Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 | P a g e
70616: Australian Constitutional Law Notes
Table of Contents
1 Characterisation and Interpretation ______________________________________________________ 8
1.1 Characterising a Law – What is it? ___________________________________________________________ 8
1.2 Summary Steps of Characterisation / Problem Solving ___________________________________________ 8 1.2.1 Subject Matter Power: ‘Sufficient Connection’ Test __________________________________________________ 9 1.2.2 Purposive Powers: Proportionality Test ___________________________________________________________ 10
1.3 Incidental Power _______________________________________________________________________ 11 1.3.1 Implied v Express Incidental Power ______________________________________________________________ 12
1.4 Characterisation under Specific Heads of Power _______________________________________________ 12
1.5 Principles of Constitutional Interpretation ___________________________________________________ 12
1.6 Remedies ____________________________________________________________________________ 13 1.6.1 Remedies under s. 75(v) _______________________________________________________________________ 13
1.7 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 14 1.7.1 Granall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd (1954) ____________________________________________________ 14 1.7.2 Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1965) 114 CLR 1, __________________________________________ 14 1.7.3 In Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Commonwealth (1966) 115 CLR 418, __________________________________ 14 1.7.4 Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd (1913) ________________________ 14 1.7.5 In Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1, ________________________________________ 15 1.7.6 Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) ____________________________________________ 15 1.7.7 Australian National Airways v Commonwealth (1945) _______________________________________________ 15
2 Judicial Power ______________________________________________________________________ 16
2.1 Constitution Chapter III The Judicature ______________________________________________________ 16
2.2 Definition of Judicial Power _______________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.1 Judicial Appointment _________________________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.2 Judicial Independence ________________________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.3 Judicial Accountability ________________________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.4 Precedent and Overruling _____________________________________________________________________ 18 2.2.5 Indicators of Judicial Power ____________________________________________________________________ 18 2.2.6 Judicial Review ______________________________________________________________________________ 19 2.2.7 Incidental Judicial Power ______________________________________________________________________ 19 2.2.8 Tribunals ___________________________________________________________________________________ 19 2.2.9 Acting Judges _______________________________________________________________________________ 20
2.3 Main Ideas Summary____________________________________________________________________ 20 2.3.1 Separation of Power __________________________________________________________________________ 20 2.3.2 Persona Designata ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 2.3.3 Usurpation and interference: __________________________________________________________________ 21 2.3.4 Kable Doctrine: Institutional Integrity and State courts operating under Chapter III ________________________ 22
2.4 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 22 2.4.1 NSW v Cth (Wheats Case) (1915) HCA ____________________________________________________________ 22 2.4.2 Boilermakers Case (1956) _____________________________________________________________________ 23 2.4.3 Waterside Workers‟ Federation of Australia v JW Alexander (1918) ____________________________________ 23 2.4.4 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for immigration (1992) __________________________________________________ 24 2.4.5 Communist Party Case ________________________________________________________________________ 25 2.4.6 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth ____________________________________________________________ 25 2.4.7 Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) _____________________________________________________________________ 25 2.4.8 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal opportunity Commission (1996) ____________________________________ 27
2 | P a g e
2.4.9 Fardon v Attorney General (Qld) (2004) __________________________________________________________ 27 2.4.10 South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 ___________________________________________________________ 27 2.4.11 Lane v Morrison (2009) _______________________________________________________________________ 27 2.4.12 International Finance Trust Company Ltd v NSW Crime Commission [2009] ______________________________ 28 2.4.13 Wainhou v NSW [2011] _______________________________________________________________________ 28 2.4.14 Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259 ___________________________________________________________ 28 2.4.15 Thomas v Mowbray (HCA) (2007) _______________________________________________________________ 28 2.4.16 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 _________________________________ 29 2.4.17 WILSON V MINISTER ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (1996) ________________________ 29 2.4.18 Hilton v Wells (1985) _________________________________________________________________________ 29 2.4.19 Grollo v Palmer (1995) ________________________________________________________________________ 30 2.4.20 Momcilovic v The Queen & Ors. [2011] HCA 34 ____________________________________________________ 30
