UPDATED: Have you read the forecast? Changes ahead in the Land, Planning and Environment scene

UPDATE: Since this blog was first published on 19 June 2015, the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Act 2015 was given royal assent on 11 August 2015.
At this stage the Act has not come into operation. Unless it is proclaimed by 14 April 2016 it will become operative on that date.  The bill and the Act as assented to are in identical terms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are changes afoot in the Land, Planning and Environment scene, including amendments to both the Act and the Regulations and a new levy for metropolitan developments valued over $1 million.

CHANGES TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

A new bill has been introduced into Parliament that will permit VCAT and responsible authorities to consider the number of objectors to a permit application when deciding whether a proposed use or development may have a significant social effect.

Decision-makers must already consider whether a use or development may have a significant social effect, however the number of objectors to a permit application was previously not specifically identified as a relevant consideration.  The proposed amendments clarify that the two key decision-makers in the planning permit process, the responsible authority or VCAT on review, may take the number of objectors into consideration before a decision is made, if the circumstances require.

The Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, stated that the new requirement 'is likely to be particularly relevant in circumstances where a proposal may reduce access to or enjoyment of community facilities or services or adversely affect public health and safety.'  He stated that the number of objectors and the consistency of their views may demonstrate a section of the scale of a social effect on the community.

As is the case now, an objector will need to put their concerns in writing and state how they would be affected by the grant of a permit.

The Minister  also clarified that "social effects" may include matters such as the demand for use of community facilities and services, access to social and community facilities, choice in housing, shopping and recreational leisure services, community safety and amenity and the needs of particular groups in the community.

METROPOLITAN PLANNING LEVY

A new levy on planning permit applications for projects valued at over $1 million within Melbourne metropolitan areas takes effect from 1 July 2015.  Relevantly no exemptions apply for State Government Agencies.

The levy will be payable to a relevant responsible authority or planning authority and will be administered by the State Revenue Office (SRO).  Applicants must first apply for a Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) Certificate from the SRO and pay the MPL before making a planning permit application.  The rate for the MPL has been set in essence, at $1.30 per $1000 for affected projects.

The levy is payable where the estimated cost of  the development exceeds the threshold amount, which is currently $1 million for the 2015-2016 financial year.  Moving forward, this threshold amount will be indexed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The SRO is to publish the CPI adjusted threshold amount annually.

NEW PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGULATIONS

Rounding up a sweep of recent changes and drawing seven months of public consultation to a close, new Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 came into operation on 16 May 2015.

Of relevance to State agencies that own, develop or manage land, three new forms have been inserted for giving notice of a proposal and decision to amend or end a section 173 Agreement.  As such, all users of Victoria's planning system will need to update their systems and review the new forms.  To consider the effect of these changes on your Department or agency, contact:

Eliza Bergin
Principal Solicitor
8684 0267
eliza.bergin@vgso.vic.gov.au

Juliette Halliday
Managing Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0299
juliette.halliday@vgso.vic.gov.au

Smile, you could be on 'body worn camera'

Take a closer look at all the gadgets and equipment worn by your local police officer and you might notice a small vest-mounted video camera attached to his or her lapel.  The camera,  called a body worn camera (BWC), records police interactions with the public and they may soon be worn by front line officers across the country.

According to news reports, BWCs are popular and have been trialled in every Australian state. For example:

• In the Northern Territory a reported 40 front line officers are officially trialling the equipment, and the Northern Territory Police Association estimates that three-quarters of their force have already bought and are using personal cameras;
• In Queensland, the Palaszczuk government reportedly has committed significant funds for BWCs;  
• In Victoria, Frankston police trialled 22 BWCs in 2013-2014, and Victoria Police is currently evaluating the project in anticipation of expansion.  

Even in the US, President Obama has reportedly asked Congress for $263 million over three years for 50,000 BWCs across the country following the tragic events in Ferguson, Missouri. It wouldn't be surprising to see the use of BWC's extend beyond policing to other areas of enforcement - perhaps parking inspectors, park rangers or fisheries officers keen to document their encounters on duty.

What are their key advantages?

1. Potential reduction in violence.

There is little data on the efficacy of BWCs, but what exists is positive.  The most widely cited study tracked their use by police in Rialto, California.  There, Cambridge researchers found that the use of BWCs decreased incidents of the use of force by 59% and complaints against police by 87%.

