Edgar, Andrew --- "Administrative Regulation-Making: Contrasting Parliamentary and Deliberative Legitimacy" [2017] MelbULawRw 9; (2017) 40(3) Melbourne University Law Review 738

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Melbourne University Law Review

Australian governments make laws on matters involving moral disagreement. Some examples include religious welfare services in public schools,^[1] prevention of cruelty to animals,^[2] and regulation of abortion-inducing drugs.^[3] Governments also make laws on matters involving social and economic issues whereby business practices are controlled in order to achieve public benefits. Common examples of this form of regulation include controls on land uses for environmental and public health purposes,^[4] limiting fishing entitlements to protect species that are at risk,^[5] and controlling the sale of products for consumer health and safety purposes.^[6]

Most people would expect that in the Australian constitutional system, decisions involving such moral and political judgements would be made by Parliaments and by way of public debate. However, all of these examples concern laws in the form of regulations — a form of law that generally can be made in Australia and comparable Commonwealth countries without transparency or public participation. If no public consultation is carried out by government officials, members of the public are unlikely to know that a regulation is being made until it is operative. If, at this point, they disagree with it, they will need to seek out a Member of Parliament to engage parliamentary processes to disallow the regulation or start lobbying for it to be repealed or amended.

Public debate is a fundamental characteristic of parliamentary law-making but it is not recognised in law as an essential feature of administrative regulation-making — a form of law-making referred to by Professor Jerry L Mashaw as involving ‘[m]icropolitics’.^[7] The lack of enforceable transparency and public participation laws for administrative decision-making conflicts with developments in political theory in the last 30 or so years that focus on transparency, public debate, and reasons — that is, processes that facilitate deliberative decision-making — as necessary conditions for the legitimacy of laws. While legal and political theorists (liberals,^[8] pragmatists,^[9] neo-realists^[10] and legal positivists)^[11] are engaged in ongoing debate regarding deliberative democracy’s philosophical basis, scope and content, its procedural framework is generally accepted.^[12]

The question for this article concerns the extent to which deliberative forms of legitimacy have been adopted in administrative law doctrine in regard to regulation-making. To answer this question I will compare an overtly deliberative administrative law system of regulation-making, the system in the United States (‘US’) (to be referred to as the ‘US deliberative model’), with the primary features of Australian regulation-making systems (to be referred to as the ‘Westminster parliamentary model’). Both models accept that legislatures can delegate authority to administrators to make regulations and that courts in judicial review proceedings can ensure that particular regulations are consistent with the provisions of the empowering Act. However, the two models differ in regard to additional controls. These differences are significant for their contrasting assumptions regarding the legitimacy of regulations.

Australian regulation-making systems focus on parliamentary control of regulations. They enable review of particular regulations by parliamentary committees and disallowance by Parliament. There is, therefore, the possibility of parliamentary debate regarding the social and economic issues inherent in regulations. However, it must be recognised at the outset that parliamentary supervision of regulation-making is limited in practice. It has long been recognised that parliamentarians have little time or energy for such review,^[13] and parliamentary regulation review committees focus on technical matters rather than the policy-based issues that arise in disagreement on social and economic grounds.^[14] Nevertheless, parliamentary control of regulations provides the essential additional criterion for the legitimacy of regulations

The US deliberative model, on the other hand, focuses on transparency, public participation and reasons that add up to a system recognised by leading scholars as being consistent with the fundamentals of deliberative democracy.^[15] As will be examined in the various parts of this article, deliberative processes for making regulations are recognised in US constitutional law and play a prominent role in legislation that controls regulation-making processes and judicial review principles. Accordingly, the US deliberative model makes deliberative processes an essential additional criterion of legitimacy along with legislative authorisation.

The important point of difference between the two systems is that while the Australian parliamentary model includes methods for holding administrators accountable for their regulations to Parliament and the courts, there is nothing in the model that requires open deliberation by regulation-makers. It is not required by general regulation-making legislation or judicial review standards. Judicial review standards are focused instead on ensuring that administrators stay within the scope of power granted to them by the Parliament. Regulation-making legislation in the US does require open deliberation and the courts have administered these laws in a manner that ensures the elements of deliberative decision-making are carried out.

My focus in this article is to draw out the connections between public consultation processes and conceptions of legitimacy inherent in two different, but related, public law systems. This is intended to highlight the distance between Australian regulation-making systems and a system based on principles of deliberative democracy, and to better understand the organising principles of Australian regulation-making systems. It focuses on the different ways in which the two systems allocate sites for political debate

The article starts with an overview in Part II of aspects of Australian public law in order to contrast regulation-making systems with other features of constitutional law and administrative law that enable and require transparency and public participation in government decision-making. It then compares in Parts III to VI the primary features of the general regulation-making systems in Australia and the US — the constitutional principles, the general regulation-making legislation, judicial review standards, and principles regarding access to judicial review. The purpose is to highlight how these features have evolved in Australia to reflect Westminster parliamentary principles and how the US deliberative system differs from it.

There are, however, exceptions in Australia that are examined in Part VII. Parliaments can establish the basic features of a deliberative

regulation-making system under specific statutes; for example by legislation that empowers administrators to make regulations such as environmental plans.^[16] In Part VII, I briefly examine examples of such mandatory public consultation provisions and identify some common characteristics.

II REGULATION-MAKING IN AUSTRALIA: BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

While Australian administrative law regarding regulations is not directed towards enhancing deliberation, other aspects of Australian public law do play such a role. The High Court has developed the implied freedom of political communication to ensure openness, participation and accountability of government to the people.^[17] This has been understood to safeguard debate about political matters and thereby facilitate the basic elements of deliberative democracy in regard to parliamentary processes and decision-making.^[18] Accordingly, constitutional law plays an important role in establishing the conditions for deliberative decision-making.

Australian administrative law has also developed a set of procedural requirements directed to deliberative decision-making. Procedural fairness is judge-made law that imposes procedural requirements for decision-making by administrative officials. It requires administrators to disclose adverse information and give the affected person a reasonable opportunity to be heard in relation to such information.^[19] More recently, the High Court has developed a requirement for the decision-maker to respond in their reasons to the specific argument made by the person affected.^[20] This form of responsiveness rounds out the dialogue between the decision-maker and the person affected. The decision-maker is required to disclose crucial information, give the person an opportunity to make arguments, and also respond to such arguments in their reasons for the decision. It makes administrative

decision-making a two-way exercise by which the affected member of the public contributes to the particular decision. Accordingly, it is specifically directed towards ensuring deliberative decision-making.

