Bills of rights: the newest despotism? a comparison of the development of the principles of judicial review of administrative action in Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a ‘righting’ effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. In making this argument, many point to the apparent ‘formalism’, ‘legalism’ and ‘conservatism’ of Australian administrative law as evidence, noting that Australia is an outlier amongst common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights. Various other claims about the interaction between bills of rights and the scope of judicial review of administrative action have also been made by commentators and judges. However, for the most part these claims remain just that—as there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis. This thesis makes a contribution to this relatively under-analysed topic by comparing the development of the principles of judicial review of administrative action in Australia and Canada in recent decades. It examines the procedural and substantive limits that courts in each jurisdiction place on administrative powers, as well as the intensity of judicial scrutiny of administrative action, with the aim of assessing whether Canadian administrative law shows evidence of having become ‘righted’ or ‘stifled’ as a result of Canada’s extensive human rights framework. Awards: Winner of the Mollie Holman Doctoral Medal for Excellence, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, 2014.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".