Although limited, the study suggests that people are less willing to resort to violence and that police behaviour improves when both parties know they are being recorded, and it also appears to deter members of the public from bringing spurious complaints.

2. Use as an evidentiary tool.

For investigating and prosecuting agencies, the BWC is no doubt appealing as an evidentiary tool.  Clear, verifiable footage captured by BWCs could reduce hours in court examining and verifying the veracity of oral accounts.  This in turn would reduce the public resources spent on each trial and enable courts to hear more cases in less time.

However, investigating agencies using or considering using BWC footage as evidence will need to take into account a range of factors including:

• Admissibility requirements. The admissibility of footage captured by body worn cameras will generally be governed by the principles which apply to the admissibility of evidence in general.  In Victoria these principles are set out in the Evidence Act 2008, which generally provides that evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties and either is not hearsay or, if hearsay, falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.  However, depending on the jurisdiction in which the dispute is brought, other provisions may be applicable: see for example s 98(1)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.
• Pre-trial disclosure requirements. Agencies will need to be equipped to hand over relevant footage, or at least have facilities for defence lawyers to view the footage in a secure setting.  Whether interested parties, including the media, can access footage when no prosecution is on foot will be another matter for determination.

Other legal considerations

Privacy 

To date, no specific Victorian legislation removes the statutory privacy obligations of police and other agencies using BWCs.  Agencies intending to use BWCs should therefore ensure that their use complies with legislation regulating the collection, use and disclosure of personal and health information, and in particular the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (PDP Act) and the Health Records Act 2001. Notably, the law enforcement exemption to the PDP Act, if applicable, would allow Victoria Police to collect, use, disclose and restrict access to information recorded by BWCs when reasonably necessary to carry out law enforcement functions. In some circumstances the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 may also apply. Amendments to privacy notices are likely to be required.

The law also restricts publication of personal and sensitive information including details of sexual assault, family violence victims and children involved in court proceedings, and information that could prejudice the fairness of any pending or in progress trials.  Agencies will need to be especially careful to identify and appropriately deal with personal information of third parties that is captured in background events and peripheral conversations.

Data retention

Information collected via BWCs must be securely stored and otherwise dealt with in accordance with legislation, including the Public Records Act 1973 and the PDP Act Parts 4 and 5 as applicable.  From a practical perspective, continuous recording could mean enormous data storage costs, so agencies will need to develop policies on when to turn the cameras on and off. For example, it has been reported that the practice in the Northern Territory is to turn on the BWC only when police exercise their powers or 'make customer contact or custody'.

For further information on these issues please contact members of our Policing Practice Group or Technology and Data Protection Practice Group:

Louise Jarrett
Managing Principal Solicitor
t 9247 6798
louise.jarrett@vgso.vic.gov.au

Grahame Best
Solicitor
t 9247 6425
grahame.best@vgso.vic.gov.au

Deidre Missingham
Senior Solicitor
t 8684 0483
deidre.missingham@vgso.vic.gov.au

Employer runs 'fowl' of procedural fairness

On 7 May 2015, the VGSO hosted its seminar. 'An essential ingredient - Procedural fairness in workplace issues: a panel discussion', to a full house of Victorian government agency staff.  Our panel members, Jacqueline Parker, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor, Joanne Kummrow, Special Counsel, Alice Felman, Principal Solicitor, Andrea Lester, Investigator and Jim McKenna, Barrister, provided insights into the key elements of procedural fairness in the workplace and the importance of conducting thorough and unbiased investigations.

That same week, the Fair Work Commission delivered its decision in Heidi Cannon v Poultry Harvesting Pty Ltd, a sobering example of the consequences of failing to afford procedural fairness.

The untimely demise of a number of chickens

Ms Cannon was dismissed from her employment with Poultry Harvesting for allegedly being intoxicated at work, and sleeping in a vehicle during her shift.  Her neglect of duties led to the 'smothering' of a number of chickens.

After her supervisor (Mr Germinian) received a call from a co-worker reporting that Ms Cannon was 'useless', and apparently intoxicated at work, he attended the site.  Upon being asked several times, Ms Cannon denied that she was intoxicated.  She was dismissed after her supervisor smelt alcohol on her breath.

Later that afternoon, Mr Germinian refused to reconsider Ms Cannon's dismissal on the basis that Ms Cannon had lied to him about her intoxication.  Mr Germinian relied on information from another employee that Ms Cannon's partner had advised him that Ms Cannon had been too intoxicated to drive to work.

