指导
网站地图
英国essay 澳洲essay 美国essay 加拿大essay MBA Essay Essay格式范文
返回首页

澳洲essay参考案例:Issues in Australian Administrative Law

论文价格: 免费 时间:2022-02-18 14:32:21 来源:www.ukassignment.org 作者:留学作业网

本文是法律专业的澳洲essay范例,题目是“Issues in Australian Administrative Law澳大利亚行政法问题”,有人说,澳大利亚行政法律体系过于复杂,这让任何普通观察者都感到困惑,体系中涉及的实体太多,如果少一些,情况会更好。

It has been said of the Australian administrative law system that ‘it suffers from an over complexity, which makes the system confusing to any ordinary observer … There are too many entities involved in the system, and we would be better off with less of them.’

Do you agree? Which of the administrative law remedies or institutions do you consider to be essential and why?

你同意吗?你认为哪些行政法律救济或机构是必不可少的,为什么?

澳洲essay参考案例

Administrative law in Australia is complex and might be confusing to the ordinary observer, but so are the government and the laws they seek to regulate. It has been said (by an unknown author) that there are too many entities involved in the system and we would be better off with less of them. This paper will argue that most of the entities in the system have been created in response to changes in the government and public expectation of the individual to be protected from government decisions and in doing so have formed an administrative law revolution. The essential administrative law remedies that this paper considers essential are; the judicial, the tribunal, the ombudsman, and the CDDA. The reasoning as to why these institutions and remedies are essential will be discussed using John McMillan’s paper Ten challenges for Administrative law, Cryke and Groves and Weeks. In doing this it will be discovered that there are deficiencies in all administrative law institutions and remedies but that when considered they are mostly effective in dealing with the government and the individual.  

澳大利亚的行政法很复杂,可能会让普通的观察者感到困惑,但是政府和他们试图规范的法律也是如此。(一位不知名的作者)曾说过,系统中涉及的实体太多了,少一些实体会更好。本文认为,该制度中的大多数实体是根据政府的变化和公众希望个人受到政府决策保护的期望而创建的,并由此形成了一场行政法革命。本文认为必要的行政法救济有:司法机构、法庭、监察员和CDDA。关于为什么这些机构和补救措施是必要的理由,将使用John McMillan的论文《行政法的十项挑战》(Cryke and Groves and Weeks)进行讨论。在这样做时,将发现所有行政法律机构和补救办法都有缺陷,但当考虑到它们在处理政府和个人时大多有效。

John Mc Millan identifies ten challenges to administrative law. His first challenges addresses challenge addresses the complexity of administrative law remedies and institutions that individuals have to manage when dealing with the government. McMillian lists independent agencies[1] created by statute to oversee decisions and actions of executive agencies. He argues that most of these agencies have been created in response to changes in the government and in public expectations. He notes that it is conventional to classify these agencies as executive agencies[2] and that these executive agencies are non-traditional in the implementation of policies and programs of the government. Within this McMillian argues that these executive agencies are a fourth branch of government- “the oversight, review and integrity branch” and that acknowledgment of this would “enhance” administrative justice. [3] It would enhance administrative justice to readjust our constitutional theories to take account of this new and effective system for control of government action.[4]

McMillian states that administrative law review works best when a clear decision maker makes a “discrete and challengeable decision” , but that many decisions that are needed to be made are not of this kind because of the community and the way the individual is effected by the government has changed from the birth of administrative law and will continue to change in  a “qualitative and qualifiable” way.  He addresses some of the changes effecting administrative law include the freedom of information act, privacy legislation, creation of a new migration scheme and oversight agencies. But that ombudsmen, tribunals, review by courts and oversight mechanisms are they key stones of administrative law and are still important

Creyke and Groves see the that the creation of agencies have been in response to changes in the government and in public expectations has created an administrative law revolution. While McMillian has argued that these agencies should be a forth branch of government Creyke and Groves focuses is on the states and territories adoption of accountability packages based on the commonwealth for administrative law. This package includes and ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner, anti- discrimination laws. Cryeke and Groves argue that Australia has a “vibrant administrative law’ system that should be valued as the system offers “redress” when an individual has an issue with the government. In summary Australia nationally and in the states and territories has a robust system of administrative law. That system offers redress when citizens complain that their rights and interests have been thwarted by government. But vindication of individual rights is not the only interest being protected.

Administrative justice requires that the courts, tribunals, investigative bodies and ombudsman offices, while administering the values of fairness, rationality, transparency, impartiality and accountability that underpin good administration, also allow for government to operate in an efficient and effective manner.”

Tribunal and Judiciary and alternative dispute resolution法庭和司法机构及其他争端解决办法

The judiciary, tribunal and dispute resolution are essential to administrative law intuitions as they provide a mechanisms or recourse for an individual dealing with the government. Each have their benefits and their limitations, but they do provide recourse for an individual to seek justice against the government.  