3 | P a g e
5.3.3.1 Examples of some more extreme Valid Transitional Uses ________________________________________ 18 5.3.3.2 Preparation for War ______________________________________________________________________ 18 5.3.3.3 Post War ______________________________________________________________________________ 18
5.3.4 Terrorism and internal Threats _________________________________________________________________ 19 5.3.4.1 Commentary on Thomas v Mowbray and Communist Party Case __________________________________ 19
5.4 Disciplining Defence Force Personnel _______________________________________________________ 19
5.5 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 20 5.5.1 Woman’s Employment Case (1943)______________________________________________________________ 20 5.5.2 Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) ________________________________________________________________ 20 5.5.3 Thomas v Mowbray ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 5.5.4 Farey v Burvett (1916) 21 CLR 433 ______________________________________________________________ 22 5.5.5 Andrews v Howell ____________________________________________________________________________ 23 5.5.6 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth [1951] (“Communist Party Case) __________________________ 23
6 External Affairs s 51 (xxix) : Both Subject Matter & Purposive __________________________________ 25
6.1 Summary Scope and Characterisation _______________________________________________________ 25 6.1.1 Geographic Externality ________________________________________________________________________ 25 6.1.2 International Comity _________________________________________________________________________ 26 6.1.3 International Concerns ________________________________________________________________________ 26 6.1.4 Implementation of international instruments ______________________________________________________ 26
6.1.4.1 Conformality Doctrine (Current Test) ________________________________________________________ 27
o 2 parts in the conformity doctrine: _________________________________________________________ 27 6.1.4.2 Implementation of treaty in Domestic Laws: __________________________________________________ 27 6.1.4.3 International law’s impact constitutional interpretation:_________________________________________ 28
6.2 Limitations ___________________________________________________________________________ 28
6.3 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3.1 R v Sharkey 1949 ____________________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3.2 R v Burgess; Ex Parte Henry ____________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3.3 Richardson v Forestry Commission ______________________________________________________________ 29 6.3.4 Polyhukhovich v The Commonwealth (the War Crimes case) (1991) ____________________________________ 29 6.3.5 Horta v Cth (1994) ___________________________________________________________________________ 30 6.3.6 XYZ v Cth (2003) : (which affirmed the test in the Industrial Relations Act Case) __________________________ 30 6.3.7 Pape v Commissioner of Taxation _______________________________________________________________ 30 6.3.8 Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) ______________________________________________________________ 31 6.3.9 Teoh v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) ____________________________________________ 31 6.3.10 Commonwealth v Tasmania (the Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983) _______________________________________ 32 6.3.11 Queensland v Commonwealth (the Daintree Rainforest case) (1989) ___________________________________ 32
7 Executive Power – Spending and Prerogative Power _________________________________________ 34
7.1 General Definition and Source of Power _____________________________________________________ 34
7.2 Appropriations: Power to Enter into Contracts & Spend $ _______________________________________ 34 7.2.1 Must have statutory Authority to Enter Contracts and Spend money → but after Wilkie perhaps that can come from the Appropriation Act itself ________________________________________________________________________ 35 7.2.2 Without Statutory Authority In Unforeseen circumstances it must be “reasonable” not necessarily “urgent/emergency” __________________________________________________________________________________ 35
7.3 Prerogative Power --> extra-legislative executive power _________________________________________ 36 7.3.1 Limitations _________________________________________________________________________________ 37 7.3.2 4 categories of Prerogative power _______________________________________________________________ 37
7.3.2.1 Powers ________________________________________________________________________________ 37 7.3.2.2 Immunities _____________________________________________________________________________ 38 7.3.2.3 Privileges ______________________________________________________________________________ 38 7.3.2.4 Rights _________________________________________________________________________________ 38
7.4 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 40 7.4.1 Wilkie v Commonwealth; Australian Marriage Equality Ltd v Cormann [2017] ____________________________ 40 7.4.2 Williams v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (no 1) (2012) _______________________________________ 41 7.4.3 Williams v Commonwealth (No. 2) [2014] HCA 23 __________________________________________________ 41
4 | P a g e
70616: Australian Constitutional Law Notes
Table of Contents
9 Implied Freedom of political Communication ____________________________________________ 72
9.1 Sources of Implied Freedoms ____________________________________________________________ 72 9.1.1 Express Guarantees __________________________________________________________________________ 73 9.1.2 Contingent Guarantees _______________________________________________________________________ 73 9.1.3 Rights by Implication only → Not individual Rights but Consequential and Qualified Freedoms _____________ 73 9.1.4 Specific Source of Implied Freedom of Political communication _______________________________________ 73
