Australian administrative law is an interesting mix of old and new. Ancient traditions and “old” case law are part of our admin law heritage. Also, the “new” administrative law weaves through our latest cases and current legislation. It is hard to work out what is part of our Australian administrative law, without proper training.
As a result of this mix of old and new, it can get a bit confusing. You might find that regulations, decision-making and administrative law can be challenging. But you are not alone… and we can help with our administrative law training.
We offer online and face-to-face training courses for industry and government groups. We also provide different ways of learning in our video series. And you can buy our awesome administrative law book to help you too.
Many people in government gain confidence when they can access the right admin law tools for their work. Whether that work is investigating, decision making or policy writing. Regulators, too, become better at finding and using their “teeth”, if they know more about Australian administrative law. And people in business improve in their work too if they know more about the limits on the powers of their regulators.
Some people who do our courses have already studied admin law at university. Others might have done a certificate IV in government investigation or other similar qualification.
But it’s never quite enough, for you can always learn more! So our training will no doubt enrich your understanding further. And we pride ourselves on our practical approach for skills development. That way you can practise Australian administrative law, not just learn “about” it.
If you want to increase in your administrative law understanding, and gain confidence in your work, then our administrative law training will help you get there.
Contact us, book us for training, or purchase access to our video series. Choose one or more of our suggested ways to improve your skills and gain confidence.
Investigators embark on a search for evidence of compliance, misconduct, or breaches of the law.
Investigators embark on a search for evidence of compliance, misconduct, or breaches of the law.
Keeping up to date with the latest in administrative law cases can be tricky.
Interested in in-house training?
Fiona brings subject matter which can be dense and arcane to life with real world examples and an accessible conversational style. She is able to design a bespoke package of training and pitch it perfectly to an audience with diverse experience and differing levels of familiarity with Administrative Law. Highly recommend.
At 03:25 Mr Rigg talks about regulatory offences not being criminal. I note that a matter under S31(1) of the WHS Act carries potential for up to 5 years imprisonment. I wouldn’t consider that as quasi-criminal.
Dear Mark
My interpretation of Mr Gipp’s comments is that he was explaining one definition of the term regulatory for the purposes of his discussions in the videos – and making the point that some regulatory offences can be distinguished from some types of crimes. Mr Gipp has been a criminal lawyer for many years, as well as an administrative lawyer. He was a police officer and has done many cases for the police as a barrister. In these videos we were wanting to focus more on admin law than indictable crimes, for example. But we do use some criminal case examples to highlight particular issues of relevance to admin law.
F McK.
I would suggest that the use of a blacklist or whitelist would potentially breach government purchasing frameworks and policies. If a tenderer breaks the law, the legal system is there to address it. All tenderers who meet the legal and technical requirements of a tender process, should be able to tender equally.
The practice Mr Gipp describes in working collusively with government agencies to exclude tenders, whether by omission or inclusion, could be seen by some as corrupt behaviour. How is it any different to collusion among tenderers?
In any investigation, the ends do not justify the means.
Dear Mark. As per your previous comment. I don’t think Mr Gipp is recommending collusion! He is describing what was done by others. F McK.
Public sector agencies have procurement frameworks in place, that are subject to proper transparency and public consultation. This includes preferred contractor and pre-qualification schemes.
The use of a white list is not an appropriate remedy to a blacklist. A white list, as described in this session, is likely an illegal workaround of procurement frameworks and policies to the extent that it could be seen as corrupt activity.
Dear Mark. Did you think that Ron Gipp was advocating a white list? Or are you just making a comment. I presume the latter.
F McK.
Fiona’s brief course on key aspects of administrative law was well structured and pitched for the non-lawyer involved in administrative decision-making. Fiona’s explanations were clear and concise, she introduced useful practical examples and she took time to patiently answer all questions. Very useful and enjoyable.
Where is the sound? Checked my computer, sound is working but not with this video?
Thanks Ian – I don’t know where the sound went! I can see another person watched the video 4 hours after you and didn’t have a problem. Would you mind checking again or trying on a different device?
Interesting. Is it considered that various sanctions such as improvement and prohibition notices as well as infringement notices ( which are commonly known as compliance and enforcement tools) would they be considered a warning? Or if an Inspector issues these notices if not considered a warning, but a step above the warning, potentially then be determined as being overturned due to the decision of Proudman and Dayman?
Thanks for your comment/question Stephen. I would say that Ron Gipp meant a warning is not the issue of any kind of notice. He meant simply an oral warning. I believe any kind of issue of a statutory notice is a decision of an administrative character under an Act. It must comply with administrative law rules. It must comply with natural justice. It could be turned aside upon review (merits or judicial review). This is covered in more detail in my administrative law course if you end up doing it or have done it! Re Proudman v Dayman – that is more about criminal proceedings – in other words you could issue an infringement notice lawfully even if the recipient of the notice would have said they didn’t believe they were doing anything wrong – even if in a criminal matter there would be an honest and reasonable belief on the part of the ‘accused’. (Of course that general comment doesn’t take account of whether the offence is strict liability ie what mens rea is involved…)
Very good video.
Great!
I’d tend to agree with Mark. While this may an interesting anecdote, it is very difficult to work out what the learning outcome is supposed to be. The anecdote seems to be; we had a problem, we come up with a solution, the legal process determined this solution to be improper, so we changed the packaging, called it an all-new product and got away with it. I don’t know what I am supposed to take away from that.
There are a few things coming out of this video. Be careful when you are removing entitlements or legitimate expectations; be careful if you are expressing a conclusion which is speculative and adverse to a person with such rights; be careful about publication of information (such as the leaked black list) which affects reputations of a company or individual.
Another message, arguably (as I suggest to Ron), it is better to say nothing (eg by not putting someone’s name on an eligible-for-work ‘white list’) than to say something adverse (eg by putting someone’s name on a black list).
Also, remember that natural justice (procedural fairness) depends on the circumstances (in this case the judge took a view about unfairness which was different from that of the top QC in the State).
A very good reminder of knowing the legislation (statute) your operating under and use policies as “guides” only. If in doubt go back and read the statute.
Excellent video. Avoiding leading questions is a real challenge. Thank you.
This is a very valuable and detailed series and has complimented my understanding of investigative powers and obtaining evidence.
The course provided me with a layer of insight into law that I had been eagerly trying to learn for a while. Fiona’s candid and relatable delivery made the subject interesting, and she has given me the confidence to continue exploring other aspects of law that are relevant—no essential—to my work. Thank you Fiona!