246.

25 Para. 247. It was realized that “supervisory” review can in many circumstances a unt to review on the merits—but that depends on whether the judges adopt a “restrained” approach or a “bold” one. It would be quite another matter to give the total power by statute.

26 Para. 258(e).

27 See e.g., The Queen v. District Court of the State of Queensland; Er parte Thompson [1968] A.L.R. 509.

28 see e g., Wootten, J. H., “Bureaucracy and Individual Liberty”, 19; a paper delivered at the Australian Institute of Political Science Summer School (1972). To be published in Who runs Australia? Parliament, Bureaucracy, Citizens (Angus and Rob.)Google Scholar.

29 The Law Commission, Published Working Paper No. 40, 11 October 1971 57 ff.

30 Para. 263.

31 Para. 265.

32 See Benjafield, D. G. and Whitmore, H., Principles of Australian Administrative Law (4th ed., 1971) 165Google Scholar; Hogg, P. W., “Judicial Review of Action by The Crown Representative” (1969) 43 A.L.J. 215Google Scholar.

33 Paras 282-283.

34 Note (1972) 46 A.L.J. 1, 4.

35 Id., 2.

36 Para. 295(f).

37 Para. 297(i).

38 Para. 292.

39 See Wootten, op. cit. 29.

40 Para. 317.

41 Para. 313.

42 “The Jurisprudence of Ombudsmen” (1971) 30 Pub. Admin. 221.

43 See Wootten, op. cit. 29.

44 See the Committee's recommeudations, paras 325-339.

45 Ch. 16.

46 Ch. 17.

47 Rules Publication Act 1903-1964 (Cth); Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1966 (Cth).

48 In Ontario the Statutory Powers Procedure Act 1971 already covers some of the matters discussed.

49 H.R. Deb., 14 October 1971, 2355.

50 Ibid.

51 Ch. 18.

52 H.R. Deb., 14 October 1971, 2356.

53 S. Deb., 14 October 1971, 1373.

54 15 October 1971.

55 15 October 1971.

56 See e.g., Age 15 ,October 1971; Australian 15 October 1971.

57 See e.g., the comments of Mr Killen, D. J., M.P. in The National Times 6-11 March 1972Google Scholar.

58 Wootten, op. cit. 27 (supra n. 28).

59 Id., 29.

60 (l972) 46 A.L.J. 1

61 Id., 4.