9.1.4.1 History and Authority ____________________________________________________________________ 73 9.1.4.1.1 Nationwide News v Wills (1992) ___________________________________________________________ 73 9.1.4.1.2 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) v Clth [1977] ________________________________________ 74 9.1.4.1.3 Theophanous v Herald Weekly Times (1994) ________________________________________________ 74 9.1.4.1.4 Stephens and Others v. West Australian Newspapers Limited (1994) _____________________________ 74 9.1.4.1.5 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997): __________________________________________ 74
9.1.4.1.5.1 High Court set down new test for Compatibility with implied Freedom: _______________________ 75 9.1.4.1.5.2 Qualified privilege Defence to Defamation ______________________________________________ 76
9.1.4.1.6 McCloy v NSW [2015] ___________________________________________________________________ 76 9.1.4.1.6.1 Mcloy proportionality Analysis ________________________________________________________ 76
9.1.4.1.7 Brown v State of Tasmania [2017] _________________________________________________________ 77 9.1.4.2 Summary ______________________________________________________________________________ 77 9.1.4.3 What is Freedom of Communication ________________________________________________________ 78
9.2 Impact of Implied Freedoms _____________________________________________________________ 78
9.3 Lange/McCloy/Brown Test ______________________________________________________________ 78 9.3.1 Burden: Scope → what is protected _____________________________________________________________ 78 9.3.2 Compatibility _______________________________________________________________________________ 79 9.3.3 Proportionality ______________________________________________________________________________ 80
9.3.3.1 Suitability ______________________________________________________________________________ 80 9.3.3.2 Necessity ______________________________________________________________________________ 80 9.3.3.3 Different test for direct or discriminatory burden? No __________________________________________ 81
9.4 Not an “absolute” Freedom _____________________________________________________________ 81
9.5 Examples ____________________________________________________________________________ 82
9.6 Other implications from ‘representative government’ - voting and association ____________________ 82
9.7 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 82 9.7.1 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) __________________________________________________________ 82 9.7.2 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) ________________________________________ 83 9.7.3 Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) _________________________________________________ 83 9.7.4 Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1994) ________________________________________________ 84 9.7.5 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) ________________________________________________ 84 9.7.6 Levy v Victoria (1997) ________________________________________________________________________ 85 9.7.7 Coleman v Power [2004] ______________________________________________________________________ 86 9.7.8 APLA Limited v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] __________________________________________ 86
5 | P a g e
9.7.9 McCloy v NSW [2015] ________________________________________________________________________ 87 9.7.10 McGinty v Western Australia (1996) _____________________________________________________________ 87 9.7.11 Langer v Commonwealth (1996) ________________________________________________________________ 87 9.7.12 Herald & Weekly Times v Popovic (2003) _________________________________________________________ 88 9.7.13 Catch the Fire Ministries v Islamic Council of Vic (2006) _____________________________________________ 88 9.7.14 Monis v the Queen (2013) ____________________________________________________________________ 88 9.7.15 Brown v State of Tasmania (2017) ______________________________________________________________ 89 9.7.16 Unions NSW v NSW (2013) ____________________________________________________________________ 89
10 Trial by Jury _______________________________________________________________________ 90
10.1 Summary: ____________________________________________________________________________ 90 10.1.1 Only apply to Laws of the Commonwealth ________________________________________________________ 90 10.1.2 Trial on ‘Indictment’__________________________________________________________________________ 90 10.1.3 What is a Jury _______________________________________________________________________________ 90 10.1.4 Jury Waiver _________________________________________________________________________________ 90 10.1.5 Unanimous Verdicts __________________________________________________________________________ 91 10.1.6 Number of Jurors ____________________________________________________________________________ 91 10.1.7 Jury Selection _______________________________________________________________________________ 91
10.2 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 91 10.2.1 Brown v The Queen: _________________________________________________________________________ 91 10.2.2 Brownlee v R (2001) __________________________________________________________________________ 91 10.2.3 Cheatle v the Queen: _________________________________________________________________________ 91
11 Freedom of Religion ________________________________________________________________ 92
11.1 Summary Concepts/Elements ____________________________________________________________ 92
11.2 Definition of Religion __________________________________________________________________ 92
11.3 Establishing Religion ___________________________________________________________________ 93
