The Administrative Review Council recommends legislative change to turn back the tide of section 39B actions.

Parliament house flag post

The Administrative Review Council recommends legislative change to turn back the tide of section 39B actions.

Posted 10/10/2012 by Monica Biddington

The Administrative Review Council (the ARC) is established to ‘ensure that the administrative decision-making processes of the Commonwealth Government are correct according to law and accord with administrative law values, by working with all relevant interests — political, bureaucratic and community based’.
On 24 September 2012, the ARC launched its 50th report, Federal Judicial Review in Australia.

Judicial review provides an important avenue of appeal for those affected by government decision making. It is a central feature of Australia's administrative law system. There are a number of ways a party might challenge a government decision; namely, under section 75(v) of the Constitution, section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act). The ARC undertook an inquiry of its own motion in accordance with its statutory functions under section 51 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Wide consultation in 2011 led the ARC to make two key conclusions about federal judicial review in Australia:

  1.  It is undesirable that there is a different ambit for ‘constitutional review’ under the Constitution and the Judiciary Act and ‘statutory judicial review’ under the ADJR Act.
  2.  The ADJR Act continues to play an important role by improving the accessibility of judicial review, as a clear statement of the Parliament’s commitment to be legally accountable for its decisions by guiding administrative decision makers.
The Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan AO, who is a member of the ARC, says that the ADJR Act has been overtaken by section 39B applications and the ARC seeks to restore the ADJR Act as a pillar of judicial review. The Report notes that ‘unless some legislative adjustment is made to the Federal Court’s jurisdiction, the likely result in the Council’s view is that the ADJR Act will dwindle in importance and become marginalised.’ This is because there are fewer limitations on the right to commence proceedings under section 39B of the Judiciary Act than under the ADJR Act. The ARC also notes that experienced practitioners use the section 39B action as a matter of convenience, particularly regarding decisions under the Migration Act 1958, where the principles of judicial review are applied by the High Court, Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court (soon to be renamed the Federal Circuit Court).
Key recommendations of the ARC include that:

  • a new section be added to the ADJR Act to allow an application to be made under the ADJR Act where a person would otherwise be able to initiate proceedings in the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution.
  • there should be another schedule added to the ADJR Act, which can be amended by regulation, which should list other reports and recommendations that are decisions to which the Act applies.
  • decisions to commence civil penalty proceedings should be exempt from the ADJR Act on the basis that judicial review could fragment legal proceedings.
  •  in relation to standing, the ARC considered that the standing of representative organisations is unclear and so recommended allowing applications for review ‘if the decision relates to a matter included in the objects or purposes of the organisation or association’.
These are significant recommendations to this complex area of law that the Government will consider over the coming months. If the Government was to adopt the recommendations, the administrative law landscape would change markedly but would be more robust, more efficient and procedurally simpler.

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




immigration refugees elections taxation asylum Parliament criminal law election results Australian Bureau of Statistics social security disability citizenship Indigenous Australians political parties United Kingdom UK Parliament Census statistics banking early childhood education Middle East Australian foreign policy OECD Australian Electoral Commission voting mental health Employment military history by-election election timetable China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Productivity Defence income management asylum seekers High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title Senate ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories leadership aid Papua New Guinea emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding Electoral reform politics refugees immigration asylum Canada procurement Australian Public Service firearms Indigenous health constitution High Court e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament women 2015 International Women's Day public policy ABS Population Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade skilled migration Private health insurance Medicare Financial sector EU national security fuel China soft power education violence against women domestic violence Fiji India Disability Support Pension disability employment welfare reform Tasmania Antarctica China Diplomacy Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency Sport ASADA Federal Court WADA ADRV by-elections state and territories terrorism terrorist groups Bills corruption anti-corruption integrity fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform science innovation research and development transport standards Afghanistan Australian Defence Force NATO United States social media Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism higher education Higher Education Loan Program HECS welfare policy pensions social services welfare ASIO Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Australian Secret Intelligence Service intelligence community Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 sexual abuse online grooming sexual assault of minors labour force workers

Show all
Show less
Back to top