However, procedural fairness has limits that result in it not being applicable to political decisions — the decisions with which deliberative democracy is primarily concerned. Procedural fairness applies to administrative

decisions that affect a person directly and individually, and not to political or

The form of procedure that would enable administrative regulations to be made in a deliberative manner is referred to as public consultation.^[23] It involves public notice of a proposed regulation, an opportunity for members of the public to lodge a submission, and requires submissions to be considered and preferably responded to in the administrator’s reasons for decision. In Australia, the Commonwealth and state legislation that controls administrative regulation-making generally includes unenforceable public consultation provisions.^[24] This means that there is no legal significance if administrators fail to carry out a public consultation process or conduct a poor quality public consultation process. This is similar to the laws in comparable Commonwealth countries where process requirements for administrative regulations are not included in general regulation-making legislation but are included instead in unenforceable, policy documents.^[25] On the other hand, there is a highly developed system of legal requirements for public consultation for administrative regulations in the US (referred to there as ‘notice and comment’). Accordingly, while US administrative law provides enforceable process requirements for the making of administrative regulations, in Commonwealth countries comparable to Australia the generally-applicable legislation that controls regulation-making does not.

When Parliaments in Australia have included mandatory public consultation provisions in specific regulatory contexts as an exception to the general regulation-making legislation, the courts have had to accept the role of supervising deliberative process. The case law on enforcement of mandatory public consultation provisions makes clear that courts can ensure that information in a public notice is accurate and detailed enough for a member of the public to decide whether to participate,^[26] ensure that submissions provided by members of the public are considered by the decision-maker,^[27] and can require a new round of consultation when substantial changes are made to a proposal after the initial consultation process is held.^[28] In these ways, Australian courts have enforced public consultation rules when they are included in legislation as mandatory requirements and have ensured a basic minimum of deliberative decision-making. Of course, courts cannot carry out such a role for administrative regulations when the consultation requirements are expressly unenforceable.

The lack of generally applicable, enforceable rules requiring transparency and public participation in Australia is particularly concerning when it is considered that administrative regulations have become the most prevalent form of legislation. For example, from 1992 to 2011, the Commonwealth government made between 1546 and 3004 administrative regulations each year,^[29] compared to between 84 and 264 Acts of Parliament.^[30] The amount of regulations has also increased in recent years. Whereas from 1985 to 1990 the Commonwealth government made between 855 and 1352 regulations each year, between 2004–11 and 2013–15, over 1800 regulations have been

III THE FORK IN THE ROAD: CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

Constitutional laws regarding delegation of law-making powers by Parliaments to administrators provide a convenient starting point as they establish the organising principles for administrative regulation-making systems. Although delegation of regulation-making power is permissible in both the US and Australia, there are important differences between them in regard to the controls they impose on such delegation. These differences are highly significant for administrative law principles and processes applying to regulation-making. They played an important role in the primary Australian case regarding delegation of law-making power to administrators, Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan (‘Dignan’).^[33]

The Dignan case involved a challenge to a regulation-making power concerning the employment of transport workers. The regulation-making power in the relevant Act was very broad and the regulations made according to it had raised substantial political disagreement.^[34] The applicant challenged the provision in the Act granting power to make regulations for breaching the separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution.The High Court rejected the challenge.

Dixon J, and to a lesser extent Evatt J, understood the options for resolving the issues as involving a choice between US and Westminster parliamentary approaches to delegation of law-making powers.^[35] Dixon J understood the US non-delegation principle as ensuring that the scope of power delegated to an administrator is limited.^[36] The principle is commonly referred to as the ‘intelligible principle’^[37] and it requires the provision delegating legislative power to include parameters. On the other hand, Dixon J understood the Westminster parliamentary approach as allowing very broad delegation of regulation-making powers. Although Dixon J accepted that ‘logically or theoretically’ the Commonwealth Constitution made Parliament the exclusive repository of law-making power,^[38] he accepted that the Westminster parliamentary approach was right for Australian law due to ‘the history and usages of British legislation and the theories of English law’,^[39] and because the High Court had effectively adopted it in earlier cases.

Consistently with this understanding of administrative regulations, the limits on delegating regulation-making powers in Australia are minimal — requiring only that the delegating provision of the Act be within a head of power under s 51 of the Constitution^[40] and that Parliament not abdicate

The justices in Dignan explained how administrative regulations are understood within the Westminster parliamentary constitutional framework. Dixon J stated that in this model particular regulations rely on the empowering legislation for their efficacy, not only at the time a regulation is made, but also in a continuing sense.^[42] Evatt J echoed this view and based it on parliamentary supremacy: that Parliament is not limited in its ability to delegate regulation-making power and retains control over the regulation that is made through its power to invalidate the Act or the regulation.^[43] Australian constitutional law scholars have stated that the High Court’s decision in Dignan understates the limits on delegating regulation-making power that could be derived from the separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution.^[44] Nevertheless, the High Court has not added to the criteria initially set out in Dignan for the delegation of regulation-making powers and accordingly it is appropriate to understand that case as establishing the constitutional principles by which regulation-making systems in Australia have developed.

Accordingly, Australian constitutional law is relatively permissive in regard to Parliaments granting powers to administrators to make regulations. The emphasis is on parliamentary authorisation and potential ongoing control over particular regulations. Constitutional law does not require, or ‘prod’,^[45] procedural requirements for administrative regulation-making. The US

non-delegation principle does include such processes, albeit as secondary requirements that have been brought to light in recent scholarship. While the US non-delegation principle has only been applied to invalidate legislation in two cases, and those two cases were decided as long ago as 1935,^[46] the principles developed in the non-delegation cases provide important conceptual background to administrative law principles for regulation-making.

The US non-delegation principle’s primary feature is the just-mentioned ‘intelligible principle’, which requires that the legislation that delegates regulation-making power to administrators includes standards that guide administrators when they exercise the power.^[47] The intelligible principle establishes an important role for administrative law litigation. If called upon, courts can determine whether particular regulations comply with the standards included in the statutory power to make regulations.^[48] Importantly, however, the US non-delegation principle includes an additional requirement. Recent scholarship has shown that the early non-delegation case law in the 1920s and 1930s included not only the intelligible principle but also a requirement for administrators to make particular statements when exercising powers granted to them. Professor Stack highlights that in these cases, the US Supreme Court determined that administrators must make an express statement in the administrative order or record that statutory conditions, those that are necessary for the constitutional validity of the Act, are satisfied for the administrative action relevant in the case.^[49] The Court insisted that it could not presume that findings regarding such conditions had been made by the administrator.^[50] Professor Stack examines how this requirement influenced the Supreme Court’s non-delegation cases and subsequently-developed principles of US administrative law; in particular, administrators’

The US non-delegation principle contributes to deliberative decision-making to an extent. The cases do not expressly extend to requiring public participation procedures for administrative regulation-making.^[52] That would be inconsistent with due process principles that require procedures for administrative action affecting a small number of people on individual grounds but not for general determinations.^[53] The significance of the US non-delegation principles for my purposes is that, unlike the High Court’s approach in Dignan,^[54] they enable a role for courts to review the legality of, and require an express justification for, the exercise of delegated authority.

