The Minister's Direction and the Statutory Power
A state Minister for Transport is empowered under the Transport Act to 'make guidelines for the safe operation of rideshare services'. The Minister issues a direction requiring all rideshare drivers to install a specific camera model costing $400, and stating that drivers who fail to comply will lose their licence. The Act contains no power to impose licence conditions or penalties. A drivers' association challenges the direction. The Minister argues the camera requirement is 'plainly a safety guideline' and that the penalty is merely an 'administrative consequence'. The association also argues the direction was made without the required 28-day consultation period specified in the Act.
1. Assess whether the direction is a valid exercise of the Minister's power, applying the doctrine of ultra vires.
Read the worked answer
The direction is likely ultra vires in part.
Scope of power: The Act authorises guidelines for safe operation. A guideline is advisory in character. A mandatory requirement to install a specific camera model, coupled with licence loss, goes beyond 'guidelines' - it imposes a substantive obligation and a sanction. The Minister cannot use a guideline-making power to create offences or penalties; only Parliament can authorise penalties, and the Act contains no such power.
Characterisation: The Minister's label ('administrative consequence') does not control. Courts look to substance and effect. Losing a licence is a severe consequence and is functionally a penalty.
Consultation: If the Act mandates 28-day consultation, failure to comply is a procedural ultra vires ground. Even if the substantive power existed, the direction could be invalid for procedural defect.
Conclusion: The camera requirement and licence-loss consequence exceed the power; the direction is invalid to that extent. The Minister could issue genuinely advisory guidance, or seek legislative amendment to create a power to impose conditions.
2. Explain the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the availability of judicial review of delegated legislation.
Read the worked answer
Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament is the supreme law-maker: it can delegate power, define its limits, and override judicial decisions by legislation. Delegated legislation derives its authority entirely from the enabling Act, so it cannot exceed that Act.
Judicial review enforces that derivation. Courts do not ask whether a regulation is wise; they ask whether it is within power (ultra vires) and procedurally valid. This is consistent with sovereignty, not contrary to it: the court is enforcing Parliament's own limits on the delegation.
Tension: Review can frustrate government policy. But Parliament retains the ultimate response - amend the Act to confer the power expressly, or legislate to validate the direction. Conversely, if courts did not review delegated legislation, a Minister could expand their own power indefinitely, which would undermine the very sovereignty that authorised the delegation.
Conclusion: Judicial review of delegated legislation is a structural safeguard that keeps delegated law within the boundaries Parliament set, while leaving Parliament free to redraw those boundaries.