Although Ms Cannon admitted to not driving to work because she was concerned she might be over 0.05 if breathalysed, she did not consider herself to be intoxicated.

Ms Cannon made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy.

No valid reason to dismiss

The FWC found that there was no valid reason for Ms Cannon's dismissal.  Its reasons included:

• Failure to investigate (no steps taken by employer to objectively assess Ms Cannon's condition and reliance on hearsay information about Ms Cannon's fitness to drive) 
• Failure to apply policies (employer did not follow requirements of its own policies which required employees to be stood down from work until they could work in a safe manner, to be issued with a written warning and to be advised of the availability of counselling)  
• Evidence did not support reason for dismissal (despite concerns that Ms Cannon's intoxication could cause a health and safety risk, Ms Cannon was permitted to work until the end of her shift).

No procedural fairness

The FWC also found that Ms Cannon had been denied procedural fairness as a result of a failure to provide her with an opportunity to respond to allegations or to warn her that she was not permitted to drink any amount of alcohol prior to her shift.  The FWC took into account the following:

• the lack of engagement with Ms Cannon about her views regarding the allegations that she was intoxicated or that she had lied about her alleged intoxication; and
• the lack of an opportunity for Ms Cannon to respond to the allegation by Mr Germinian that Ms Cannon had brought into the premises a can of alcoholic beverage that Mr Germinian found in the shed.  

The Cannon case highlights many of the key themes discussed at the VGSO seminar, including:

• ensuring employees are aware of the standards of behaviour to which they are being held to account, such as their obligations under relevant instruments (eg the Code of Conduct, the Public Administration Act 2004 or the VPS Determination); 
• following the requirements set out in policies or instruments with respect to the management of misconduct or performance processes;
• informing the employee, at the commencement of the process, of the potential outcomes and consequences for their employment; and
• providing a genuine opportunity for the employee to respond or to offer mitigating circumstances with respect to the allegations, the findings and the proposed outcome.

For further advice on your agency's obligations of procedural fairness in the workplace, please contact:

Romina Woll
Senior Solicitor
t  9032 3026
romina.woll@vgso.vic.gov.au

Vicki Moulatsiotis
Principal Solicitor
t  9032 3012
vicki.moulatsiotis@vgso.vic.gov.au

Legislative instruments — Are yours in tune?

No inconvenience in government administration can, in my opinion, be allowed to displace adherence to the principle that a citizen should not be bound by a law the terms of which he has no means of knowing.

Chief Justice Barwick, Watson v Lee  (1979) 

Most of us know the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.  But how can a citizen be expected to know about, let alone comply with, a law that has not been published?
Since 1 July 2011, new rules under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (SLA) govern the preparation, making, publication and review of 'legislative instruments'.

The consequences of failing to comply with the SLA's requirements could be serious, including possible invalidity or disallowance of an instrument.  In this blog, we

• explain what is, and what is not, a 'legislative instrument';
• outline what the new laws say agencies must do; and
• give practical tips on things agencies should do to achieve best practice.

What is a legislative instrument?

To comply with the new laws, you first need to determine whether a particular instrument is legislative or administrative.   Put simply, any instrument that has a legislative character is a 'legislative instrument', unless otherwise designated or exempted  by the SLA (e.g. statutory rules and planning schemes) or other legislation.

Case law has developed principles for determining whether an instrument has a 'legislative character' by examining what the instrument does.  Under these principles, the distinction between legislative and administrative actions '…  is essentially between the creation or formulation of new rules of law having general application and the application of those general rules to particular cases'.

A number of factors must be taken into account, such as whether the instrument alters pre-existing law, creates or changes legal rights and obligations, is mandatory or has general application.[1]   Usually, these principles are easy to apply — but not always.  In cases of doubt, given the potential consequences, it may be wise to seek legal advice.

In many cases, an instrument is specifically characterised as legislative or administrative by:

• the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 [2]; 
• the Act under which the instrument is made; or
• the Subordinate Legislation (Legislative Instruments) Regulations 2011.

What does the SLA require?

The SLA imposes a number of requirements on agencies that make or administer legislative instruments, including those outlined below.

