What is Administrative Law in Queensland?

Administrative law is one of the most rapidly developing areas of Australian law, yet most people have never heard the term. If you have ever had a licence refused, seen a development approved near your home, or disagreed with a decision made by a council, a state department, or a federal minister, administrative law is the framework that determines whether that decision was made correctly and what, if anything, you can do about it.

The Queensland Law Handbook provides a useful plain-English overview at queenslandlawhandbook.org.au: Complaints About Government and Administrative Law . The Australian Government’s overview is available at ag.gov.au: Administrative Law .

What Administrative Law Actually Governs

Administrative law does not regulate legislation itself. Parliament makes the laws; administrative law governs what happens when government bodies exercise the powers those laws give them. Every time a government body makes a decision under a legislative power, administrative law is the framework that determines:

• whether the decision-maker had the authority to make that decision
• whether the correct process was followed
• whether the right factors were considered and irrelevant ones were excluded
• whether the decision was made in good faith and for a proper purpose
• what remedies are available if any of these requirements were not met

Examples of decisions governed by administrative law that affect ordinary Queenslanders every day include:

• a council approving or refusing a development application
• a state minister granting or revoking a mining or environmental licence
• a federal minister making a decision under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) about a major project
• a professional board revoking an occupational licence
• a federal immigration minister refusing a visa application
• a regulatory agency imposing a penalty or condition on a business
• a government department determining eligibility for a social service or benefit

Administrative law does not give you the right to demand a particular outcome. What it gives you is the right to demand that decisions be made lawfully, properly, and in good faith.

The Relationship Between Administrative Law and Legislation

Every government power has a source. In Australia, the executive government cannot act without legal authority. That authority comes from:

1. Legislation (statute): The most common source. Parliament passes an Act granting a minister, council, or agency the power to make specific decisions. Administrative law governs how that power is exercised.
2. Delegated legislation: Regulations, rules, and by-laws made under a parent Act. These have the force of law but are made by the executive, not Parliament, and are subject to administrative law scrutiny.
3. The Constitution: At the federal level, some executive powers flow directly from the Constitution rather than statute. Section 75(v) of the Constitution provides a constitutional guarantee that the High Court can always review federal executive action for jurisdictional error, regardless of what any statute says.
4. Prerogative powers: A small residual category of powers exercised by the Crown without statutory authority (for example, issuing passports or honours). These are increasingly subject to judicial review in appropriate circumstances.

The Primary Legislation

Queensland: Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

The primary statutory mechanism for challenging Queensland government decisions is the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) . This Act codifies the grounds on which a decision may be challenged by judicial review, including:

• the decision-maker acted without jurisdiction (ultra vires)
• a breach of the rules of natural justice
• failure to observe required procedures
• lack of authority
• taking into account irrelevant considerations
• failing to take into account relevant considerations
• an improper exercise of power
• error of law
• fraud, bad faith, or dishonesty
• no evidence for a finding of fact on which the decision was based
• the decision was otherwise contrary to law

The Act also establishes a right to obtain a statement of reasons for a reviewable decision. This is a powerful preliminary tool: before deciding whether to challenge a decision, you can request a written statement of the reasons, and the decision-maker is obliged to provide one. That statement often reveals whether any of the grounds for review are present.

Commonwealth: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

For decisions made by federal government officials under Commonwealth legislation, the equivalent mechanism is the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act). It uses substantially the same grounds as the Queensland Act and allows applications to the Federal Court of Australia.

Constitutional Guarantee: Section 75(v)

Section 75(v) of the Constitution gives the High Court original jurisdiction to grant relief against officers of the Commonwealth where they have acted in excess of jurisdiction, refused to exercise jurisdiction, or are proposed to act in breach of a constitutional obligation. This jurisdiction cannot be removed by Parliament. It provides an irreducible minimum guarantee of judicial review for federal executive action, regardless of what the ADJR Act or any other statute says.

Federal Merits Review: Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

For federal decisions where Parliament has provided a merits review pathway, the reviewing body is now the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), established under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) . The ART replaced the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 14 October 2024. All ongoing AAT matters were transferred to the ART. Information is available at art.gov.au .