11.4 What Constitutes a Prohibition of free exercise _____________________________________________ 93
11.5 What constitutes a test for Public Office ___________________________________________________ 93
11.6 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 93 11.6.1 Attorney-General (VIC); Ex rel Black v Cth (DOGS Case)______________________________________________ 93 11.6.2 Church v the New Faith v Commissioner of Payroll Tax (VIC) (1983) ____________________________________ 94 11.6.3 Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witness v Cth: _________________________________________________________ 94 11.6.4 Krygger v Williams (1912): _____________________________________________________________________ 95 11.6.5 Kruger (1996) _______________________________________________________________________________ 95
12 Federalism ________________________________________________________________________ 96
12.1 Federalism in the Constitution ___________________________________________________________ 96
12.2 State Power __________________________________________________________________________ 96 12.2.1.1 NSW Constitution Act s1902, s5 ____________________________________________________________ 96
12.2.2 Limits on State Powers _______________________________________________________________________ 96
12.3 Summary ____________________________________________________________________________ 96
12.4 Engineers Case 1920 ___________________________________________________________________ 96
12.5 Melbourne Corp Doctrine→ limited State Immunity to preserve state autonomy __________________ 97 12.5.1 Can’t impede existence or functioning as a State __________________________________________________ 97
12.5.1.1 Examples of not impeding ________________________________________________________________ 98 12.5.2 Can’t discriminate against the States ____________________________________________________________ 98
12.5.2.1 Rational discrimination maybe permitted → does the law fulfil a rational non discrominatory purpose? _ 98 12.5.2.1.1 Levelling the playing field is permissioned discrimination _____________________________________ 99
12.6 State Power over the Commonwealth _____________________________________________________ 99 Reciprocity of immunities between the Cth & State abandoned in ____________________________________________ 99
12.6.1 Exceptions to Broad Immunity _________________________________________________________________ 99 12.6.1.1 S 80 of the Judiciary Act: _________________________________________________________________ 100 12.6.1.2 s 64 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ______________________________________________________________ 100
12.6.2 Cigamatic _________________________________________________________________________________ 100
6 | P a g e
12.7 Key Cases ___________________________________________________________________________ 101 12.7.1 Pirrie v McFarlane __________________________________________________________________________ 101 12.7.2 QEC ______________________________________________________________________________________ 101 12.7.3 Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria (1995): ___________________________________________ 101 12.7.4 Melbourne Corporation v Cth _________________________________________________________________ 102 12.7.5 Cth v Bogle (1953) __________________________________________________________________________ 102 12.7.6 Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal of NSW & Ors; Ex Parte Defence Housing Authority (Henderson’s case) ___ 103 12.7.7 Austin v Cth (2003): _________________________________________________________________________ 103 12.7.8 Clarke v Commissioner of taxation (2009): _______________________________________________________ 103 12.7.9 VIC v Cth (Industrial Relations Act Case) _________________________________________________________ 103
13 Inconsistency Between State and Federal Laws _________________________________________ 104
13.1 Summary: Process/Test for Inconsistency _________________________________________________ 104 13.1.1 What are Laws for the purpose of s 109 _________________________________________________________ 105 13.1.2 Summary: test for State law Validity ___________________________________________________________ 105 13.1.3 Summary: Test for Cth Law Validity ____________________________________________________________ 105 13.1.4 Simultaneous Obedience Rule → aka Direct Collision Rule __________________________________________ 106 13.1.5 Rights and Duties rule – also direct inconsistency _________________________________________________ 107
13.1.5.1 Where a claim of direct inconsistency can be rejected _________________________________________ 107 13.1.6 Operational Inconsistency ____________________________________________________________________ 107
13.2 Cover the field test: Indirect Inconsistency ________________________________________________ 108 13.2.1 Questions to Consider _______________________________________________________________________ 108
13.2.1.1 What is the field? ______________________________________________________________________ 108 13.2.1.2 Was there intent to cover it ______________________________________________________________ 108
13.2.1.2.1 Manufacturing inconsistency: __________________________________________________________ 109 13.2.1.2.2 Clearing the field: ____________________________________________________________________ 109
13.2.1.3 Did the state law enter the field? ________________________________________________________ 109
13.3 Effects and consequences of Inconsistency ________________________________________________ 109