Accordingly, the High Court’s decision in Dignan to continue with the approach taken by English courts to delegation of regulation-making powers placed Australian law on a different path to US law. The implication of the High Court’s decision in Dignan is that Parliament is the primary place for control of regulation-making, at least to repeal the particular regulation or the legislation on which it is based. This aspect of Dignan is consistent with what Professor Paul Craig refers to as the concept of ‘parliamentary monopoly’ inherent in A V Dicey’s account of administrative law; that ‘[a]ll governmental power should be channelled through Parliament in order that it might be subject to legitimation and oversight by the Commons’, and that ‘all real public power [is] concentrated in the duly elected Parliament.’^[55]

On the other hand, the US non-delegation principle is designed to limit the scope of administrators’ law-making authority and provide a role for courts in supervising the exercise of such powers. Professor Peter Strauss explains it as establishing a system that encourages administrators to acknowledge that they are obliged ‘to demonstrate to the courts that they have legal authority for their actions, that they have followed required procedure, that they can justify the conclusions they have reached in terms of the information presented to them, and so forth.’^[56] In this way, the US

non-delegation principle prods administrators to make regulations in a manner that can be justified legally and by relevant information. Additionally, some US administrative law scholars have understood the non-delegation principle as having connections with subsequent administrative law developments that I will examine in the next Parts of the article. The connection is that while the non-delegation doctrine has been under-utilised since the 1930s, the courts subsequently compensated by way of administrative law doctrine by increasing their supervision of regulation-making procedures.^[57]

regulation-making systems that Dixon J, and to a lesser extent Evatt J, perceived the issue in Dignan as a choice between Westminster and US models of constitutional law and that they decided to take the Westminster path. This path focuses on Parliament providing administrators with authority to make regulations with minimal additional constitutional constraints. US constitutional law includes constraints and provides an important role for the courts in administrative law proceedings. The next three Parts of the article explain the primary features of Australian regulation-making systems in order to highlight how they differ from the equivalent features of the US

IV REGULATION-MAKING LEGISLATION

regulation-making focuses on Parliament as the primary supervisor of administrative regulation-making. If public consultation requirements are included in such legislation, the provisions generally make clear that they are not judicially enforceable requirements. This is an important contrast with the equivalent legislation in the United States, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC (1946) (‘Administrative Procedure Act’). While that Act does not establish all the characteristics of a deliberation-focused system of regulation-making, it provides a basic framework that supports it.

The primary features of Australian regulation-making legislation are publication and commencement requirements for final regulations, tabling of regulations in Parliament and scrutiny by parliamentary committees.^[58] These features can be understood as providing a procedural framework by which Parliament can supervise regulation-making. In this way these Acts support the Westminster-based principles accepted in the Dignan case^[59] as a matter of constitutional law.

Some Australian jurisdictions also include public consultation provisions in these Acts.^[60] However, the provisions are designed to make clear that consultation is not mandatory. Whether consultation is carried out or not is controlled by an administrative official, typically the relevant Minister.^[61] It is common for Australian regulation-making legislation to expressly state that non-compliance with consultation provisions does not lead to invalidity of the regulation;^[62] a signal to the courts that breach of these process requirements will not lead to a remedy invalidating the regulation.^[63]

The discretionary nature of the public consultation provisions in Australian regulation-making legislation does not conflict with the constitutional principles expressed in Dignan and, as explained in the Introduction, is similar to comparable Commonwealth countries. Regulation-making legislation in such countries does not usually include public consultation requirements and instead there are guidelines for consultation provided in policy documents.^[64] While public consultation was included as a mandatory requirement in 19^th century United Kingdom legislation,^[65] the provisions were not reproduced in the Act that replaced it, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, 9 & 10 Geo 6, c 36,^[66] and as explained in the previous paragraph, have also not been adopted in current Australian legislation.^[67] Public consultation in Westminster parliamentary systems is regarded as an optional extra at the government’s discretion. It may be acknowledged in Australian

regulation-making legislation but it does not rise to the level of an enforceable legal requirement. Most importantly, the result is that in general there is no role for courts to supervise public consultation processes.

In the US, the Administrative Procedure Act contributes to the deliberative nature of the regulation-making system through its notice and comment provisions. Under these provisions, notice of the proposed regulation is required to be published in the federal register,^[68] interested persons are provided an opportunity to make submissions, and regulations are required to include reasons in the form of ‘a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.’^[69] The notice and comment provisions are recognised by US scholars as essentially based in administrative law but have constitutional law significance. They allow courts to avoid determining whether such procedural requirements are required by constitutional law, and constitutional principles have inspired the courts’ approach to enforcing the provisions.^[70] Most importantly, the notice and comment provisions are recognised as establishing a framework for deliberative decision-making — a process for debate about the content of regulations.^[71]

Australia’s regulation-making Acts focus instead on parliamentary supervision. This makes sense in a Westminster parliamentary system where Parliament is recognised as having a monopoly on political power. Accordingly, whereas in the US a member of the public is generally entitled by law to participate in regulation-making processes, in parliamentary systems a member of the public will have to rely on government practices for there to be a consultation process.

V GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

The judicial controls applied to administrative regulations are fundamentally different under the two models. As will be explained in this Part, the Australian Westminster parliamentary system has an instrumental focus. In this system the courts do not review regulations for compliance with

court-developed principles of procedural fairness,^[72] and the courts rarely test administrative regulations against otherwise commonly-applied administrative law grounds of review, such as the failure to consider relevant matters.^[73] Instead courts test the challenged regulation in instrumental terms: that is, whether the regulation is a legally permissible means for achieving statutory purposes. On the other hand, the standards applied by US courts in their review of administrative regulations are commonly understood to establish a deliberation-based model. In this Part, I outline how these two approaches to judicial review of regulations are influenced by differences in the two constitutional systems. The High Court’s acceptance of the Westminster parliamentary path in Dignan^[74] has led to a very different set of judicial review standards than those which apply according to the approach taken in the US.

The instrumental approach to judicial review of administrative regulations applied by Australian courts can be seen in the grounds of review applied by the courts. Courts test regulations by asking whether they are consistent with the primary Act. The provision in the primary Act delegating power to make regulations is interpreted to enable regulations to be made for a particular, either express or implied, purpose.^[75] This is made clear in Shanahan v Scott,^[76] where the High Court stated that a regulation-making power in a primary Act ‘will not support attempts to widen the purposes of the Act, to add new and different means of carrying them out or to depart from or vary the plan which the legislature has adopted to attain its ends.’^[77] Australian courts commonly test the consistency of administrative regulations with the primary Act by determining whether the regulations have been made for an improper purpose,^[78] involve means for achieving the statutory purpose that are inconsistent with the means permitted by the Act,^[79] or are an attempt to extend the field of operation of the Act rather than fill in the details.^[80]

When Australian courts are requested to go beyond testing whether regulations are consistent with the empowering Act in this way, and instead rely on grounds of review such as unreasonableness or uncertainty, there have been attempts by the courts to conceive such grounds in instrumental terms. For example, Dixon J in Williams v Melbourne Corporation^[81] said of the applicant’s challenge to a by-law on the ground of unreasonableness that the High Court had not treated unreasonableness as a separate ground of invalidity.^[82] Instead, Dixon J reviewed the regulation according to instrumental reasoning: whether the by-law was a reasonable means for achieving the statutory purpose.^[83] Similarly when an administrative order was challenged in the High Court on the ground of uncertainty in King Gee Clothing Co Pty Ltd v Commonwealth,^[84] Dixon J would not accept that this is a separate ground of review and instead understood a requirement for certainty to be implied in the provision delegating the relevant power.^[85] These cases highlight that Australian courts favour methods of reviewing regulations that can be framed in terms of compliance with the primary Act. Instrumental reasoning has been favoured by the courts in order to present such review as involving mere enforcement of the primary legislation, rather than the imposition by courts of additional criteria.