司法、法庭和争端解决对行政法直觉来说是必不可少的,因为它们为处理“政府”的个人提供了一种机制或求助。每一种都有他们的好处和他们的限制,但他们确实为个人提供追索对政府的正义。

Tribunal

It is well recognised that for essential effective administration is the ability to have access to the reason for an adverse decision. Cryke and Groves argue that this right is not protected as there is no common law protection but there is legislative protection in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. (AAT). The AAT is outside the main court system and it operates in a court like fashion” but does not exercise judicial power. Cryke and Groves predict that there would be an ” increased convergence of the adjudicative arms of government”  with reforms considering  and encouraging  efficiency and cost to favour “mechanisms for review outside the mainstream court system.” However, the High Court has warned against “transposing the doctrine of public immunity to the AAT. It should also be noted that there is a distinction between state and judicial power. This is significant for tribunals because it will “continue to define what functions may and may not be invested in tribunals.”  In the words of  Gleeson CJ “the development of a strong system of tribunals has complemented the judicial review roles of the courts because it:

… relieves the judicial branch of pressure to expand judicial review beyond its proper constitutional and legal limits. Federal courts can mark out and respect the boundaries of judicial review more easily where there is a satisfactory system of merits review. This has beneficial consequences for the relations between the three branches of government, and relations between the judicial branch and the public”

Judiciary

The judiciary provides  legislative protection and the high court has jurisdiction to grant remedies, and the statutory judicial review scheme (this mostly mirrors the grounds for review and remedies available under the general law of the Constitution. [5]). But there is a limitation to judicial review as its remedy is only procedural in nature. The problem with this is decisions are not decided on their merits but on procedural rules. This becomes important if an individual is seeking judicial recourse against soft law. It becomes unenforceable  under judicial review.  Weeks cites the High Court narrow approach in Tang as an example of soft law not being enforceable by using the rule of improper fettering of discretion: [6] That soft law is intra vires, subject to the prohibition of fettering. And that in this there is a balance that needs to be struck between the merits of the case but no giving the impression of “arbitrariness by allowing different results in cases that are substantially similar.” Weeks then uses Aaronson and Groves to suggest that the rule of fettering be modified to allow for the development of consistent discretionary powers. He concludes this argument by acknowledging while its persuasive it challenges the “judicial review mantra.” But that the prohibition of fettering stops the soft law from being treated the way as hard law in court proceedings and that it us at odds with “like cases” treating “subjects consistently”. Weeks then uses MLC Investments v Commissioner of Taxation to make the argument that failing to adhere to soft law dispensed by a public authority to which a decision maker works to looks arbitrary. And that all is needed to overcome the inability to use soft law is that the decision maker has regards for the merits of an individual case, rather than to apply statutory discretion mechanically. Though he finishes his argument with “ It is unclear exactly how a court would bring about this end.”  Weeks fear of administration law looking arbitrary is at odds with Cryke and Groves prediction that there will be more proportionate dispute resolution.  The effect of this will be to find an appropriate cost-effective solution to resolve a dispute. This could be an investigation, tribunal review, internal, or a negotiated outcome. Section 10(2)(b)(ii) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act already allows for the Federal or magistrates court to not hear a matter if there is a suitable alternative, though it is rarely used. The Access to justice (civil litigation reforms) act 2009 (cth) introduced amendments to clarify that the overreaching purpose of the Federal Court of Australia act 1976 (cth) is to efficiently, quickly, and inexpensively achieve a just resolution of disputes according to law.

澳洲essay写作

Alternative dispute resolution替代性纠纷解决

Cryke and Groves predict that proportionate dispute resolution will see a rise in alternative dispute resolution. In the major jurisdictions model litigant principles require alternative methods of solving disputes be used when possible. This is to solve matters at the earliest possible stage. This can be seen in the AAT offering conferencing, mediation, conciliation, case appraisal and neutral evaluation.  There are some “detractors” that include denial of exposure of error, the making of unlawful decisions, detracts from the normal role of courts and tribunal.

Cryke和Groves预测,比例纠纷解决方案将在替代纠纷解决方案中看到上升。在主要司法管辖区,诉讼原则模式要求在可能的情况下使用其他解决争端的方法。这是为了在尽可能早的阶段解决问题。这体现在AAT提供会议、调解、调解、案件评估和中立评估等方面。有一些“诋毁者”,包括否认暴露错误,做出非法决定,损害法院和法庭的正常作用。

McMillian is on the same page as Cryke and Groves and argues that the if traditional stereotypes of accountability and justice in administrative law are followed in today’s society then administrative justice will be “hampered” . He believes a solution to and a way of “stimulating cultural change” in administrative law is to rethink the constitutional understanding of the role of oversight agencies.

