Administrative Law: the past, the present, and the future

I. THE INTRODUCTION OF ADMINITRATIVE LAW IN AUSTRALIA

The establishment of administrative law in Australia was primarily influenced by legal developments in the area of government decision-making in the United Kingdom and the United States1. Administrative law largely developed as a result of growing concern regarding bureaucratic decision-making in the 1960s2. Similar to the droit administratif3 in France, Administrative law in Australia was established under no set doctrine or principles4. Consequently, administrative law as it existed then, was ineffective in controlling government decision-making and providing citizens with the right to have matters reassessed in cases where natural justice had failed5. Legal academics argue that the non-structured approach to administrative law was partly influenced by A. V. Dicey, who argued that there should be no separate system of administrative law, but rather, that administrative law should simply become part of the courts general jurisdiction; not independent from any other branch of law6. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw fundamental reforms at the Commonwealth level, arising out of 3 influential reports, each containing a comprehensive review of administrative law and a number of recommendations aimed at improving administrative law in Australia7.

Robin Creyke, Administrative Justice- Towards Integrity in Government (2007) 31(3) Melbourne University Law Review 705 2 Ibid. 3 The French equivalent of Administrative Law 4 Robin Creyke, Administrative Justice- Towards Integrity in Government (2007) 31(3) Melbourne University Law Review 712 5 Ibid. 6 Matthew Gorves, Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Australian Administrative Law (2008) Melbourne University Law Review, 470 7 Sabino Cassese, Administrative law without the state? The challenge of global regulation (1982) 37 The Journal of International and Political Law 650, 663
1

The Kerr, Bland and Ellicott reports resulted in a fundamental restructuring of administrative review at the Commonwealth level8. Not surprisingly, a number of those recommendations provided in the three reviews have now been entrenched into Australias system of administrative law; assisting administrative tribunals in coping with added pressures and constraints9. Moving forward to the twentieth century, administrative law has seen a huge growth in the size and complexity of the Administrative state and, at the same time, the degree of government decision-making10. As our system of government has evolved, citizens have also come to expect that they are entitled, as part of their birthright, to request an independent and impartial review of most, if not all such decisions that directly affect their personal, financial and proprietary interests, unless there are good reasons in public policy to the contrary11. Without a doubt, administrative law has developed considerably since its introduction as part of Australias legal system and continues to grow as government and government decision-making increases and expands into a variety of areas affecting Australia citizens12.

Stephen Willey, The merits of merit-based planning appeals: Observations from Australia (2004) 9(4) Journal of International Planning Studies, 261-281 9 Robin Creyke, Adminiatrive Justice- Towards Integrity in Government (2007) 31(3) Melbourne University Law Review 712 10 John Willis, Three Approaches to Administrative Law: The Judicial, the Conceptual, and the Function (2001) 1(1) The University of Toronto Law Journal 53-81 11 H. W. Arthurs, Rethinking Administrative Law: A Slightly Dicey Business (1979) 17(1) OsGoode Hall Law Journal, 37 12 Ibid.
8

II. THE IMPORTANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW a. Good governance, natural justice, and administrative fairness Administrative law as a system of good governance is concerned with the rules and institutions that regulate the exercise of government power, ensuring that all government decisions are consistent with the legal philosophy of natural justice and administrative fairness13. Essentially, access to review of government decisions is a key component of access to justice14. Rose Verspaandonk, a notable contributor on the issue of public service accountability, held that the following could be said to be manifestations of good governance and administrative review; (a) Accountability; (b) Democracy; (c) Efficient and effective administration and program delivery; (d) Equal rights of all citizens; (e) Ethical use of public resources and authority; (f) Individual liberty; (g) Participation; (h) Rule of law; and (i) Transparency15 The three arms of government, the executive, the parliament and the judiciary are, in different ways, guided by such principles, reflecting the importance of administrative review to the government politic and government administration16.