While judicial review of administrative regulations in Australia commonly occurs according to instrumental reasoning, this does not mean it is necessarily a restrained form of review. The courts can read the empowering Act and the regulations in a fine-grained manner to determine whether it is an authorised means for achieving the statutory purposes.^[86] This is closely related to the concept of parliamentary monopoly in Westminster-based systems. The courts in these cases can closely examine whether administrators have gone beyond the scope of the power granted to them by the primary legislation. If so, the administrators are regarded, in Professor Paul Craig’s terms, as usurping Parliament’s monopoly on public power.^[87]

Professor Craig has also suggested that the general lack of procedural review of regulations in Westminster parliamentary systems can be explained by such procedures implying that regulation-making involves a form of

non-parliamentary politics — an implication that would undermine Parliament’s purported monopoly on public power.^[88] Although it is difficult to know precisely why Australian courts have not imposed procedural fairness obligations on the making of administrative regulations,^[89] I would offer a different reason for such reluctance. Australian courts may be reluctant to extend procedural fairness to administrative regulation-making because it would involve imposing controls on administrative regulation-making beyond the instrumental terms that courts usually apply to the task of reviewing regulations.^[90] Dixon J may have been able to characterise the unreasonableness and uncertainty grounds of review in instrumental terms but it would be implausible to see enforceable procedures in that way. Courts usually understand procedural fairness as being court-developed — that it involves ‘common law notions of justice and fairness’,^[91] and that ‘the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature.’^[92] It is also difficult to imply consultation procedures into regulation-making powers when general regulation-making legislation in Australia imposes procedures for commencement, publication and tabling of regulations in Parliament but expressly stops short of establishing enforceable public consultation requirements.^[93] Accordingly, while a number of scholars have argued for procedural fairness to be extended to regulation-making,^[94] the courts have not done so.

To be clear, Australian courts have no reluctance applying mandatory public consultation requirements when they are included in primary legislation,^[95] but, of course, such provisions are not included in general

regulation-making legislation. In Part VII, I will examine the significance of their inclusion in sector-specific legislation (eg, environmental legislation, public health legislation etc).

The grounds of review applied by the US courts to administrative regulations have a different focus. In brief terms, the courts have developed the requirement for public notice of administrative regulations in § 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act to require agencies to disclose the information on which the proposed rule is based.^[96] The requirement in § 553(c) of the Act that the agency includes with their regulation ‘a concise general statement of their basis and purpose’ has been interpreted very broadly by the courts. The courts require agencies to consider and respond to significant comments lodged by members of the public.^[97] The classical statement of this requirement was made in Automotive Parts & Accessories Association Inc v Boyd^[98] by Judge McGowan that the administrator’s reasons ‘will enable us to see what major issues of policy were ventilated by the informal proceedings and why the agency reacted to them as it did.’^[99] The apparent purpose of this form of judicial review is to provide an accountability mechanism directed to protecting and enhancing participation of members of the public in regulatory processes.^[100] Public law scholars in the United States have expressly linked the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment requirements and the related case law with the constitutional non-delegation principle,^[101] and deliberative democracy principles.^[102]

Accordingly, judicial review of administrative regulations in the US has a different focus to such review in Australia. The Australian courts’ approach is consistent with the Westminster parliamentary model that was adopted by the High Court in Dignan. The overtly instrumental approach that has influenced the key Australian cases requires courts to keep a close eye on administrators’ attempts to expand their powers beyond the confines of the primary Act but seems to have disabled courts from imposing the procedural requirements that are applied in other administrative law contexts.

On the other hand, the approach adopted by US courts to the Administrative Procedure Act provisions is directly focused on deliberative principles. This is due to the combination of prompting by the constitutional

non-delegation principle (which, as explained in Part III, gives constitutional significance to requirements to provide reasons), enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act with its notice and comment provisions, and the development of participation-based judicial review standards. Professor Richard Stewart, a leading scholar of the US developments, sums up these developments as meaning that ‘[t]he judiciary is the vital cockpit’ in this deliberative conception of administrative law.^[103]

VI ACCESS TO THE COURTS

Administrative law scholarship in the US has also emphasised that laws regarding access to the courts and the timing of judicial review litigation have particular relevance to the courts’ ability to supervise administrators’ deliberative practices. In particular, this scholarship identifies a paradigm shift in the 1960s and 1970s in which standing and justiciability principles were broadened in a manner that enables the courts to supervise public participation in administrative regulation-making processes.^[104] While Australian law in these areas has also been liberalised since this period, it has not occurred to the same extent. This has important consequences for the courts’ ability to supervise administrative regulation-making in a manner that ensures deliberative decision-making.

It is helpful to start by examining the connection between principles regarding access to the courts and the stakeholders in regulatory debates. Traditional judicial review principles enable proceedings to be brought to challenge regulations that are being enforced against the plaintiff or when the plaintiff is clearly at risk of enforcement. Standing laws guarantee access to the courts for these plaintiffs, sometimes referred to as ‘regulated persons’. On the other hand, there are beneficiaries of regulatory laws who seek to enhance the purposes of the Act such as protecting the environment, public health and safety, and national and local heritage and cultural matters. They may seek to bring judicial review proceedings on the ground that they were not given fair treatment in the regulation-making process. There are, however, difficulties for these potential plaintiffs. Their interests are less likely to match the courts’ understanding of interests that satisfy standing requirements. Additionally, their complaint about the unfairness of the regulation-making process will arise at the time regulations are made rather than when they are enforced. According to traditional judicial review principles, these difficulties mean they are unlikely to be granted access to the courts.

