Administrative Regulation-Making: Contrasting Parliamentary and Deliberative Legitimacy

32 Pages Posted: 9 Feb 2017 Last revised: 11 May 2017

See all articles by Andrew Edgar

Andrew Edgar

The University of Sydney Law School

Date Written: February 9, 2017

Abstract

While it is clear that administrative regulations can control matters that are morally or politically controversial, the processes by which they are made in Australia do not generally require transparency or public participation, the primary features of deliberative democracy. This aspect of Australian law is similar to other Westminster-based parliamentary systems. This article compares regulation-making processes in Australia with regulation-making in the United States, a system that is recognised by administrative law scholars to be focused on deliberative democracy. The purpose of the comparison is to highlight the distance between Australian regulation-making systems and a system based on deliberative democracy principles, and to develop an understanding of the regulatory contexts in which such deliberative systems could be established in Australia.

Keywords: Administrative Law, Delegated Legislation, Regulations, Deliberative Democracy, Judicial Review, Westminster Systems

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Edgar, Andrew, Administrative Regulation-Making: Contrasting Parliamentary and Deliberative Legitimacy (February 9, 2017). Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 738-768, 2017; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 17/12. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2914073

Andrew Edgar (Contact Author)

The University of Sydney Law School ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
148
Abstract Views
853
rank
212,258
PlumX Metrics