Preparation 

Agencies must

• consult other agencies and stakeholders during preparation, unless exempt;
• prepare a regulatory impact statement (RIS) if the instrument would impose an appreciable economic or social burden, unless exempt;
• conduct a human rights assessment of every proposed legislative instrument, identifying and justifying any limitation of the rights set out in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities [3];  and
• prepare certificates of compliance with or exemption from these requirements.

Making 

Agencies must

• arrange tabling in Parliament of all new legislative instruments, unless exempt; and
• provide copies of all new legislative instruments and associated certificates (unless exempt) to Parliament's Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC), which can recommend disallowance.

Publication

Agencies must

• publish all new legislative instruments in the Government Gazette, either in its next General edition, or in a Special edition within 10 working days (this often supersedes less onerous requirements in the authorising Act [4]); and
• prepare up to date consolidations of amended instruments, unless exempt; and
• publish copies of instruments in force, including any consolidations, on the internet and also make them available for public inspection in hard copy.

Legislative instruments exempt from RIS and tabling must still be gazetted.[5]

Good practice tips

There are a number of things not required by the SLA but which agencies should do as a matter of good practice to make the law more accessible and easier to understand for members of the public. They will also make administration easier.

In particular, it is good practice for agencies

• to draft using the standards and format for statutory rules, and to use plain English;
• to remake an instrument rather than make extensive amendments to it;
• to have a second person check the draft before an instrument is made — the criteria set out in the SLA at s. 13 (for proposed statutory rules) and at s. 25A (which SARC applies in reviewing instruments) provide useful checklists; and
• to retain revoked instruments and superseded consolidations on websites, so that members of the public can find what the law was at any point in time.

Getting In Tune - Legislative Instruments workshops

In conjunction with the Office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel, VGSO will be holding lunch time workshops for clients titled Getting In Tune - Legislative Instruments.

The workshops will cover the rules, procedures tips and traps of creating and maintaining legislative instruments.

These will be held on:
Tuesday 28 July, 12.30pm
Thursday 30 July, 12.30pm

To register your interest, please contact marketing.team@vgso.vic.gov.au 

For assistance on these issues contact:

Alison O'Brien
Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor
8684 0416

Mark Miller
General Counsel

9947 1408

[1] See RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [2001] FCA 855; (2001) 113 FCR 185 at 202, and Visa International Services Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 977; (2003) 131 FCR 300 at 424. See also the Premier's Guidelines under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 published in the Government Gazette of 4 August 2011, at pages 1798 to 1799  Government Gazette of 28 August 2014 at pages 1906 to 1938.
[2] See the definitions of 'legislative instrument' and of instruments of a 'purely administrative nature' in s. 3.
[3] The VGSO's human rights and equal opportunity practice group can assist agencies with Charter assessments and the preparation of certificates:  Contact Catherine Roberts, Managing Principal Solicitor.
[4] See in particular section 16D of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, which deals with how to reconcile dual or competing publication requirements of the SLA and the authorising Act.
[5] See regulation 7 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Subordinate Legislation (Legislative Instruments) Regulations 2011.

Identity crisis: The importance of identifying the correct party to a contract

The importance of identifying the correct party when entering into a contractual arrangement is paramount.

When working as a government lawyer, you can often find yourself in unusual situations, like buying chaff for horses, bullet proof vests for dogs and canned soup for prisoners.  In the context of purchasing goods from local suppliers, knowing who is responsible when the goods are faulty is essential.  Getting this wrong can create significant issues when it comes to disputes and when seeking to enforce terms of the contract.

It is easy to make mistakes and errors can arise in a number of ways:

• referring to a non-existent company;
• not referring to the correct individual or correct company; or
• referring to a business name, rather than the holder of that business name.

Sometimes it is difficult to identify the correct party - there are multiple ways to set up and manage a business and just navigating company searches can be  a challenge. Companies can trade under numerous business or trading names, but it is the holder of that business or trading name that is the legal entity for contracting purposes.

Although courts will strive to ascertain the correct contracting party by applying a test of what a reasonable person would think, it is important to know how to undertake this process correctly from the outset.  Fortunately, post-contractual communications may be of aid to a court that is asked to determine the correct contracting entity.  However, it is preferable not to have to rely on, for example, email chains with a supplier, to overcome an incorrect party name in the contract.