Ombudsman监察专员

It is not just the AAT  or alternative dispute resolution that that provides an alternative to judicial review. The ombudsman provides an avenue of recourse for the individual against the government.

这不仅仅是AAT或替代争议解决,它提供了司法审查的替代方案。司法特派员为个人提供了向政府提出申诉的途径。

The ombudsman is a ‘non-judicial accountability’ body that can be described as an ‘element of the integrity branch of government. It is Swedish in origin but has a strong connection by analogy to the Chinese Civil Service ‘supervising’ branch. The ombudsman preforms integrity functions, as well as dealing with individual complaints.  [7]

McMillian when he outlines five changes that should underpin a new approach to administrative law with a focus on external measures includes the ombudsman recommendations in this new approach  as well as complaint handling, financial remedy and compensation. McMillian seers Complaint handling through ombudsmen and similar oversight agencies  as an efficient, low cost and flexible way to handle problems that involve more than one agency .[8]

McMillian sees the ombudsman as a way of moving forward for administrative law  as there is already a high rate of acceptance of ombudsman recommendations. He sees the advantages of using an ombudsman as providing an avenue of complaint for the individual, as the ombudsman can provide recommendations that are not available through the courts. He sees these recommendations or remedies as providing a better solution to the individual as they can: communicate an explanation to the public effectively, can expedite an application, revise application forms, re write administrative procedures, establish cross handling agency issues. These things provide a practical remedy to the individual and can improve administrative standards to reduce future or the risk of future error.

McMillian The ombudsman unlike the courts who can on deal with issues raised before them can ensure that the agency is taking an appropriate response to a recommendation. Traditional administrative law remedies (a decision is substituted, there is a declaration of the rights of the parties and the law, a direction of an agency to reconsider a matter, an injunction restraining unlawful action/mandatory order for agency to act lawfully. McMillian argues that these remedies can not and are not adequate in dealing with contemporary issues and problems that arise from interactions between the individual and the government. He furthers his argument by acknowledging that sometimes the individual will just need an apology or to expedite an action, all these he sees are encased in the trend of an ombudsman complaint handling.

司法特派员不像法院那样可以处理提交给他们的问题,他可以确保机构对某项建议作出适当的回应。传统的行政法补救方法(替代决定,声明当事人和法律的权利,指示机构重新考虑事项,限制非法行为的禁令/强制机构依法行事的命令)。麦克米伦认为,这些补救办法不能也不足够处理当代的问题和问题,产生于个人和政府之间的互动。他进一步承认,有时个人只需要道歉或加快行动,所有这些都包含在申诉专员处理投诉的趋势中。

McMillian  in doing so discusses the role of the ombudsman and the fact that it is the only administrative law agency that can review decisions made under executive schemes. He argues that this is a concern because of the inability to distinguish the importance and effect of decisions made under executive and statutory scheme. He adds substance to his argument of the complexity of administrative decisions made under the executive by stating that executive decisions may not be well drafted, not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, not available for publication.[9] Finally McMillian sees a real problem in the executive interpreting and applying the rules as this can bring conflict in objectivity of the decision maker. All these factors can make it difficult for the individual and the government to discern the rules derived form the executive, especially if these rules are constantly evolving.

Weeks argues that the practical limitations of the ombudsman does not mean that the office does not investigate thousands of complaints and that for each of these complaints the ombudsman tries to find a remedy. While an ombudsman cannot impose binding declarations on public authorities due to the Constitutional separation of powers this seems to be not an issue. Weeks argues that not being able to provide traditional remedies is no an issues as they are regarded as “ill adapted” to help an individual who needs support from an administrative law point of view. This is because the ombudsman is not restricted to statements of legal right and has more adaptability to help an individual affected by the application of soft law.  While the ombudsman has no coercive powers it is highly persuasive “to obtain remedies, which may include ‘an apology, financial compensation, proper explanation, reconsideration of agency action, and expediting agency action”

CTTA Payments CDDA计划

Weeks argues that the ombudsman can recommend that a public authority financially compensate an individual who has had a loss as a result of “defective administration action” These are legal limits on the ability of the government to remedy injustice but the CDDA Scheme can override this. The CDDA is a ‘is a valuable and important means of securing administrative justice in a complex system’, and is important where an individual has relied on soft law but cannot enforce it.

威克斯认为,监察专员可以建议公共当局对因“有缺陷的行政行为”而遭受损失的个人进行经济补偿。这些是对政府补救不公的能力的法律限制,但CDDA计划可以推翻这一限制。CDDA是“在一个复杂的系统中确保行政公正的一种有价值和重要的手段”,在个人依赖软法律但无法执行它的情况下,它是重要的。

Weeks argues two alternate remedies to judicial review for soft law The ombudsman and payment of ex gratia compensation by the government.

