Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities

of administrative agencies of the government which comprise

of rulemaking or legislation, adjudication
implementation/enforcement of public policy.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND RULE OF LAW ARE
COMPLEMENTARY:
The modern concept of rule of law will be frustrated if not
supported by a sound administration, and only a separate
administrative law can provide that sound administration.
Administration cannot function in a vacuum, it needs a sound
administrative law for itself to work properly. And all this
together only will lead to the rule of law. Thus rule of law and
administrative law are both complementary and are inter
dependent to make each other work.
2. DELEGATED LEGISLATION:
When a part of legislation is formally executed by the executive
machinery instead of the legislature because the legislature has
formally passed it on to them, it is called delegated legislation.
The legislature provides the broader framework of the law with
necessary objectives and directions and the technical details are
left to the executive to fill in. It is also referred to as subordinate
legislation. The executive are strictly subordinate to the parent
act/law and the executive only fills in how to go about achieving
the objective, thus he/she does not have original powers of rule
making/legislation but just enclosed and subordinate power. Any
technical/detailed rule writing done by the executive under
delegated legislation would be declared ultra vires/null and void.
Delegated legislation as a practice is also a result of the growing
complexities and technicalities which are seen in modern day rule
making and policy implementation which the political executive
is not aware of at the grass root level and so executives are called
in to fill in the gaps due to their practical experience in the field.
Also it provides relative autonomy to the executive while
performing his duties as there are many unplanned situations that
come up and the executive will not waste time to coordinate with
the legislature/ministry and immediately frame the rules/law
needed and resolve the situation.
And last but not the least it provides time to the legislature to
devote and manage their time in dealing with other important
issues as well as minute rule writing will take up a lot of time.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION/
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS:
Administrative adjudication is an important component of
administrative law along with delegated legislation. It came into
response to modern day changes. It is a settlement of disputes
related to administrative functioning by an administrative tribunal
(an executive body that may act as quasi-Judicial body). Issues or
disputes arising during administrative functioning is done by this
mechanism where the administrative machinery acts as an
adjudicator instead of going to the courts of law directly so these
disputes are settled speedily as the adjudicators are administrative
officials and know the specific details and understand the
administrative process and thus give relevant and unbiased
decisions. This helps in non-stagnation of policy work and thus
benefits the people at large. It is flexible in its decisions as it looks
at the broader angle of public policy and its benefit whereas a
court of law only looks at rigid laws and nothing else.
But at times it can also be biased and deny independent justice to
the aggrieved. According to many theorists it is organised
lawlessness and is contravening to the principle of natural justice
as the panel of adjudicators here are administrators and not
independent judges, who definitely happen to be one of the parties
involved in the dispute. But, due to its benefits mentioned above
it still continues until a better alternative is found.
4. Blurring of public and private law
The traditional view of administrative law is that its mechanisms
apply only to public sector agencies, leaving private law
remedies, including tort law, contract and consumer protection
legislation to govern activities outside the public sector.
That view is increasingly being challenged. A number of
commentators and government studies have referred to the
blurring of traditional distinctions between what is ‘public’ and
‘private’.
Mechanisms already developed in administrative law have been
adopted by the private sector, for example, industry specific
ombudsmen and other complaint handling schemes and
legislation extending privacy protections to the private sector has
recently been introduced into Parliament.
Governments are increasingly looking to private corporate
models for reform of the public sector. For instance, the
increasing reliance on contracting out of government services to
private contractors, and the consequent ‘privatising’ of the
relationship between service providers and members of the
public, is one of the changes occurring in the way government is
operating. The Government has sought out alternative models for
reform in order to maximise the efficiency and quality of
government administration.
As a corollary, as government services are increasingly being
contracted out, and the private sector is performing functions
traditionally performed by government, whether through
outsourcing, privatisation or through corporatization and the
establishment of government business enterprises (GBE’s), the
functions performed by private corporations have been put
beyond the scope of traditional public administrative law.
Despite this, the government has sought to preserve public law
rights of members of the community through contractual
mechanisms and administrative law-type remedies. In order to
have the advantages offered by the, until recently, untapped
public sector, the private sector is needing to adjust itself to the
accountability requirements expected of them by government.
Further, as the role of government and the private sector blur, the
community has increasingly begun to expect corporate citizens to
provide similar protections for their interests as provided by
government and to be accountable for themselves in ways
traditionally limited to the public sector.
Yet while the private sector itself has had recourse to
administrative law to manage its relationship with the public
sector, it has not traditionally seen itself as being regulated by the
same administrative law principles.
As the division between public and private activities becomes
more problematic, it
is timely to consider the extent to which private corporations, by
borrowing public sector concepts and values, are developing a
new model of private sector accountability.

5. Freedom of information regimes

Today, some industries have established ombudsmen schemes,
which are modelled to a greater or lesser extent on government
ombudsmen, to deal with spheres of activity including
telecommunications, banking, credit and insurance. A number of
other industries operate complaint resolution schemes, such as
health complaints commissioners and, soon, the involvement of
the Privacy Commissioner in the private sector.
Often, the extent of remedies available to these industry
complaints resolution bodies goes beyond that available to their
government counterparts. For example, the
Banking Industry Ombudsman and the Telecommunication
Industry Ombudsman are able to make monetary awards to
complainants, an option unavailable to the
AAT or the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The importance of adequate complaint-handling mechanisms
cannot be over-stated in creating consumer confidence in the
private corporate body. It is both a useful tool for satisfying
consumer demand, while operating as an effective quality
assurance and accountability mechanism.