Australian standing and justiciability laws in regard to challenges to administrative regulations are based on traditional judicial review principles. They limit the courts’ jurisdiction by reference to a regulation’s actual or likely harm to a person’s individual rights and interests. Challenges to administrative regulations can be brought by way of a collateral challenge: that is, when a person is alleged to have breached the regulation and the person defends the action by claiming that the regulation is invalid. Many of the landmark Australian cases are of this kind.^[105] There is no question in such cases that the regulation applies directly to the defendant; they have been singled out by officials for enforcement. Declaratory relief is the primary remedy when regulations are challenged in proceedings not involving a collateral challenge.^[106] The general principles for declaratory relief require the plaintiff to have a real or sufficient interest in the subject matter of the litigation;^[107] the case must have practical consequences for the plaintiff, and must not raise hypothetical questions.^[108] Challenges to regulations may be made prior to enforcement of them by officials,^[109] although the plaintiff will need to show that their freedom of action is affected by the challenged law or that they are at risk of it being enforced against them.^[110]

Both kinds of proceeding, collateral challenges and applications for declarations according to the just-mentioned limits, protect the interests of individuals and organisations that are regulated by the relevant regulation. The common justification for limiting judicial review in this manner is that it is a method of restricting courts from interfering with political decision-making.^[111] Accordingly, in the absence of legislation that extends standing, the general principles of Australian law are consistent with traditional judicial review principles. Members of the public with property or commercial rights and interests restricted by a regulation will have a sufficient interest to bring proceedings according to Australia’s general judicial review principles. When Australian law includes enforceable public consultation requirements these stakeholders are entitled to bring proceedings claiming that such processes were not properly carried out.^[112]

Access to the courts for stakeholders with beneficiary interests is more difficult. Their primary concern will be that the administrator has insufficiently pursued the public welfare purposes of the relevant legislation. But of course, they are not at risk of enforcement or having their freedom of action affected by the regulation as is required for standing rules regarding regulations. According to Australian judicial review principles, the beneficiaries would not be in a position to challenge administrative regulation-making processes, even when such procedural requirements are included

Standing laws in the US shifted in the 1960s and 1970s to move beyond the traditional limits. These laws include a range of technicalities that are unnecessary to examine here.^[113] The significant point is that US standing laws are sufficiently flexible for beneficiaries to be granted standing to argue that the challenged regulations or decision has not gone far enough to promote the public welfare purposes of the particular legislation. For example, the interests that are accepted by the courts extend to ‘aesthetic, conservational, and recreational’ matters;^[114] thus enabling standing for beneficiaries of environmental laws. While beneficiaries may regularly gain access to the courts,^[115] the US Supreme Court has recognised that they are more likely than regulated parties to have difficulty establishing it.^[116] Administrative law scholars highlight that there are continuing tensions between acceptance of, and resistance to, standing for such plaintiffs that are played out in the cases in argument relating to technicalities within standing doctrine.^[117] Accordingly, while standing has been extended to enable a broader range of persons to engage the courts to review administrative regulations than under traditional judicial review laws, standing-related issues still regularly arise in the cases.

Judicial review in the US also includes greater flexibility in regard to the timing of judicial review proceedings. The landmark case is Abbott

Laboratories v Gardner (‘Abbott Laboratories’) in which the Supreme Court held that a regulation that had not been enforced could be reviewed by the Court as the regulations had legal status and affected the applicants.^[118] The case is regarded as establishing a pragmatic rather than formal approach to the timing of judicial review.^[119] The result of Abbott Laboratories is that challenges to notice and comment processes for making regulations can be brought when regulations are made rather than when they are enforced.^[120] The change marked by Abbott Laboratories is commonly recognised as being an essential feature of the US regulation-making system.^[121] It allows regulated parties and beneficiaries to bring proceedings at the time the regulation is made, thus enabling argument regarding the regulation-making process from both sides of regulatory debates.

The expansion of access to the courts through extended standing and the acceptance of pre-enforcement judicial review of regulations in the US have been understood as involving fundamental change to the nature of judicial review of administrative action. Professor Peter Strauss has referred to it as shifting the court’s function to ‘protect[ing] the integrity of political processes’.^[122] The important point is that deliberation-enhancing forms of judicial review require development beyond the limits set by traditional judicial review laws. The developments in the US highlight that extended standing and flexibility in regard to the timing of judicial review are important steps in the change to a deliberation-enhancing system of judicial review.

VII EXCEPTIONS: MANDATORY PUBLIC
CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

While general regulation-making systems in Australia have the characteristics examined in the previous Parts of the article, they do not apply to all regulation-making processes. It is always possible for legislation to include mandatory public consultation requirements for regulations and to even up access to the courts. Such systems are worth examining, albeit here in a brief manner, to identify features common to the adoption of such provisions. They provide some indication of when we can expect such provisions to be included in regulatory legislation.

The environmental planning legislation in New South Wales is a good example of an exception to the Westminster parliamentary norm. It establishes a regulatory system designed for public participation that can be supervised by the courts. In particular, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) includes mandatory public consultation requirements for making local environmental plans.^[123] The courts have interpreted these requirements in a purposive manner to ensure that public notices of new plans are not misleading,^[124] that submissions lodged by members of the public are considered,^[125] and that a new round of public consultation is conducted if substantive changes are made to the proposed plan.^[126] Accordingly, New South Wales environmental planning legislation and its interpretation by the courts go a long way to establishing a system that enables and ensures deliberative regulation-making. The courts have not, however, gone as far as the US courts by requiring administrative officials to respond to the major issues raised in the submissions.^[127] Nevertheless, the case law indicates willingness to enforce mandatory consultation provisions in a manner that supports the purpose of facilitating discussion between government and members of the public prior to making administrative regulations.^[128]

The public participation system established by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) has additional important features. The Act includes an open standing provision,^[129] and a three-month time limit on bringing proceedings to challenge planning rules.^[130] These provisions enable New South Wales courts to review plan-making processes without considering whether the applicant’s interests are affected or whether the applicant is at risk of the particular planning rule being enforced against them, as was shown in Part VI would otherwise be required. The nature of the applicant’s interests and whether or not the applicant is at risk of enforcement of the plan against them are irrelevant to judicial review of local planning rules.

There are two aspects of the system worth emphasising. The first is that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) establishes a framework on which the courts have been able to build a set of deliberation-focused principles. These principles have been drawn from the provisions of the Act and the purposes of the provisions as understood by the judges. The laws that would apply if the provisions had not been enacted would point in the opposite direction — that is, there would be no participatory requirements and great uncertainty about access to the courts. Accordingly, it must be recognised that deliberation-based regulation-making systems are likely to require legislation that includes mandatory public consultation provisions and provisions that extend access to the courts.

The second point is that the provisions establishing mandatory consultation, open standing and pre-enforcement judicial review, apply to administrators in the New South Wales planning system that are to a large extent outside of the state-level Westminster parliamentary institutions. That means that the incentives influencing regulation-making legislation identified by leading administrative law scholars do not apply in this context. These scholars have highlighted that the lack of enforceable public consultation provisions in general regulation-making legislation in Westminster-based democracies is due to the reluctance of governments, who largely control the legislature in such systems, to impose controls on themselves.^[131] In such systems, the governmental incentives are to minimise controls on discretionary

However, in the New South Wales planning system, local councils have the primary responsibility for making the local plans that are subject to the mandatory consultation requirements.^[132] These councils are established by legislation as a particular branch of government. While the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) identifies the Minister for Planning as the official who ultimately makes local plans,^[133] that power has been delegated to local councils.^[134] The provisions relating to local plans in the Act provide an exception that helps to prove the general rule. The reluctance to impose mandatory transparency, participation and accountability provisions on Westminster parliamentary insiders is just not relevant to plan-making by local councils.