To avoid the risks associated with contracting with the wrong entity, it is important to:

• have a written contract or written confirmation of an oral contract , not an oral one;
• confirm the contracting entity by:
• asking the other party to provide their business details (i.e. ABN/ACN); and
• undertaking company searches on ASIC (via ASIC Connect) to verify those business details are for the correct entity, 
• if the entity uses a business name, confirm that the holder of the business name (via ASIC Connect) is the entity listed in the contract; and
• ensure that signature blocks clearly set out the capacity in which a person signs on behalf of their company, partnership or as a sole trader.

If you are unsure who you are contracting with, please seek legal advice.

Carolyn Doyle
Managing Principal Solicitor
9947 1403

Sanishya Fernando
Solicitor
9947 1439

To retain or not to retain, that is the question: PROV's new record keeping policy

 Interest in records management tends to be events driven.  Last year the release of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (PDP Act) heightened awareness of data security issues for government entities.  Then in the lead up to the 2014 State election, minds were turned to which documents should be retained, or not retained, as the case may be.  

But best-practice records management presents constant challenges in respect of both form and content of records.  Records now come in diverse forms - not only traditional paper documents and record-keeping or business systems, but also email and social media accounts and network drives, for example.  But their significance is premised on their nature and content, which in some cases can be difficult to assess. 

Additional guidance is now to hand.

New policy released

In February this year, Public Record Office Victoria (PROV) released an over-arching policy on record-keeping for the Victorian Government, pursuant to its responsibility for collecting and preserving records from all Victorian government and local governing bodies whose records are public records under the Public Records Act 1973 (PR Act).    

PROV's new 'Record Keeping Policy: Appraisal Statement for Public Records required as State Archives' (Appraisal Statement) sets out the key appraisal considerations for specifying and identifying those Victorian records that are of permanent value to the Government and people of Victoria.  

What is 'appraisal'?

Appraisal is the process by which those records that are required for preservation as State Archives are identified by Government agencies.  In PROV's words:

appraisal is a planned and documented process based on research and analysis to provide transparent, reasoned and consistent reasons for the retention or non-retention of records. It is a reasonably complex, judicious and somewhat subjective process that involves the evaluation of the continuing value of records for the government and community against the cost of retaining and keeping the records accessible in perpetuity.

PROV has divided the characteristics of records of enduring value into the following six categories:

1. The authority, establishment and structure of government;
2.  Primary functions and programs of government;
3. Enduring rights and entitlements (of individuals and groups);
4. Significant impact on individuals;
5. Environmental management and change; and
6. Significant contribution to community memory.

Some of these activities and associated records are relatively self-evident.  For example, in respect of the second category, PROV lists the State budget papers as an example of 'Records that illustrate the government's role in the management of the Victorian economy'. 

However other categories, notably the fourth, are potentially more problematic.  Here PROV's guidance is particularly useful in circumstances where appraisal decisions may affect the 'most vulnerable members of Victorian society'.  Records listed as potentially falling into category four include:

• Collections and analyses of data compiled for planning and decision making;
• Representations and appeals against the decisions/actions of government or legislature; and
• Petitions documenting significant community opposition to government actions or policies.

Records not of permanent value

But what about those records appraised as not being of permanent value? All public records must continue to be retained for as long as they're needed to meet Government's administrative needs and legislative requirements, and to support accountability and community expectations. Section 19 of the PR Act has the effect that it is unlawful to dispose of or destroy a public record other than in accordance with a Standard made under s 12.  Minimum periods are set out in the Standards, or Retention and Disposal Authorities, issued by PROV for use by Government agencies.

Retention periods and personal information

Since opinions may differ as to how an individual record should be categorised in light of the Standards, these minimum periods are not without controversy, particularly in light of the requirements of Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 4.2 of the PDP Act (and its predecessor in the Information Privacy Act 2000).  IPP 4.2 requires destruction or permanent de-identification of personal information 'if it is no longer needed for any purpose'. 

The PR Act prevails over IPP 4.2 as a result of s 6 of the PDP Act (and previously s 6 of the IP Act).  Decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have accepted that personal information retained pursuant to a requirement of the PR Act is still relevantly 'needed' for a purpose (Caripis v Victoria Police(Health and Privacy) [2012] VCAT 1472; Zeqajv Victoria Police (Human Rights) [2013] VCAT 2105). 

Agencies should therefore be aware that retention of personal information beyond the retention period specified in a relevant Standard increases their risk if a complaint is made under IPP 4.2.  Moreover, when protective data security standards are released this year under the PDP Act, agencies may need to reevaluate the cost of managing any records that they are not required to retain.

