Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:08:21.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Administrative Review the Experience of the First Twelve Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Anthony Mason
Anthony Mason*
Affiliation:
High Court of Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My long-standing interest in our federal system of administrative law traces back to 1968. I then suggested to the Attorney-General (now Sir Nigel Bowen, Chief Justice of the Federal Court) that he establish the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee (of which I became a member). Through the work of that Committee and later committees and the efforts of Mr Ellicott QC, who subsequently became Attorney-General, the system as we know it today came into being.

The federal system incorporates features of the review structures of the United Kingdom and the United States. As you know, the four elements in the federal system are:

  1. (1) the Administrative Review Council (‘the ARC’);

  2. (2) review by the ombudsman;

  3. (3) judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (‘the ADJR Act’); and

  4. (4) review on the merits by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’).

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 122 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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 Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656.

2 Election Importing Co Pty Ltd v Courtice (1949) 80 CLR 657,663.

3 Giris Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 119 CLR 365.

4 Pearce, D C Commonwealth Administrative Law (1986) para 358Google Scholar.

5 Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman Annual Reports 1987-88 (1988), 8.

6 Ibid 12.

7 Id.

8 Ibid 23-24.

9 R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170, 192-193, 215-216, 217 ff,230, 265, 283.

10 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374.

11 Minister for Arts Heritage and Environment v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (l987) 75 ALR 218; special leave to appeal refused by the High Court.

12 Toohey. supra n 9, 221; Civil Service Unions case, supra n 10,407.

13 FAl InsurancesLtdv Winneke (l982) 151 CLR342.

14 Toohey, supra n 9.

15 South Australia v O'Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378, 387-388, 419-420; Peko-Wallsend, supra n 11, 224-226, 226-227, 247-249.

16 Supra n 11.

17 CREEDNZ Inc v Governor-General (1981) I NZLR 172, 198: “the larger the policy content and the more the decision-making is within the customary sphere of elected representatives the less well-equipped the Courts are to weigh the considerations involved and the less inclined they must be to intervene”.

18 O'Shea, supra n 15, 419-420.

19 R v Coldham; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union (1983) 153 CLR 415, 418-419.

20 Id.

21 (1979) 24 ALR 577, 589

22 Sean Investments Pty Ltd v MacKellar (1981) 38 ALR 363, 371; appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed: (1982) 42 ALR 676.

23 [1948] I KB 223, 230.

24 Id.

25 [1983] I AC 768, 821

26 See, for example, J Jowell and A Lester, “Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law” (1987) Public Law 368.>

27 (1986) 162 CLR 24, 41-42.

28 Pearce, D C, “The Fading of the Vision Splendid? in Administrative Law - Retrospect and Prospect Canberra Bulletin of Public AdministrationNo 58, April 1989, 15Google Scholar.

29 Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee Report,(1971, pp no. 144 of 1971) para 354.

30 (1977) 15 ALR 696, 700.

31 Ibid 701.

32 Drake, supra n 20, 509.

33 (1965) 113 CLR 177.

34 (1977) 139 CLR 54.

35 Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales v Evans (1981) 56 ALJR 89; 38 ALR 93.

36 Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee Report,(1971, PP No 144 of 1971) para 292.

37 (1979) 2 ALO 634, 644-645.

38 SeeSharpe, J M,The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Policy Review (1986), 161-162, and the cases cited at 161, n 13Google Scholar.

39 Supra text at nn 29 and 30.

40 See Re Beames and Director-General of Social Services (1981) 3 ALN 84.

41 Administrativt, Review Council, Eighth Annual Report, 1983-84, para 39; see the valuable discussion in Denis O'Brien, “Tribunals and Public Policy - What Decisions are Suitable for Review?”, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration No 58, April 1989, 86.

42 Supra text at nn 16-18.

43 Supra text at n 28.

44 See, for example, Finch v Goldstein (1981) 36 ALR 287 (which resulted in long-needed reform of the procedures adopted by Public Service Promotions Appeal Committees so that they conformed to the requirements of natural justice).