Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T07:17:26.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsible Government and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

John Goldring
John Goldring*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comments
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 90 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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.)

Footnotes

The author acknowledges the inspiration for this comment provided by Mr Ernst Willheim of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department.

References

1 I have considered the so-called constitutional requirement for “responsible government” in “Accountability of Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and 'Responsible Government"' (1980) 11 FL Rev 353, 353-354, 361-367. This particular point is discussed at 366-367.

2 Re Becker and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 15 ALR 696; 1 ALO 158; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577; 2 ALD 60; Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALO 634; Nevistic v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981)34 ALR 639; Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 35 ALR 186; Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598. See generally Kirby, M D, “Administrative Review on the Merits: the Right or Preferable Decision” (1979-1980) 6 Mon UL Rev 171.Google Scholar

3 Eg Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1981) 36 ALR 561, 564. See Kirby, MD, “Administrative Review: Beyond the Frontier marked 'Policy-Lawyers Keep Out'” (1981) 12 FL Rev 121.Google Scholar

4 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577; 2 ALO 60.

5 Above n 2; also Re Gungor and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 3 ALO 225.

6 See Goldring, J, “The Foundations of the 'New Administrative Law' in Australia” (1981) 40 Australian Journal of Public Administration 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 In the article on statutory authorities, above n 1, I noted that while some statutory authorities were similarly vested with executive power but did not fall within Chapter II of the Constitution, the High Court has not found it necessary to decide whether the ministerial department is constitutionally the only possible structure for the executive branch of government. No doubt the practical consequences of a decision that a statutory authority was not constitutionally permitted would, at least implicitly, influence the court.

8 In Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, 87, Murphy J said, “It is not for the officer to distinguish between 'government policy' and the Minister's policy”.

9 Above n 2, n 5.

10 Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634,642.