If you are in the Victorian Government and would like assistance in respect of your agency's records management or privacy obligations, contact:

Carolyn Doyle

Managing Principal Solicitor

9947 1403

Deidre Missingham

Senior Solicitor

8684 0483

---

Pranking doesn't pay: when can a licensing authority inquire into criminal conduct by a licensee?

In Australian Communications and Media Authority v Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd, a judgment handed down on 4 March 2015, the High Court considered the circumstances in which a regulator can investigate and make findings with respect to alleged criminal conduct by a licensee. The case arose out of a now infamous incident in which Australian commercial radio personalities Mel Greig and Mike Christian telephoned nurse Jacintha Saldanha claiming to be members of the British royal family and sought information regarding the health of the Duchess of Cambridge. The prank call was recorded and broadcast on Today FM's Hot 30 Countdown program on 5 December 2012. Ms Saldanha later committed suicide.

Action by the Australian Communications and Media Authority

ACMA investigated the conduct of Greig and Christian for the purpose of determining whether action should be taken with respect to Today FM's commercial radio broadcasting licence. In a preliminary investigation report, ACMA concluded that Greig and Christian had committed a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW). ACMA therefore determined that Today FM had breached a condition imposed upon its commercial radio broadcasting licence by the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (the Act) that it not use its broadcasting service 'in the commission of an offence against … a law of a State'.

Court Proceedings

Today FM sought a declaration in the Federal Court that the Act does not authorise ACMA to make a finding that a licensee has committed a criminal offence. It submitted that the Act only authorises ACMA to take notice of the fact that a licensee has been convicted of an offence by a court. In the alternative, Today FM submitted that the Act breaches the separation of powers mandated by the Commonwealth Constitution by investing ACMA with judicial power.

Today FM's application was dismissed by Edmonds J. An appeal to the Full Federal Court was allowed. ACMA appealed to the High Court.

Judgment of the High Court

French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated that 'it is not offensive to principle that an administrative body is empowered to determine whether a person has engaged in conduct that constitutes a criminal offence as a step in the decision to take disciplinary or other action.' ACMA was required to determine, to the civil standard of proof, whether criminal conduct had occurred. However, this was to be done as a step in determining whether ACMA should take administrative action in response to a breach by Today FM of its licence conditions. ACMA was not required to determine criminal guilt as a step in the infliction of punishment. According to the majority, there was nothing 'incongruous' about conferring upon a licensing authority power to determine whether a broadcasting service had been used in the commission of a criminal offence.

The majority rejected Today FM's constitutional argument in peremptory fashion, stating that 'none of the features of the power conferred on the Authority to investigate and report on breach of the … licence condition and to take consequential administrative enforcement action support the conclusion that it is engaged in the exercise of judicial power.' Gageler J delivered separate concurring reasons.

What does this case mean for decision-makers?

Administrative decision-makers are often called upon to determine whether conduct amounting to the commission of a criminal offence has taken place. Thus, for example, a Tribunal exercising functions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law may be called upon to determine on the balance of probabilities whether a health practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct amounting to the crime of rape or indecent assault.

The Court's decision in Today FM is a reminder that the treatment of criminal offences in the context of administrative decision-making is a wholly different matter from the conduct of criminal proceedings. Administrative decision-makers are not bound by the rules of evidence and must take into account all information that is relevant to the performance of their statutory functions. They apply standards of satisfaction as to factual matters that are fundamentally different from the standard of proof applied by criminal courts. Thus an administrative decision-maker may properly conclude that an offence has been committed even where an acquittal has been entered in respect of the offence by a criminal court. In addition to confirming the scope of ACMA's jurisdiction under the Act, Today FM provides a valuable caution against implying principles of criminal law into administrative decision-making.

Of course, Today FM is a corporation and is not entitled to the privilege against self-incrimination. The issues considered by the High Court in Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao were therefore not relevant to this matter. It should, however, be borne in mind that in an appropriate case, an injunction may issue to restrain an administrative decision-maker from acting in circumstances where the performance of its functions may undermine an accused's right to silence.

For queries relating to any of the issues identified in this blog, please contact:

Jonathan Bayly

Principal Solicitor

jonathan.bayly@vgso.vic.gov.au

Janine Hebiton
Managing Principal Solicitor

janine.hebiton@vgso.vic.gov.au