Margaret Allars One small step for legal doctrine, one giant leap towards integrity in government (1995) 17 Sydney Law Review 204 14 Francisco Esparrage, and Ian Ellis-Jones, Administrative law Guidebook (1st ed, 2011) 4 15 Rose Verspaandonk Changes in the Australian Public Service 1975 -2000 (1st ed, 2000) 16 16 John Willis, Three approaches to Administrative Law: The Judicial, the Conceptual, and the Function (2001) 1(1) The University of Toronto Law Journal 53-81
13

III.

THE APPLICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN AUSTRALIA

Administrative law offers accountability mechanisms that apply to government decision-making about individual matters, including: Merits Review- by government agencies and by tribunals; Investigations- by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner; Internal agency practices- including codes and alternative dispute resolution; and Judicial review- conducted by the federal courts17 a. Administrative law- tribunals Tribunals are defined as bodies outside the hierarchy of the courts with administrative or judicial functions18. Administrative tribunals primarily resolve disputes between a citizen or group of citizens and an officer of a government agency or between individuals in an area of law in which government have legislated the conduct of their relations19. Administrative tribunals are a distinctive institution of the Australian legal system20. Neither court nor government department, the administrative tribunal is a servant of the legislature itself- a creature of statute whose fundamental purpose is to take various actions or decisions, usually at arms length from government and with less formality than courts, and always with utmost fidelity to the policy of the statute21.

Francisco Esparrage, and Ian Ellis-Jones, Administrative law Guidebook (1st ed, 2011) 4 Warren Pillsbury, Administrative Tribunals (1923) 36(4) Harvard Law Review, 405-425 19 Arthur Vanderbilt, The place of the Administrative Tribunal in our Legal System (1939) 24 American Bar Society, 267 20 Richard Mulgan, Comparing accountability in the public and private sector (2002) 59(1) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 87-97 21 Ibid.
17 18

There will inevitably be interested parties, which are adversely affected by government decisions enforced through administrative tribunals22. While most decisions are undertaken using proper guidance and correct systems of procedure, there are times where decision-makers may come to a conclusion, which is neither in the best interest of the applicant or where the principles of natural justice simply have not been taken into account23. In the Bell Canada case24, the court discussed the functions of administrative tribunals, as they function in Australia. The court emphasized that; A tribunal may have a number of different functions, one of which is to conduct fair and impartial hearings in a manner similar to that of the courts, and yet another of which is to see that certain government polices are furthered. In ascertaining the content of the requirements of procedural fairness that bind a particular tribunal, consideration must be given to all of the functions of that tribunal. 25 Accordingly, administrative tribunals fulfill an increasingly important and valuable role among the Australian public. Since the establishment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1975, their scope has developed to such an extent that the Australian tribunal system now has arguably the widest power of any tribunal system in the world26.

Richard Mulgan, Comparing accountability in the public and private sector (2002) 59(1) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 87-97 23 Ibid. 24 Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884, 2003 SCC 36 25 Ibid. 26 The Hon. Justice Garry Downes AM Tribunals in Australia: Their Roles and Responsibilities (2004) 84 Australian Law Reform Commissions Journal Reform, 7-8
22

b. Merits Review Merits review, also known as a de novo appeal, is a form of review that considers all the evidence about the merits of a decision and decides whether or nor a correct and preferable decision should be made27. In other words, the tribunal puts itself in the shoes of the original decision-maker and considers all the evidence from a fresh perspective28. The Commonwealth Administrative Tribunals, along with many state tribunals are considered merits review tribunals29 and as such, have the power to affirm the primary decision, vary it, set it aside and substitute a new decision, or remit (return) the matter to the original decision maker with recommendations30. The function of merits review has increasingly gained popularity over the last few years, primarily due to the fact that increased government decision-making has meant that a wider selection of the Australian community are now governed by the decisions of government and as such, require an independent consideration of their merits; a function which distinguishes tribunals from courts31. Consequently, once the advantages of tribunals had been demonstrated in one area of public decisionmaking, their suitability in many others seems to have been assumed, thereby perpetuating the growth and reform of administrative tribunals32.

Roger Douglas, Administrative Law (2004) 3(4) La Trobe University Law Journal, 35 James Spigelman, The Integrity Branch of Government (2004) 78(11) Australian Law Journal, 724 29 Ibid. 30 Stephen Willey, The merits of merit-based planning appeals: Observations from Australia (2004) 9(4) Journal of International Planning Studies, 261-281 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.
27 28

IV.

