Rights, Review and Reasonableness: The Implications of Canada's New Approach to Administrative Decision-Making and Human Rights for Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the difficult issues with which courts in jurisdictions with constitutional or statutory rights protection have had to grapple is the effect of human rights on the exercise of discretion by public authorities. Rights legislation tends to be reasonably clear about the proportionality test required of legislation and regulations, but far less explicit about the role of rights in administrative decision-making. The two Australian jurisdictions with bills of rights — the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria — have largely followed the orthodox Canadian approach on the issue. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently cast serious doubt on much of its earlier precedent. This article examines the developments in Canadian law and the implications of the new Canadian approach for Victoria and the ACT. It argues that while the new Canadian approach may offer solutions to some of the problems faced by Australian courts, particularly in the wake of the Momcilovic litigation, it is based on principles that have no equivalent in Australian public law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".