McMillian compensation available through the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA scheme) executive scheme. These decisions are not appealable to the AAT or reviewable under the ADJR Act. The premise of this scheme is government agencies can pay compensation on a discretionary basis to individuals or groups who have suffered loss as a result of poor administration.

McMillian Financial remedies occur when an agency imposes a penalty or raises a debt. The ombudsman has the ability under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 ss 34 and 47 to waive powers conferred by legislation upon agency. This power not only fives the ombudsman the tight to waive a debt but it can allow the ombudsman administer an objective in administrative law to “simulate better decision making beyond the matter under review” . The importance of the ombudsman to simulate decision making is important because an error made in one case is likely to be repeated in other cases. The ombudsman having this power provides a formal mechanism for evaluation and accountability of appropriate changes occurring. A court or tribunal on the other hand can set a precedent but it can only reach that individual in court at the time. The ombudsman can reach all the people effected by a decision that needs reversing.

 McMillian argues that the if traditional stereotypes of accountability and justice in administrative law are followed in todays society then administrative justice will be “hampered” . He believes a solution to and a way of “stimulating cultural change” in administrative law is to rethink the constitutional understanding of the role of oversight agencies.

麦克米伦认为,在当今社会,如果遵循行政法律中问责和正义的传统刻板印象,那么行政正义将受到“阻碍”。他认为,在行政法中“推动文化变革”的一个解决方案和途径,是重新思考宪法对监督机构角色的理解。

[1] auditors-general, ombudsmen, privacy commissioners, human rights and anti-discrimination commissioners, public sector standards commissioners, inspectors-general and corruption commissions

[2] with their function being to oversee and investigate complaints against executive agencies

[3] http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AIAdminLawF/2010/5.pdf 2010

[4] http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/gagelerj/9781107692190extract.pdf

[5] the constitutional writs of mandamus and prohibition and the equitable remedy of injunction, a flexible remedy able to prohibit administrative action where the applicant’s interests are at stake. Also the High Court has jurisdiction ancillary to that granted by s 75(v) of the Constitution to grant the writ of certiorari in order to ensure the effectiveness of the constitutional writs. It also has an inherent power to grant declaratory relief. The availability of one or more of these remedies is generally proved by proving breach of at least one of the set grounds of judicial review.

[6] Traditionally a decision-maker who inflexibly applies rules or policies and does not listen to submissions that an exception be made is committing a jurisdictional error. This is usually justified on the preferability of statutory discretions granted to public decision makers, even by their own decisions, not to be fettered when reaching a decision for the benefit of the public.  Usually the no fettering principle is invoked where the decision maker imposes restraints on themselves by adhering to the terms of a soft law instrument to which narrows the scope of discretion to the point that they don’t take into consideration the merits of an individual case. Fettering works both ways in as much as a decision maker will not commit a jurisdictional error by not honouring an individuals expectation that the terms of the soft law will be adhered to. Jurisdictional error occurs when a rule is applied consistently but without regards to the merits of an individual case.

[7] Weeks

[8] The Australian Standard and better practice guides published by Ombudsman and other offices set the principles.

[9] under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth).

以上是澳洲essay参考范例,留学生论文相关专业范文素材资料,尽在本网,可以随时查阅参考。本站也提供多国留学生课程作业写作指导服务,如有需要可咨询本平台。


此论文免费


推荐内容
  • 指导澳洲essay:不可避免...

    本文主要讲述了中国,拥有世界上最多人口的国家,有56个不同的民族组成,也拥有丰富多彩的民族文化。...

  • 澳大利亚航空集团的角色分析-...

    澳航集团是世界上最有经验和最受人尊敬的航空公司之一,其业务组合是成功的。可以看出,从快达和捷星。澳航专注于高端市场和捷星专注于低成本的市场和提供全方位服务,同时......

  • 澳洲风险管理essay指导样...

    澳洲风险管理essay指导样本 treasure and risk management 财富管理...

  • 电子购物环境与在线决策辅助工...

    在网络迅速发展的时代,电子商务对于企业发展起到了越来越重要的作用。但是,互联网时代,企业在电子商务方面的面临的竞争同样不少。在自身网站设置在线决策辅助工具,使得......

  • 澳大利亚教师教育机构的历史演...

    澳大利亚现现行的教师教育机构体制具有开放性和多元化的特点,其教师培养从选择上呈现多种渠道的模式,培养的路径多样化。澳大利亚教师教育延续了实用性的特征. ...

  • 学生体验等级划分及研究论文

    不同背景、不同年龄、不同年级的学生,对于学校的感受也是不同的。尽管如此,学生们的体验会产生交错,相互影响,从而形成学生对某个院校的整体印象。...