The Two Types of Review: A Critical Distinction

Administrative law challenges take two fundamentally different forms. Choosing the wrong one is a common and costly mistake.

Merits review allows an independent body to re-examine the decision on its full merits and substitute a different outcome. The reviewer asks: was this the right decision? Examples in Queensland include appeals to the Planning and Environment Court against development decisions, and QCAT reviews of licensing decisions.

Judicial review asks only whether the decision was made lawfully. The court does not ask whether the decision was correct; it asks whether the decision-maker had authority, followed the right process, and acted in good faith. If judicial review succeeds, the decision is set aside but the decision-maker then remakes it, and may reach the same conclusion.

For a detailed explanation of both types and which applies to your situation, see our FAQ article: What is the difference between merits review and judicial review?

Why Administrative Law Has Developed So Rapidly

Administrative law is one of the most contested areas of Australian law over the last 15 years. Several forces have driven this:

Migration decisions: A very large proportion of recent High Court decisions have involved challenges to federal immigration minister decisions, particularly the exercise of personal ministerial powers to cancel or refuse visas on character grounds. These cases have significantly developed the law on natural justice, relevant considerations, and the limits of ministerial discretion.

Environmental decisions: Major resource and infrastructure projects have generated a large body of case law on the limits of ministerial power under the EPBC Act, including challenges to coal mine approvals, offshore gas projects, and major urban developments in or near protected areas.

National security: Decisions relating to counter-terrorism, citizenship cancellation, and surveillance have tested the limits of executive power and procedural fairness in contexts where national security is claimed as a justification for limiting review.

Delegated legislation challenges: Since the High Court’s decision in Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 272 CLR 505, there has been renewed attention to the limits on the power of state and territory governments to make delegated legislation, particularly in the context of public health emergency powers.

What Administrative Law Cannot Do

It is important to understand the limits of administrative law, because many people approach it expecting it to deliver an outcome it cannot provide:

• Administrative law cannot compel a decision-maker to reach a particular outcome on judicial review. It can only require that the decision be remade lawfully.
• Administrative law cannot override legislation. If Parliament has authorised a particular outcome, administrative law cannot prevent it, even if the outcome is unfair or unpopular.
• Administrative law challenges are generally not available to third parties who simply disagree with a decision without any personal, proprietary, or statutory interest in it, unless legislation expressly broadens standing (as the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) does for impact assessable applications).
• Time limits are strict and unforgiving. Missing the window for an administrative law challenge typically extinguishes your rights permanently, regardless of the strength of your case.

Everyday Examples That Affect Queensland Residents

Situation	Administrative Law Mechanism
Council approves a unit block near your home	Planning appeal to the Planning and Environment Court if impact assessable and submission lodged in time
Liquor licence refused for your business	Merits review through QCAT or the relevant tribunal under the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld)
Federal environment minister approves a cableway through a national park	Judicial review under the ADJR Act and/or s 75(v) of the Constitution; EPBC Act public consultation
Professional board revokes your occupational licence	Merits review through QCAT under the relevant occupational licensing legislation
Federal minister refuses a family visa	Merits review through the ART; judicial review in the Federal Court as a fallback
Council rejects your development application	Appeal to the Planning and Environment Court (merits review)
Government agency imposes a penalty without a fair hearing	Judicial review on natural justice grounds under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

Where to Start

If you believe a government decision affecting you may have been made unlawfully or without proper process, the first steps are:

1. Request a statement of reasons under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) or the ADJR Act. This is available for most reviewable decisions and must be provided within 28 days. It is free and often reveals the decision-maker’s reasoning, which is where errors are most commonly found.
2. Identify the legislation under which the decision was made and check whether any merits review pathway is available.
3. Check the time limits for both merits review and judicial review.
4. Assess your standing: Are you personally affected? Did you lodge a properly made submission if a planning decision is involved?
5. Seek legal advice promptly. Administrative law is a complex and technical area. Delay in seeking advice often forecloses options.

Last updated: May 2026 — see also Ep 13: Administrative Law and Government Decisions | What is the difference between merits review and judicial review? | How do I request a statement of reasons? | What is natural justice?