13.4 Key Cases ___________________________________________________________________________ 110 13.4.1 Airlines of New South Wales Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 1) ______________________________________ 110 13.4.2 R v Credit Tribunal; Ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corporation (1977) __________________________ 110 13.4.3 Ex parte McLean (1930) ______________________________________________________________________ 110 13.4.4 WA v The Cth (Wororra Peoples v. Western Australian (1995) _______________________________________ 110 13.4.5 Viskauskas v. Niland (1983) ___________________________________________________________________ 111 13.4.6 R v Loewenthal; Ex parte Blacklock (1974) _______________________________________________________ 111 13.4.7 Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour v Fuller: _______________________________________________________ 111 13.4.8 Ansett Transport Industries Operations Pty Ltd v Wardley __________________________________________ 111 13.4.9 Australian Boot Trade Employees Federal v Whybrow (1910): _______________________________________ 111 13.4.10 Clyde Engineering v Cowburn (1926) ___________________________________________________________ 112 13.4.11 Colvin v Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd ______________________________________________________________ 112 13.4.12 McWaters v Day (1989) ______________________________________________________________________ 112 13.4.13 R v. Licensing Court (Brisbane) Ex parte Daniell (1920) _____________________________________________ 112 13.4.14 Blackley v Devondale Cream (Vic) Pty Ltd (1968) __________________________________________________ 113 13.4.15 Wenn v AG (Victoria) 1948 ___________________________________________________________________ 113 13.4.16 Botany Municipal Council v Federal Airports Corporation: __________________________________________ 113
14 Acquisition on Just Terms ___________________________________________________________ 114
14.1 General ____________________________________________________________________________ 114
14.2 Summary Characterisation Process : 3 Limbs _______________________________________________ 114
14.3 Definition of Property for purposes of s 51 (xxxi) ___________________________________________ 115
14.4 Acquisition __________________________________________________________________________ 115 14.4.1 Limitations: Not Acquisition for purpose of s 51 (xxxi)______________________________________________ 116
14.5 Just Terms __________________________________________________________________________ 116 14.5.1 Just terms = question of fact __________________________________________________________________ 117 14.5.2 Market relevance and just terms ______________________________________________________________ 117 14.5.3 Property’s special nature considered ___________________________________________________________ 117 14.5.4 Just terms determined by impartial tribunal _____________________________________________________ 117 14.5.5 Community interests in the acquisition _________________________________________________________ 117
7 | P a g e
14.6 In respect of which the parliament has power to make laws ________________________________ 117
14.7 Key Cases ___________________________________________________________________________ 118 14.7.1 PJ Magennis Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1949) ________________________________________________ 118 14.7.2 Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) ___________________________________________________ 118 14.7.3 Telstra Corporation Limited v The Commonwealth [2008] __________________________________________ 118 14.7.4 Yanner v Eaton (1999) _______________________________________________________________________ 119 14.7.5 Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) _______________________________________________ 119 14.7.6 Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (Bank Nationalisation Case) (1948) ___________________________________ 119 14.7.7 Smith v ANL Ltd (2000) ______________________________________________________________________ 120 14.7.8 Trade Practices Commission v Tooth &Co Ltd (1979) ______________________________________________ 120 14.7.9 Andrews v Howell (1941) _____________________________________________________________________ 120 14.7.10 Johnston Fear & Kingham & Offset Printing Co Pty Ltd v Cth (1943) ___________________________________ 120 14.7.11 Nelungaloo Proprietary Limited v Commonwealth (1946) __________________________________________ 121
8 1
8 | P a g e
1 Characterisation and Interpretation
1.1 Characterising a Law – What is it?
❖ Determining whether an Act is supported by a Head of Power. Is the Law “with respect to” an enumerated head of power ie within the scope Is it ‘Within power” and therefore constitutionally valid Look at what the law actually does ( First Uniform Tax Case )
Richardson v Forestry Commission (1988)
Deane J Tasmanian Dam Case
Mason J
1.2 Summary Steps of Characterisation / Problem Solving
1. Identify possible head of power
2. Understand subject-matter (or purpose) of heads of power → scope look at words of constitution and case law → how has it been interpreted
and what limits has HCA imposed)
3. Determine whether the law is ‘with respect to’ the scope (case law) a) Subject Matter → sufficient connection to the scope b) Purposive → reasonably appropriate and adapted to the purpose of object
For a legitimate end
c) Incidental → reasonably appropriate and adapted to the purpose of object and (may) includes notion of necessary to facilitate / implement
4. If determined impugned Cth law is within power → it must be valid unless contrary to an express or implied Constitutional prohibition
5. Review limitations
a) Implied freedom of political communication ss. 7 & 24 & 128 b) Express Freedom of Religion S 116 c) Express and implied (covering field) Acquisition on Just terms S 51 (xxxi) d) Express Trial by jury S 80 e) Express discrimination based on State s 117 f) Express Free trade within Cth s 92 g) Melbourne Corporation Doctrine - Intergovernmental immunities h) Judicial power (separation, persona designate, usurpation, Kable(state) Ch III
i) Implied immunity of instrumentalities - Cigamatic ss 109 & 5 j) Express S 109 inconsistency
6. If constitutionally invalid, consider reading down and severance Other Scope Considerations
i. Where the Commonwealth Parliament possesses power to make a law in relation to an activity, it may prohibit that activity absolutely or permit it conditionally.