On the other hand, the general reluctance to impose such requirements comes into play again for state-level plan-making by the Minister. The provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) for these plans make public consultation discretionary. The Minister is ‘to take such steps, if any, as the Minister considers appropriate or necessary’ to publicise a proposed state plan and ‘to seek and consider submissions from the public’.^[135] Accordingly, the Act establishes the key legal elements of a deliberative decision-making system for plan-making conducted by officials outside of the ministerial responsibility system but for plan-making inside that system; such a legal framework is regarded as unnecessary.

This distinction made by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) seems to be consistent with the way enforceable consultation provisions are included in Commonwealth legislation. The below Table sets out Commonwealth authorities that are granted regulation-making powers subject to enforceable public consultation provisions.^[136] Each of them is formally classified as a ‘statutory agency’ or ‘body corporate’ by their enabling legislation, which distinguishes them from departments of state for which Ministers are responsible. This gives these authorities a degree of independence from the general system of ministerial responsibility, although Ministers may be granted statutory powers to issue directions to them,^[137] or may be required to accept or approve regulations made by such authorities.^[138]

Table 1: Commonwealth Authorities with Regulation-Making Powers Subject to Enforceable Public Consultation Provisions

Authority	Type of administrative regulation	Mandatory consultation provisions
Australian Communications and Media Authority	Australian content standards Numbering plans for carriage services	Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) s 126 Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) s 460
Australian Fisheries Management Authority	Fisheries plans of management	Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth) s 17
Food Standards Australia New Zealand	Food regulatory measures	Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth) ss 55–65
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority	Zoning plans and plans of management	Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth) ss 32C, 39ZB, 39ZE
National Health and Medical Research Council	Regulatory recommendations and guidelines	National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 (Cth) ss 12–13^[139]
Murray-Darling Basin Authority	Basin plan	Water Act 2007 (Cth) ss 42–3
Repatriation Medical Authority	Statements of principle	Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 196B, 196E–196G
Reserve Bank of Australia	Access regimes and designated payment system standards	Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 (Cth) ss 12, 18, 28^[140]
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust	Trust land plans	Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001 (Cth) ss 29, 30

The mandatory public consultation provisions for regulation-making by these authorities are exceptions to the discretionary public consultation provisions included in the general, federal regulation-making legislation, the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth).^[141] The provisions of these Acts indicate that enforceable consultation provisions may be regarded as suited to

Westminster parliamentary systems of accountability. In such contexts governments may see the benefit of a legal framework for political discussion through public consultation processes. It must be noted, however, that the provisions in the above table do not include provisions that extend standing and enable pre-enforcement review. Accordingly, the beneficiaries of these laws will have difficulty accessing courts to enforce public consultation provisions. The enforceable public consultation provisions in these Commonwealth Acts are therefore an important, but not sufficient, step towards a deliberative regulation-making model.

To summarise this Part of the article, there are two points that I want to highlight in relation to the legislation that provides exceptions to the norm of discretionary public consultation arrangements for regulation-making. The first is that the development by New South Wales courts of deliberative norms for plan-making is facilitated by enforceable public consultation

pre-enforcement judicial review. This indicates that the legal developments that have facilitated deliberative regulation-making in the US as a matter of judicially-developed public law require legislative foundations in Australia. The second point is that the prominent examples of enforceable public consultation provisions suggest that they are likely to be imposed for regulatory systems administered by independent agencies, rather than Ministers with departmental support. This indicates that governments may seek to control regulation-making powers through enforceable procedures when

VIII CONCLUSION

While some aspects of Australian public law have evolved in recent decades to ensure transparency, public participation and reasons for government actions, the general systems for regulation-making in Australia are focused on parliamentary control rather than engagement with the general public. That means that members of the public are reliant on government authorities to voluntarily facilitate public debate for proposed regulations that are morally, socially or economically controversial or are reliant on Members of Parliament to raise it there. The primary features of our regulation-making systems base the legitimacy of regulations on the parliamentary authority provided by the legislative provisions that empower administrators to make them and the potential for parliamentary control. The major features of Australian law regarding regulations — constitutional law reflected in the Dignan case, state and Commonwealth general regulation-making legislation, principles of judicial review, and rules of access to the courts — all give primary significance to parliamentary authority and control.

This is very different to the regulation-making system in the US which has developed in a manner that makes an agency’s direct deliberation with members of the public a condition of the legitimacy of administrative regulations. As examined in this article, deliberative processes play some role in the US’s constitutional principles regarding delegating regulation-making power and have a major part in statutory and judicially-developed administrative law doctrine.

The exceptions in Australia, the statutes that provide for mandatory public consultation processes, suggest that greater need for enforceable provisions is recognised when regulation-making power is delegated to statutory agencies that have a degree of independence from ministerial control. This indicates that, when examining regulation-making in Westminster systems, there is a need to take into account the difference between empowering Ministers to make regulations and regulation-making by statutory agencies. In addition, it should be recognised that for public consultation to be supervised by courts in a fair manner, consideration should be given to extending standing and providing for pre-enforcement review.

Accordingly, deliberative regulation-making systems in Australia’s Westminster-based framework have to be established by legislation. Our constitutional law does not require it, courts have not established the procedural framework for it, and Parliaments are likely to be reluctant to facilitate it in areas in which Ministers have control.

^[*]BA, LLB (Macq), PhD (Syd); Associate Professor, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney. Drafts of this article were presented at the Constitutional Deliberations Conference, Australian National University Public Law Weekend, 1–2 October 2015 and at the Legal Processes and Human Rights Workshop, Macquarie University Research Centre for Agency, Values and Ethics, 26 April 2016. Thanks to the participants at those events for their feedback. Thanks particularly to Rayner Thwaites and the anonymous reviewers for comments. Of course, any errors are my own.

^[5] See, eg, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy v Austral Fisheries Pty Ltd (1993)

^[7] Jerry L Mashaw, Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law (Yale University Press, 2012) 294.

^[8] See, eg, Joshua Cohen, ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’ in Robert E Goodin and Philip Pettit (eds), Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology (Blackwell Publishers, 1997) 143, 143–5.

^[9] See, eg, Elizabeth Anderson, ‘The Epistemology of Democracy’ (2006) 3 Episteme: A Journal of Individual and Social Epistemology 8, 13–15; James Johnson, ‘Arguing for Deliberation: Some Skeptical Considerations’ in Jon Elster (ed), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 1998) 161, 173–7; Cheryl Misak, Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation (Routledge, 2000).

