*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Administrative Law (Volume 24 Part 1) contains the following material:
- Farewell to General Editor Damien Cremean
- Current issues
CURRENT ISSUES – Justin Davidson, Katie Miller and Stephen Tully
- Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZTZI
- AS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Ruling No 4)
This article examines the discretionary decision-making power of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, focusing on Downes J’s proposal that community values should guide these decisions. It is contended that community values are an inappropriate guide as their existence is questionable and their use is fraught with problems.
The Function of s 75(v) of the Constitution – Lindsay Muir
It is settled that Parliament cannot formally deny the High Court its jurisdiction to review for jurisdictional error under s 75(v) of the Constitution. However, it remains unclear the extent to which Parliament can functionally reduce the scope of this jurisdiction through no-invalidity clauses or other drafting mechanisms. This article argues that a “thin” version of the rule of law, namely non-arbitrary government, would provide the least controversial, and therefore the most robust, foundation to define the boundaries of the High Court’s jurisdiction under s 75(v). This is because the proposition that s 75(v) entrenches the value of non-arbitrary government is consistent with most approaches to constitutional interpretation. This article also recognises how a number of entrenched common law concepts will limit the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under s 75(v) but demonstrates how the value of non-arbitrary government can be reconciled with these limits via a rule versus standard analysis.
Australian Ombudsmen: Drafting a Blueprint for Reform – Anita Stuhmcke
The ombudsman institution was introduced across all Australian jurisdictions from the 1970s as a central piece of administrative law reform. The original role of the office was to scrutinise administrative decision making and to promote government accountability through the resolution of citizen complaints. However, since the 1970s all Australian governments have undergone significant change. Government has expanded involvement into areas such as whistle blower and disability protection and human rights. Government also increasingly outsources decision-making to private companies, leading to the introduction of private industry ombudsmen and the removal of control from the purview of administrative law transparency mechanisms. This article argues that this transformation necessitates discussion as to reform of the ombudsman institution and suggests a new blueprint for such reform.
BOOK REVIEWS – Janina Boughey
- Soft Law and Public Authorities: Remedies and Reform by Greg Weeks – reviewed by Robin Creyke
- Leading Cases in Australian Law: A Guide to the 200 Most Frequently Cited Judgments by Daniel Reynolds and Lyndon Goddard – reviewed by Greg Weeks
- Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison by Peter Cane – reviewed by Janina Boughey
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AJ Admin L Vol 24 No 1 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.