ii. Conditions or criteria which authorise an otherwise prohibited activity need have no relevance to the subject matter of the Commonwealth's legislative power pursuant to which the prohibition was imposed. In
iii. Not invalid because touches/ affects subject outside Cth power or because it can be characterised (even mainly Fairfax) as a law upon a subject outside power.
iv. need not relate exclusively to enumerated grant of legislative power: Stephen
v. Provided a law can fairly be characterised as one with respect to a Cth grant of legislative power, it is irrelevant that it may also be characterised as one with respect to a power exercised by the States, even where the obvious or primary character of the law falls outside the Commonwealth's legislative powers.
TIP The ‘story’ is not that important → focus on the words used in the impugned legislation and whether they are
beyond power
Note: Constitutional
interpretation in Australia is to be
interpreted broadly (Engineers Case)
Jumbunna Principle Court should always
lean to a broader interpretation →
unless something in context or rest of the Constitution indicates narrow interpretation
will best carry out objective and purpose.
(1908)
Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976)
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Commonwealth
(1966)
Murphores v Cth (197)
Actors & Announcers Association v Fontana Films ((1982) at 192
Melbourne Corporation
If State laws
involved
9 | P a g e
1.2.1 Subject Matter Power: ‘Sufficient Connection’ Test
Examples of Subject Matter Powers (most heads of power fall under this category)
1. Race power s 51(xxvi)
2. Trade and Commerce power s 51(i)
3. External Affairs Power (external aspects) s 51(xxix)
❖ the Court defines the subject matter by looking at the direct legal operation
a) the rights, duties, obligations and privileges which it creates, changes, regulates or abolishes
❖ Test: Sufficient connection test: Does the Commonwealth Act have a sufficient connection to the subject matter? (Fairfax case) Sufficiency may be direct and immediate or incidental
i. must be a ‘substantial connection’
but this is defined as must not be so insubstantial, tenuous or distant that it cannot be regarded as a law with respect to the relevant head of power:
It is valid unless the connection is so insubstantial, tenuous or distant that it
cannot sensibly be described as a law with respect to the head of power
ii. ulterior motive, or the purpose or the indirect consequences which it seeks to achieve, either economic or social, are irrelevant: no attempt to discern “true character” of the law
If a law, on its face, is one with respect to a Commonwealth legislative power,
it does not cease to have that character because the Commonwealth Parliament seeks to achieve by its enactment a purpose which is not within the Commonwealth's legislative power:
iii. may also consider the practical effect or operation of a law:
HCA more prepared to consider practical operation in deciding whether it is a law with respect to a grant of Cth legislative power where it imposes some form of prohibition,→ pursuant to the s 90 11? or s 92 (free trade Cth):
Held: Law of characterisation summarised in the form of 5 principles:
1. Construe constitutional text with all the generality which the words used to admit
2. Determine character of law by reference to right, power, liabilities, duties and privilege which it create
3. Examine practical and legal operation of law to determine if there is sufficiently connection between law and head of power
4. Disregard law may be characterised in another way that can’t be fought under head of power, even if ‘independent connection’ between the two-subject matter
5. If a sufficient connection with a head of power exists, the justice and wisdom of the law, and the degree to which the means it adopt are necessary to desirable, are matters of legislative choice.
Bank Nationalisation Case, Fairfax (1965),
Herald (1966), Murphyores (1976)
Herald (1966) Kitto 436
Tasmanian Dam Case)
(1983) Mason J 152.