^[10] Jerry L Mashaw, ‘Public Reason and Administrative Legitimacy’ in John Bell et al (eds), Public Law Adjudication in Common Law Systems: Process and Substance (Hart Publishing, 2016) 11.

^[12] See, eg, ibid; Misak, above n 9, 153–4; Mashaw, ‘Public Reason’, above n 10, 13–18.

^[13] See, eg, Andrew Edgar, ‘Deliberative Processes for Administrative Regulations: Unenforceable Public Consultation Provisions and the Courts’ (2016) 27 Public Law Review 18, 22–4; Senate Select Committee, Parliament of Australia, The Advisability or Otherwise of Establishing Standing Committees of the Senate upon Statutory Rules and Ordinances, International Relations, Finance, Private Members’ Bills (1930) ix [14]–[15]; Jack Beatson, ‘Legislative Control of Administrative Rulemaking: Lessons from the British Experience?’ (1979) 12 Cornell International Law Journal 199, 211–12.

^[14] See Dennis Pearce and Stephen Argument, Delegated Legislation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4^th ed, 2012) 64 [3.10].

^[17] Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 138–9 (Mason CJ); Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) 177 CLR 1, 47–50 (Brennan J); Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 252 CLR 530, 551–2 [28]–[30] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ), 571 [104] (Keane J); McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34; (2015) 325 ALR 15,

28 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ). See also Sir Anthony Mason, ‘The Interpretation of a Constitution in a Modern Liberal Democracy’ in Charles Sampford and Kim Preston (eds), Interpreting Constitutions: Theories, Principles and Institutions (Federation Press, 1996) 13, 21–2, 27.

^[18] Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520, 571. See also Haig Patapan, Judging Democracy: The New Politics of the High Court of Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2000) 59–60; James Stellios, Zines’s The High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 6^th ed, 2015) 609.

^[20] Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 77 ALJR 1088, 1092 [24] (Gummow and Callinan JJ).

^[23] See Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton University Press, 2004) 17–18; Scott Stephenson, ‘Federalism and Rights Deliberation’ [2014] MelbULawRw 26; (2014) 38 Melbourne University Law Review 709, 722, citing John Uhr, Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament (Cambridge University Press, 1998) ch 1; Cynthia Farina et al, ‘Democratic Deliberation in the Wild: The McGill Online Design Studio and the RegulationRoom Project’ (2014) 41 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1527, 1534–5, 1567.

^[25] For the United Kingdom, see Cabinet Office, Consultation Principles: Guidance

(14 January 2016) Gov.UK <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance#history>; Paul Craig, Administrative Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 7^thed, 2012) 454 [15-019]. For Canada, see Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Government of Canada, Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management (2012) <http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/cdrm-dcgr/cdrm-dcgrpr-eng.asp> John Mark Keyes, Executive Legislation (LexisNexis, 2^nd ed, 2010) 198–9. For New Zealand, see Cabinet Office, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (NZ), Cabinet Manual 2008 (2008) 92–3 [7.40],

99 [7.85]–[7.86]; R I Carter, R M Malone and J S McHerron, Subordinate Legislation in New Zealand (LexisNexis, 2013) 98.

^[29] Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing (eds), Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice (Department of the Senate, 13^th ed, 2012) 415–16.

^[31] Evans and Laing, above n 29, 415–16; Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Annual Report

^[32] Richard Cracknell and Rob Clements, ‘Acts and Statutory Instruments: The Volume of UK Legislation 1950 to 2014’ (Standard Note SN/SG/2911, House of Commons Library, Parliament of the United Kingdom, 19 March 2014); Andrew Green, ‘Regulations and Rule Making: The Dilemma of Delegation’ in Colleen M Flood and Lorne Sossin (eds), Administrative Law in Context (Emond Montgomery Publications, 2^nd ed, 2013) 125, 126; Caroline Morris and Ryan Malone, ‘Regulations Review in the New Zealand Parliament’ [2004] MqLawJl 2; (2004) 4 Macquarie Law Journal 7, 8.

^[34] See G S Reid, ‘Parliament and Delegated Legislation’ in J R Nethercote (ed), Parliament and Bureaucracy: Parliamentary Scrutiny of Administration — Prospects and Problems in the 1980s (Hale and Iremonger, 1982) 149, 154–5; Stellios, above n 18, 203–4.

^[44] Gabrielle Appleby, ‘Challenging the Orthodoxy: Giving the Court a Role in Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation’ (2016) 69 Parliamentary Affairs 269, 274, 280–3; Denise Meyerson, ‘Rethinking the Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation’ (2003) 11 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 45, 48–9; G Sawer, ‘The Separation of Powers in Australian Federalism’ (1961) 35 Australian Law Journal 177, 186–7.

^[45] For an argument that constitutional law should prompt reform of regulation-making process see Appleby, above n 44, 280–3.

^[46] Panama Refining Co v Ryan, [1935] USSC 9; 293 US 388 (1935); ALA Schechter Poultry Corporation v United States, [1935] USSC 122; 295 US 495 (1935). See also Peter L Strauss, Administrative Justice in the United States (Carolina Academic Press, 3^rd ed, 2016) 46.

^[48] Strauss, Administrative Justice, above n 46, 46; Laurence H Tribe, American Constitutional Law (Foundation Press, 3^rd ed, 2000) vol 1, 985.

Inc v Volpe[1971] USSC 41; , 401 US 402, 418–20 (Marshall J) (1971); Mashaw, ‘Public Reason’, above n 10, 15; Peter Cane, ‘Records, Reasons and Rationality in Judicial Control of Administrative Power: England, the US and Australia’ (2015) 48 Israel Law Review 309, 320–1.

^[52] For an argument that the cases do extend in this way, see Evan J Criddle, ‘When Delegation Begets Domination: Due Process of Administrative Lawmaking’ (2011) 46 Georgia Law Review 117, 170–6.

^[55] P P Craig, Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Clarendon Press, 1990) 20–1.

^[65] Rules Publication Act 1893, 56 & 57 Vict 1, c 66. For the history of this Act see Sir Carleton Kemp Allen, Law and Orders: An Inquiry into the Nature and Scope of Delegated Legislation and Executive Powers in English Law (Stevens and Sons, 3^rd ed, 1965) 98–9.

^[66] That means that in the same year that public consultation provisions were dropped from general regulation-making requirements in the United Kingdom, they were introduced in the US by the Administrative Procedure Act.

^[67] It is worth noting that equivalent provisions were included in early Australian legislation but repealed in 1916: Rules Publication Act 1903 (Cth) s 3, repealed by Rules Publication Act 1916 (Cth) s 3.

^[71] Cass R Sunstein, ‘Deliberative Democracy in the Trenches’ (2017) 146(3) Daedalus (forthcoming).

^[89] See Andrew Edgar, ‘Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation: Why Favour Substantive Review over Procedural Review?’ in John Bell et al (eds), Public Law Adjudication in Common Law Systems: Process and Substance (Hart Publishing, 2016) 189, 196–200.

