Scrutinising parliament's scrutiny of delegated legislative power

Q3 Social Sciences
G. Appleby, J. Howe
{"title":"Scrutinising parliament's scrutiny of delegated legislative power","authors":"G. Appleby, J. Howe","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2015.1123545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Delegation of legislative power to the Executive occupies a unique place within the constitutional division of power. As a matter of necessity, efficiency, responsiveness, and a desire for increased participation from industry, delegation of legislative power is common but surprisingly under-theorised and under-studied. For decades in Australia it has been the domain of the Parliament to determine the appropriate exercise and level of scrutiny for delegated legislative power. But the constitutional landscape may be changing. In the 2012 decision Williams v Commonwealth (No 1), the Australian High Court indicated a greater willingness to scrutinise more robustly the performance of Parliament's supervisory functions. Against the background of the Court's new interest in responsible government, we argue that the current parliamentary practice of review of the exercise of delegated power is unable to achieve robust accountability. Informed by the High Court's jurisprudence in Williams (No 1) and the theories of responsible government and separation of powers, we suggest reforms that will ensure Parliament is meeting its constitutional duty of calling the Executive to account to it and, ultimately, the people.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"3 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2015.1123545","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2015.1123545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Delegation of legislative power to the Executive occupies a unique place within the constitutional division of power. As a matter of necessity, efficiency, responsiveness, and a desire for increased participation from industry, delegation of legislative power is common but surprisingly under-theorised and under-studied. For decades in Australia it has been the domain of the Parliament to determine the appropriate exercise and level of scrutiny for delegated legislative power. But the constitutional landscape may be changing. In the 2012 decision Williams v Commonwealth (No 1), the Australian High Court indicated a greater willingness to scrutinise more robustly the performance of Parliament's supervisory functions. Against the background of the Court's new interest in responsible government, we argue that the current parliamentary practice of review of the exercise of delegated power is unable to achieve robust accountability. Informed by the High Court's jurisprudence in Williams (No 1) and the theories of responsible government and separation of powers, we suggest reforms that will ensure Parliament is meeting its constitutional duty of calling the Executive to account to it and, ultimately, the people.
审查议会对授权立法权的审查
立法权授予行政机关在宪法权力划分中占有独特的地位。由于必要性、效率、响应性和对行业参与的渴望,立法权授权很常见,但令人惊讶的是,理论化和研究不足。几十年来,在澳大利亚,决定授予立法权的适当行使和审查水平一直是议会的领域。但宪法格局可能正在改变。在2012年的威廉姆斯诉联邦案(No . 1)中,澳大利亚高等法院表示更愿意更有力地审查议会监督职能的表现。在法院对负责任政府产生新兴趣的背景下,我们认为,目前议会审查授权行使的做法无法实现强有力的问责制。根据高等法院在威廉姆斯一案中的判例,以及负责任政府和权力分立的理论,我们建议进行改革,以确保议会履行其宪法义务,要求行政部门对其负责,并最终对人民负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信