INCREASED GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING

The first major development in administrative tribunals in Australia took place after the Second World War in response to increased government decisionmaking, which had proven successful during World War II33. As the scope of state and federal decision-making gradually expanded to cover a range of economic and social matters, so did the way tribunals coped with such growth of Australian Law34. In recent times, there has been a shift of real power from the legislature to the executive, whose various tasks are increasingly undertaken by government department and other authorities35. Largely due to the conferment of broad discretionary powers upon members of the executive and public servants and the rapid increase of state powers, administrative tribunals have experienced advancements in procedural techniques, along with changes in the way tribunals are run and the roles and responsibilities which Administrative law played in the Australia legal system36. Tribunals have been established to perform a range of determinative functions including matters as diverse as reviews of administrative decisions of Government, licensing and planning matters, decisions affect the liberty, care and treatment of individuals, veterans entitlements, industry regulation and accreditation, allocation of benefits and professional discipline matters37.

Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch, and Richard Stewart, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law (2005) 68(4) Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, 16-61 34 Administrative Law in Britain 35 Francisco Esparrage, and Ian Ellis-Jones, Administrative law Guidebook (1st ed, 2011) 5 36 Susan Rose-Ackerman, and Peter Lindseth, Comparative Administrative Law (6th Ed, 2010) 390 37 Robin Creyke, Tribunals in the Common Law World (1st Ed. 2008) 214
33

a. Population Growth in Australia Australias estimated resident population (ERP) reached 22.7 million at 30 June 2012, increasing by 359,600 people or 1.6% since 30 June 201138. Furthermore, all states and territories experienced population growth between 2011 and 2012, with the largest increase in Australias three most populous states; Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales. In response to Australias steady growth in population, the government, along with its functions have increased to deal with the needs and demands of the Australian community39. The growth in Australias population has inevitably influenced the extent to which the government controls the activities of the Australian community in a number of ways, including an increase in government decision-making40. As a result of Australias changing population, more people than ever are now affected by the governments decision-making processes41. Consequently, tribunals are now facing added pressures, which were initially experienced by the courts in the 1960s42. Accordingly, the government has implemented a number of changes within the area of administrative law, in particular, administrative tribunals, which have changed and developed over the years to deal with the constraints and limitations that the increasing population has placed on administrative law43.

ABS, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2011-12 (2013) Australias Bureau of Statistics <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~201112~Main+Features~Main+ Features?OpenDocument> at 19 May 2013 39 Tim Coulson, G eorgina Mace, Elodie Hudson, and Hugh Possingham, the use and abuse of population viability analysis (2001) 16(5) Trends in Ecology & Evaluation, 219-221 40 Ibid. 41 Colin Yates, and Linda Broadhurst, Assessing limitations on population growth (2002) 108(1) Journal of Biological Conservation, 13-26 42 ibid. 43 ibid.
38

b. The Kerr, Bland, and Ellicott Committee In 1971, The report of the Commonwealth administrative Review Committee, also known as the Kerr Committee was established to assess the state of administrative law as it operated in Australia, and make recommendations aiming to improve the area of administrative law, thereby reasserting transparency and accountability within government departments44. The Report established a number of recommendations; including; The need for a more comprehensive and balanced decision making process; The need for the existence of some mechanisms to enable citizens to obtain information (not only information regarding government decisions, but also information regarding citizens); and The need to ensure that there was continuous oversight, with further recommendations for an administrative review body (Administrative Review council)45

John Goldring, The Foundations of the New Administrative Law in Australia (2008) 4(2) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79-82 45 Ibid.
44