^[90] See also D J Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures (Clarendon Press, 1996) 488–9.

^[93] See Mark Aronson and Matthew Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Lawbook, 5^th ed, 2013) 450–2 [7.230].

^[96] Portland Cement Association v Ruckelshaus, [1973] USCADC 433; 486 F 2d 375, 392–4 (Judge Leventhal) (DC Cir, 1973); Richard J Pierce Jr, Administrative Law Treatise (Wolters Kluwer, 5^th ed, 2010) vol 1, 582–4; Strauss, Administrative Justice, above n 46, 322.

^[97] Perez v Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S Ct 1199, 1203 (Sotomayor J) (2015); Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Del) v Environmental Protection Agency, 785 F 3d 1, 11, 14–16 (Judge Randolph) (DC Cir, 2015). See also Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise, above n 96, 594.

^[100] Stewart, ‘US Administrative Law’, above n 15, 74–5. See also Elizabeth Fisher, Pasky Pascual and Wendy Wagner, ‘Rethinking Judicial Review of Expert Agencies’ (2015) 93 Texas Law Review 1681, 1720–1.

^[102] Mashaw, ‘Public Reason’, above n 10, 13–18; Sunstein, ‘Interest Groups in American Public Law’, above n 15, 61–3, 85.

^[104] Richard B Stewart, ‘The Reformation of American Administrative Law’ (1975) 88 Harvard Law Review 1667, 1669–70; Jerry L Mashaw and David L Harfst, The Struggle for Auto Safety (Harvard University Press, 1990) 157–63; Peter L Strauss, ‘Revisiting Overton Park: Political and Judicial Controls over Administrative Actions Affecting the Community’ (1992) 39 UCLA Law Review 1251, 1258–60.

^[107] J D Heydon, M J Leeming and P G Turner, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrine and Remedies (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5^th ed, 2015) 626–7 [19-175]–[19-180].

^[108] Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 530 (Gibbs J); Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564, 582 (Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 1; (2016) 257 CLR 42, 76 [64] (Bell J), 90 [112] (Gageler J), 123 [235] (Keane J), 152 [350] (Gordon J).

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, 357. See also Aronson and Groves, above n 93, 894–5 [15.140].

^[110] Kuczborski v Queensland [2014] HCA 46; (2014) 254 CLR 51, 61 [6] (French CJ), 87–8 [99] (Hayne J), 107 [178] (Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ), 133 [283] (Bell J); Croome v Tasmania (1997) 191 CLR 119, 127–8 (Brennan CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ), 138–9 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ); Pearce and Argument, above n 14, 410–11 [26.11].

^[111] Henry Burmester, ‘Limitations on Federal Adjudication’ in Brian Opeskin and Fiona Wheeler (eds), The Australian Federal Judicial System (Melbourne University Press, 2000) 227, 227–9; Peter Cane, ‘Open Standing and the Role of Courts in a Democratic Society’ (1999) 20 Singapore Law Review 23, 29; Mashaw, Creating the Administrative Constitution, above n 7, 306.

^[113] See, eg, Spokeo Inc v Robins (US Sup Ct, No 13-1339, 16 May 2016) slip op 5–10 (Alito J); Richard J Pierce Jr, Administrative Law Treatise (Wolters Kluwer, 5^th ed, 2010) vol 3, ch 16.

^[114] Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc v Camp, [1970] USSC 56; 397 US 150, 154 (Douglas J) (1970), quoting Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v Federal Power Commission, [1965] USCA2 572; 354 F 2d 608, 616 (Judge Hays) (2^nd Cir, 1965).

^[115] See, eg, Friends of Animals v Jewell, 824 F 3d 1033, 1040–2 (Judge Edwards) (DC Cir, 2016); Environmental Integrity Project v McCarthy, 139 F Supp 3d 25, 36–8 (Judge Moss)

^[117] See, eg, Jeffrey S Lubbers, A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking (ABA Publishing, 5^th ed, 2012) 370–1; Strauss, Administrative Justice, above n 46, 429–39.

^[119] United States Army Corps of Engineers v Hawkes Co Inc (US Sup Ct, No 15-290, 31 May 2016) slip op 7 (Roberts CJ); Richard J Pierce Jr, Sidney A Shapiro and Paul R Verkuil, Administrative Law and Process (Foundation Press, 4^thed, 2004) 200.

^[120] See, eg, Automotive Parts & Accessories Association Inc v Boyd, [1968] USCADC 558; 407 F 2d 330, 334 (Judge McGowan) (DC Cir, 1968); Portland Cement Association v Ruckelshaus, [1973] USCADC 433; 486 F 2d 375, 392–4 (Judge Leventhal) (DC Cir, 1973).

^[121] Mashaw and Harfst, above n 104, 157, 268–9 n 13; Strauss, ‘Revisiting Overton Park’,

^[126] Leichhardt Council v Minister for Planning [No 2] (1995) 87 LGERA 78, 84, 88–9 (Priestley JA); Save Little Manly Beach Foreshore Inc v Minister for Planning [No 3] [2015] NSWLEC 77 (8 May 2015).

^[127] See Edgar, ‘Judicial Review of Public Consultation Processes’, above n 95, 220–2.

^[128] See, eg, Litevale Pty Ltd v Lismore City Council (1997) 96 LGERA 91, 101–2 (Rolfe AJA); Canterbury District Residents & Ratepayers Association Inc v Canterbury Municipal Council (1991) 73 LGRA 317, 320 (Stein J); Leichhardt Council v Minister for Planning [No 2] (1995) 87 LGERA 78, 84, 88–9 (Priestley JA). See also Scurr v Brisbane City Council [1973] HCA 39; (1973) 133 CLR 242, 251–2 (Stephen J).

^[131] Susan Rose-Ackerman, ‘Policymaking Accountability: Parliamentary versus Presidential Systems’ in David Levi-Faur (ed), Handbook on the Politics of Regulation (Edward Elgar, 2011) 171, 176–8; Peter Cane, Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 316. See also Aronson and Groves, above n 93,

^[134] Department of Planning and Infrastructure (NSW), ‘Delegations and Independent Reviews of Plan-Making Decisions’ (Planning Circular, PS 12-006, 29 October 2012); Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (NSW), Instrument of Delegation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, 14 October 2012.

^[136] It should be noted that there are exceptions to the pattern highlighted in the table. For example, regulations made by departmental officials rather than independent authorities may be subject to mandatory consultation provisions (see, eg, Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (Cth) pt 6 div 3D sub-div 3D.2) and regulations made by independent authorities may be subject to unenforceable consultation provisions (see, eg, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) reg 11.295; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 901J, 903G).

^[140] See also Visa International Service Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 977; (2003) 131 FCR 300, 417–18 [548]–[554] (Tamberlin J).

^[141] Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) ss 17, 19.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2017/9.html

Melbourne University Law Review