State Banking Case
(1947), Dixon J79
Melbourne Corporation
First Uniform Tax Case
(1942) Latham CJ; Commonwealth v Bank
of New South Wales
(1949) Lord Porter; Fairfax (1965) Taylor J; Actors & Announcers v
Fontana (1982) Mason
Nth Suburbs Cemetery (1993)
Tasmanian Dam Case (1983) Mason J Herald (1966)
Australian Coarse Grains Pool v Marketing Board
(1985); Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986)
Cole v Whitfield (1988) Finemores Transport Pty
Ltd v NSW (1978)
Grain Pool of WA v Cth:
18 | P a g e
2.2.4 Precedent and Overruling
❖ HCA only court not bound by precedent and its previous decisions
BUT, per Chief Justice French HCA is ‘informed by a strong conservative
cautionary principle’ when it comes to overruling its past decisions.
Kirby J in Shaw: ‘Its normal for Justices of this Court to give effect to majority
ruling on the Constitution’
But judicial reasoning cannot be substituted for the Constitution –court always
bound by the Constitution: per Barwick CJ and Murphy J.
❖ The HCA always binds the Parliament and Executive however.
Australian Agricultural Co v Federated Engine-
Drivers .. (Engine-Driver’s case) (1913)
Wurridgal v Cth
Shaw
Damjanovic and Sons v Cth (1968)
2.2.5 Indicators of Judicial Power
1. Binding Decisions esp that are coercive So non punitive decisions (eg protective detention) is valid by executive
2. Determining/upholding pre-existing Rights rather than creating them
Especially criminal guilt
Tribunal can educate on future rights and liabilities Waterside Workers' ie what rights and obligations should be created Precision Data Holding v Wills (1991)
Applying the law and finding guilt Polyhukovich
3. Judicial Discretion → applying a rule or discretion to the facts of a case Does not preclude mandatory sentencing which is constitutional
4. Involves a judicial process Equity impartiality and independence (Nicholas v Queen)
5. Penal/Punitive involuntary detention Excludes awaiting trial Excludes Aliens awaiting deportation / determining status but only to extent
necessary Excludes Protective eg mental illness or infectious disease Preventative Issue is reason not means of detention
6. Review of legality as opposed to reviewing correctness of decision
7. Regulating an activity is NOT judicial power
8. Determining Facts is NOT exclusively judicial
Brandy; Boilermakers
Lane v Morrison Kruger v Cth (Stolen
Generations Case) (1997)
Kable; Wheat Case Chu Kheng Lim;
R v Quinn (1977) Waterside Workers'
Federation v J W Alexander Ltd (1918) Polyhukovich v Cth
(1991)
Magaming v R (2013) HCA
Nicholas v Queen
Chu Kheng Lim (1992)
Waterside Workers' Federation v J W
Alexander Ltd (1918)
AG (Cth) v Alinta (2008)
Rola Company v Cth
(1944) per Lathan J
21 | P a g e
2.3.2 Persona Designata
❖ A (sort of) exception to separation of powers doctrine where a federal judge is appointed to a non-judicial function in their personal capacity to perform non- judicial functions provided that those functions can be construed as assigned to the individual as a persona designate and not in a judicial capacity
The casual appointment of a judicial officer MUST NOT interfere with the ‘institutional integrity’ of a Ch III court. ❖ Only allowed where
1. function is not incompatible with the judicial function – they cannot do things that compromise the separation e.g. decide guilt (Grollo Palmer, Wilson v Minister for ATSI
Affairs)
2. Judge must accept the conferral of power in a personal capacity
3. Judge must be personally named ❖ Subject to incompatibility doctrine from Kable. → incompatibility will arise where:
a) commitment of time and effort → judge cannot properly do his judicial job
b) capacity to perform judicial function with integrity possibly compromised.
c) public confidence in integrity of the judiciary or capacity of judge in exercising judiciary functions reduced
Ways to determine incapability
i. Is the function (personal) an integral part of or closely connected with the function of the legislature or the executive government? If no -> there is no incompatibility.
ii. If it is closely connected: Is the function required to be performed independently of instruction, advice or wishes of the legislature of the executive? f no → there is incompatibility
iii. If required to be done independently, is the function done independently? → if yes →then incompatibility.