Two further reviews were conducted into the framework administrative review46. The Bland Committees primary recommendation dealt with the establishment of an ombudsmans office; currently reflected in the function of the Australia Ombudsman, the strength of which lies in the independence and impartiality of his investigations47. In addition to the bland Committees report, the Ellicott Committee dealt with the right of legitimate complaint, recommending that the Government should adopt the Kerr Committees judicial review proposals, including that the government should appoint a general counsel for grievances of an Ombudsman, primarily reflected through the independence of administrative tribunals and the rights held by citizen to have their matter reconsidered by administrative tribunals on the merits48. In 1973, the Kerr, Bland, and Ellicott Committees had planned for a brand new system of administrative law49. The reports were all of a similar view in regards to the access of information from government officials, in particular, the right to request the reasons for government decision affecting an individual, which the three committees considered to be stunting the growth of administrative law50. Some time after the completion of the three review committees, the elements of the three committees were committed primarily through three pieces of legislation, including: The AAT Act 1975 (Cth); The Ombudsman Act 1986 (Cth); and The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Ibid. David Mullan, Reform of Administrative Law Remedies- method or Madness (1975) 6 Federal Law Review, 340 48 John Goldring, The Foundations of the New Administrative Law in Australia (2008) 4(2) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79-82 49 Peter Durack, A Victory for the Rule of Law (1995) 20 Alternative Law Journal, 220 50 Ibid.
46 47

These three pieces of legislation reinforced the rights of all affected parties to obtain a statement of reasons as to the decisions of government officials51. Consequently, specialist tribunals and investigative bodies were established in Australia to deal with the changes in government decision-making, resulting in the increase of cases made to administrative tribunals52. Additionally, the 1980s reform agenda broadened quickly to incorporate an additional premise for government accountability to citizen, including public disclosure of government documents and the control of government information handling53. That broader theme was implemented by the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act54 and the Privacy Act55. Thus, increased government decision-making has significantly influenced the development of administrative tribunals, reflected in the exponential growth of legislation conferring jurisdiction on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as a means of assessing administration decisions56. V. CHANGES TO THE FRAMEWORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS- RECENT DEVELOPMENTS a. General Jurisdiction Tribunals One of the interesting public policy developments accompanying the increase in government decision-making is an obvious trend favoring the establishment of the generalist or overarching tribunals, bringing together in a single tribunal the functions of the many smaller specialist administrative tribunals57.

Roger Douglas, Administrative Law (2004) 3(4) La Trobe University Law Journal, 35 Ibid. 53 Peter Wilenski, Administrative Reform- General Principles and the Australian Experience (2007) 64(3) Public Administration, 257 54 1982 (Cth) 55 1988 (Cth). 56 Peter Wilenski, Administrative Reform- General Principles and the Australian Experience (2007) 64(3) Public Administration, 257 57 Brian Jinks, The New Administrative Law: some assumptions and questions (2008) 41(3) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 209-218
51 52

The reasons favoring the generalist tribunal are partly conceptual, the belief by all concerned that decision-making will be improved, and partly efficiencyrelated; both in the sense that decisions can be made efficiently and at a reduced cost58. The success of tribunals with general jurisdiction was initially evidence in the success of the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1984 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 199859. The impetus for further changes to the reduction of specialist administrative tribunals and the establishment of general jurisdiction tribunals has reached the point again in Australia that a combined review/ claims tribunal has recently been established in Western Australia with a further expected in Queensland60. The establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in Western Australia may be traced directly to the Franks Committee Report and the expanded vision of those recommendations subsequently conveyed by the Kerr Report61. Additionally, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (WALRC) concluded that arrangements concerning administrative appeals in Western Australia during the 20th century were the result of ad hoc legislation over a long period of time without an overall plan due to a sudden expansion of government decision-making and State legislation62. Accordingly, the SAT is intended to have a jurisdiction that will result in it exercising an original decision-making function in a number of specialist decision-making areas, providing a cohesive and well-structured framework for the growth and future development of administrative law63.

Ibid. Ibid. 60 Susan Thompson, and Paul Maginn, An overview of urban and regional planning (2nd Ed, 2012) 223 61 Ibid. 62 Brian Jinks, The New Administrative Law: some assumptions and questions (2008) 41(3) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 209-218 63 Ibid.
58 59

In 1992, the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters was undertaken64. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations designed to secure and improve open government, as well as accountability and integrity in government65. General jurisdiction tribunals were thought to be better equipped with resources to deal with policyoriented review and government decision-making than the courts66. The commissions final recommendations was intended to overcome the increasing pressure that had previously been placed on courts and lesser tribunals, equipping a central administrative body with the resources to handle the growth of government decision-making and state powers concerning citizens67. b. Alternative Dispute Resolution Active case management within direction hearings and case management conferences, provide an initial opportunity for tribunals to facilitate the resolution of administrative disputes68. Academics suggest that the prospects of a successful resolution of a dispute through case management will be enhanced if the presiding members have knowledge and experience of the issue in dispute, as well as being trained in ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) techniques69. Arguably, the use of ADR within the functions of administrative tribunals has lead to more cost effective and efficient means of decision-making, subsequently lessening the strain on traditional tribunal processes and improving the functioning of both Commonwealth and state administrative tribunals70.

Justice Michael Barker, The emergence of the administrative tribunal in Australia and New Zealand (Paper presented at the 8th annual AIJA Tribunals Conference, Sydney, 9-10 June 2005) 48 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid.
64

Sai-On Cheung, Critical factors affecting the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in construction (1999) 17(3) International Journal of Project Management, 189-194 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid.
68

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Act71 expanded the scope of ADR processes available to the Tribunal in the following major ways: Section 3(1) defines alternative dispute resolution as including: a. Conferencing; and b. Mediation; and c. Neutral evaluation; and d. Case appraisal; and e. Conciliation; and f. Procedures or services specified in the regulations Section 34A(1) authorizes the President to direct that a proceeding, or any part of a proceeding, be referred for a particular ADR process (including conferencing). Section 34B authorizes that Tribunal to direct that a Small Claims Taxation Tribunal matter be referred to an ADR process and that the parties must act in good faith. The success of the introduction and expansion of ADR as part of the administrative tribunals case management process, is reflected in the fact that, most cases filed in tribunals are resolved by means other than a formal ruling of the tribunal that is made following an adjudication or hearing72. Indeed, in the Commonwealth AAT, over 80 per cent of cases are resolved without the need for a formal contested hearing73. Advances in ADR within the area of administrative law have led to a shift in matters being dealt with outside the functions and domain of tribunals74.

2005 (Cth) Richard Mulgan, Comparing Accountability in the Public and Private Sector (2002) 59(1) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 87 73 Robin Creyke, and John McMillan, Control of Government Action: Text, Cases & Commentary (3rd Ed, 2012) 191 74 Ibid.
71 72

The increase in government decision-making has undoubtedly placed a considerable amount of pressure on tribunals in that, tribunals were originally established to ease the pressures that the courts were originally experiencing due to the growth of decision-making by the government75. Consequently, the increased importance on the ADR process as part of a tribunals role and function has effectively, shifted increasing pressure off tribunals and onto alternative mechanisms, which are often more adequately resourced to deal with such matters, thereby, improving the efficiency of under resourced tribunals and increasing the resources available to citizens who may seek a review of government decision-making76. c. Referral of certain matters back to courts More recently, the Court and Tribunal Legislation Amendment (Administration) Bill77 was introduced into Federal Parliament in December 2012. One of the many amendments, which form part of the Bill, is the amendment of the Native Title Act78 79. The Bill has the effect of facilitating the transfer of the National Native Title Tribunals appropriations, staff and some of its administrative functions to the Federal Court of Australia80. Furthermore, the Bill aims to improve the operation of the native title system by enabling the National Native Title Tribunal and Federal Court of Australia to work together in a more coordinated and efficient manner, aiming to achieve better outcomes and decision-making processes for citizens81. Schedule 1 of the Bill82 provides that the amendment was introduced in response to the extensive backlog of outstanding native title claims for the benefit of all stakeholders83.

Ibid. Ibid. 77 2012 (Cth) 78 1993 (Cth) 79 Court and Tribunal Legislation Amendment (Administration) Bill 2012 (Cth) 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Entitled: Amendments for the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia 83 Court and Tribunal Legislation Amendment (Administration) Bill 2012 (Cth), Schedule 1
75 76

Accordingly, the Bill reflects the legislatures acknowledgment of the exponential growth of administrative law in Australia, and through this Bill, the National Native Title Tribunal has been restructured in order to cope the growth of administrative law and subsequently, the growth of government decisionmaking84. While amendments of this nature is yet to be fully enforced and measured as to its effectiveness and efficiency, amendments of this nature provide a valuable solution to the constraints that currently complicate the function administrative tribunals85. However, the proliferation of tribunals undertaking radical changes of this sort also has its disadvantages. Firstly, a majority of tribunals, which exist today, were originally established to ease the pressures and constraints on the courts, primarily caused by the growth of administrative law in the 1960s.86. Logically, increasing the functions and involvement of courts into administrative law may re-create the difficulties which courts had original encountered, ultimately shifting the difficulties facing tribunals back to the courts and proliferating the difficulties which tribunals are currently facing87. A further disadvantage in shifting jurisdiction back to the courts is that, tribunals are often equipped with legal professionals and industry officers who have a background in that particular area of decision-making88. In contrast, courts solely rely on trained legal professionals to assess facts in accordance with Australian statute and common law and arrive at a judgment based on the law89.

Court and Tribunal Legislation Amendment (Administration) Bill 2012 (Cth), Schedule 1 Yee-Fui Ng, Tribunal Independence in an Age of Migration Control (2012) 19(4) Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 203-225 86 John Willis, Three approaches to Administrative Law: The Judicial, the Conceptual, and the Function (2001) 1(1) The University of Toronto Law Journal 53-81 87 Yee-Fui Ng, Tribunal Independence in an Age of Migration Control (2012) 19(4) Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 203-225 88 Ibid. 89 William Wade, and Christopher Forsyth, Administrative Law (1st Ed, 1977) 653
84 85

Professor Wade, in the fourth edition of his text Administrative Law, published in 1977, highlighted the ability of administrative tribunals to deal with questions of commercial policy rather than law, which were unsuitable for the ordinary courts90. Undoubtedly, there still remains a distinct benefit in the use of tribunals over the jurisdiction of courts, which had been initially realised during the expansion of administrative law in the 1960s91. Accordingly, while there are significant advantages for tribunals in shifting certain matters back to the courts, the effect of such changes and fundamental restructuring of tribunals in this manner may results in severe under resourcing of the Australian courts and the potential for oversight by professionals who lack the knowledge and experience which tribunal officers often possess92. VI. CONCLUSION

Administrative law is a distinct legal doctrine, different to any other aspect of Australias legal jurisprudence93. By its very nature, administrative law combines the judicial principles of law along with the concept of merits review; a concept distinct to the function of tribunals94. However, with the exponential growth of government decision-making in a range of public areas concerning the welfare and rights of individuals, increased pressure has of late, burdened tribunals, requiring tribunals to adopt new and improved methods to the traditional jurisdiction and role of administrative tribunals95. Australian tribunals have coped with the exponential growth of Government decision-making in three intuitive ways including, the creation of general jurisdiction tribunals, the emphasis on ADR procedures, and the adjustment of the Federal Court of Australia, enabling the courts to undertake matters which had previously been assigned to the jurisdiction of tribunals.

Ibid. Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Nico Krisch, The pluralism of Global Administrative Law (2006) 17(1) The European Journal of International Law, 247-278 94 Ibid. 95 Arthur Vanderbilt, The place of the Administrative Tribunal in our Legal System (1939) 24 American Bar Society, 267
90 91

Undoubtedly, administrative law has undertaken significant changes since its establishment as a distinct area of Australian law. However, like most areas of law, administrative law will continue to grow exponentially in light of an increasing population, increasing powers held by government powers, and increasing awareness of individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, while administrative tribunals have so far coped with the exponential growth of Government decision-making, it is crucial to the continual growth of Australian Administrative Law that further changes and developments are undertaken by administrative tribunals to cope with further growth in Australian administrative Law96

Richard Mulgan, Comparing accountability in the public and private sector (2002) 59(1) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 87-97
96

Bibliography
Articles/ Books/ Reports/ Online resources ABS, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2011-12 (2013) Australias Bureau of Statistics <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~201112~Main+ Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument> at 19 May 2013 Allars, Margaret One small step for legal doctrine, one giant leap towards integrity in government (1995) 17 Sydney Law Review 204 Arthurs, H, Rethinking Administrative Law: A Slightly Dicey Business (1979) 17(1) OsGoode Hall Law Journal, 37 Barker, Justice Michael, The emergence of the administrative tribunal in Australia and New Zealand (Paper presented at the 8th annual AIJA Tribunals Conference, Sydney, 9-10 June 2005) 48 Cassese, Sabino, Administrative law without the state? The challenge of global regulation (1982) 37 The Journal of International and Political Law 650, 663 Cheung, Sai-On, Critical factors affecting the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in construction (1999) 17(3) International Journal of Project Management, 189-194 Coulson, Tim, Georgina Mace, Elodie Hudson, and Hugh Possingham, the use and abuse of population viability analysis (2001) 16(5) Trends in Ecology & Evaluation, 219-221 Creyke, Robin, Administrative Justice- Towards Integrity in Government (2007) 31(3) Melbourne University Law Review 705

Creyke, Robin, and John McMillan, Control of Government Action: Text, Cases & Commentary (3rd Ed, 2012) 191 Creyke, Robin, Tribunals in the Common Law World (1st Ed. 2008) 214 Downes, The Hon. Justice Garry Tribunals in Australia: Their Roles and Responsibilities (2004) 84 Australian Law Reform Commissions Journal Reform, 7-8 Douglas, Roger, Administrative Law (2004) 3(4) La Trobe University Law Journal, 35 Durack, Peter, A Victory for the Rule of Law (1995) 20 Alternative Law Journal, 220 Esparrage, Francisco, and Ian Ellis-Jones, Administrative law Guidebook (1st ed, 2011) 4-5 Goldring, John, The Foundations of the New Administrative Law in Australia (2008) 4(2) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79-82 Gorves, Matthew, Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Australian Administrative Law (2008) Melbourne University Law Review, 470 Jinks, Brian, The New Administrative Law: some assumptions and questions (2008) 41(3) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 209-218 Kingsbury, Benedict, Nico Krisch, and Richard Stewart, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law (2005) 68(4) Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, 16-61 Krisch, Nico, The pluralism of Global Administrative Law (2006) 17(1) The European Journal of International Law, 247-278

Mulgan, Richard, Comparing accountability in the public and private sector (2002) 59(1) Australian Journal of Public Administration, 87-97 Mullan, David, Reform of Administrative Law Remedies- method or Madness (1975) 6 Federal Law Review, 340 Ng, Yee-Fui, Tribunal Independence in an Age of Migration Control (2012) 19(4) Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 203-225 Pillsbury, Warren, Administrative Tribunals (1923) 36(4) Harvard Law Review, 405-425 Rose-Ackerman, Susan, and Peter Lindseth, Comparative Administrative Law (6th Ed, 2010) 390 Spigelman, James, The Integrity Branch of Government (2004) 78(11) Australian Law Journal, 724 Thompson, Susan, and Paul Maginn, An overview of urban and regional planning (2nd Ed, 2012) 223 Vanderbilt, Arthur, The place of the Administrative Tribunal in our Legal System (1939) 24 American Bar Society, 267 Verspaandonk, Rose Changes in the Australian Public Service 1975-2000 (1st ed, 2000) 16 Wade, William, and Christopher Forsyth, Administrative Law (1st Ed, 1977) 653 Wilenski, Peter, Administrative Reform- General Principles and the Australian Experience (2007) 64(3) Public Administration, 257

Willey, Stephen, The merits of merit-based planning appeals: Observations from Australia (2004) 9(4) Journal of International Planning Studies, 261-281 Willis, John, Three Approaches to Administrative Law: The Judicial, the Conceptual, and the Function (2001) 1(1) The University of Toronto Law Journal 53-81 Yates, Colin, and Linda Broadhurst, Assessing limitations on population growth (2002) 108(1) Journal of Biological Conservation, 13-26 Legislation AAT Act 1975 (Cth) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Court and Tribunal Legislation Amendment (Administration) Bill 2012 (Cth) Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Ombudsman Act 1986 (Cth) Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Case law Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884, 2003 SCC 36