Hilton v Wells (1985) Drake v Min for
;Immigration … (1979)
Forge v ASIC
Grollo Palmer; Wilson v Minister for
ATSI Affairs
Kable
Wilson (1996)
2.3.3 Usurpation and interference:
1. Usurpation – when a legislature purports to predetermine the outcome in an individual case.
2. Interference–an attempt to change the direction or outcome of pending judicial proceedings.
3. When the legislature attempts to pre-determine or change the outcome of an individual case
5. Usurpation and interference: the legislature cannot exclude the judicial power of the Cth (CH III), particular wrt orders of detention and curtailment of liberty: Ch III has the ability to constrain all laws that diminish individual liberty
through extra-judicial means i.e. forced removal and detention Interference with impartiality, independence and integrity of a Ch III court will
not be tolerated: SA v Totani Exceptions include: Protective detention (kruger), preventative detention
(Fardon; Baker), control orders (Thomas v Mowbray), immigration detention (plaintiff M47)
Not allowing examination of evidence
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration
Chu Keng Lim & Kable
International Finance Trust Company Limited v New South Wales Crime
Commission [2009]
22 | P a g e
2.4 Key Cases
2.4.1 NSW v Cth (Wheats Case) (1915) HCA
Facts: - s 101 - the Cth can establish interstate commission, to arbitrate on matters of trade between the states - The Commission investigated NSW Government‟s seizure under the Wheat Acquisition Act The Commission
said NSW had infringed on s92, issued injunction to restrain the government from interfering with the interstate movement of wheat.The interstate commission, investigated a seizure of wheat, by the NSW government and issued an injunction to restrain NSW interference.
- NSW challenged that the Inter-state Commission did not have jurisdiction to grant the injunction Outcome:
- HCA decided that the strict insulation of judicial power was a fundamental principle of the Constitution. - The judicial power of the Cth could only be entrusted to courts. - The Commission did not fall within either class of court in s 77 →, it could not exercise judicial power - Therefore, no jurisdiction to determine the complaint and issue injunction. commission act was invalid - The intention of the framers was commission was to be an administrative body→ but had powers of court. - “the functions of the interstate commission contemplated by the Constitution are executive or administrative,
and the powers of adjudication intended are such powers of determining questions of fact as may be necessary for the performance of its executive or administrative functions, that is, such powers of adjudication as are incidental and ancillary to those functions”
2.3.4 Kable Doctrine: Institutional Integrity and State courts operating under Chapter III
❖ While separation of powers does not apply to the States Institutional Integrity of courts has to be respected
- Ch III applies to states courts exercising Cth judicial power ie supreme court
State Supreme Courts that exercise judicial power must not be given functions incompatible with the exercise of that power → incompatibility doctrine
Interference with impartiality, independence and integrity of a Ch III court will not be tolerated: SA v Totani
- Exceptions include:
Protective detention (Kruger),
preventative detention where there is specific legal criteria for the supreme court to consider and this was independent of instruction from the legislature / executive (Fardon ; Baker),
control orders (Thomas v Mowbray),
immigration detention (plaintiff M47)
Note dissenting judgement:
1. Dawson J →States not subject to the separation doctrine
2. McHugh held that Kable has limited application due to its extraordinary nature of applying to an individual
In subsequent cases, it is also thought that the Kable principles could apply not only to power/functions conferred on Judges, but also to their terms of appointment:
Kable v DPP
Fardon v AG (QLD) (2004)
North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley
31 | P a g e
3 Race Power– S 51 (XXVI) – Subject Matter Power (mostly)
3.1 Definition of Race
Broad definition of what race is – to include
1. Identity Brennan J “not a … precise concept”
2. self-identification,
3. community recognition Deane J “wide and non-technical meaning”
4. biological descent
❖ Brennan J – people of a group identify themselves and are identified by others as a race by reference to their common history, religion, spiritual beliefs or culture as well as by reference to their biological origins and physical similarities, an indication is given of the scope and purpose of the power granted.
❖ Deane J – the reference to ‘people of any race’ includes all that goes to make up the personality and identity of the people of a race (i.e. spirit, belief, knowledge, tradition, cultural and spiritual heritage)
Tasmanian Dams (1982)
3.2 ‘Any Race’ → Must be for specified race(s)
Cannot be used to apply to all races, → law must specify ❖ “a law will not necessarily forfeit the character of a law under para (26) because it
legislates for several races. A law will, however, not possess that character if it legislates for all peoples of the Commonwealth, regardless of race”
Can single out a sub group
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982)
Kartingeri v Cth 1998 (Hindmarch Bridge Case)
3.3 ‘For’ → the Race’s benefit? –controversial
❖ ‘for’ means ‘for the benefit of’ per Kirby J ❖ per Brennan J and Deane J → the race power in its original form was to make laws
discriminating adversely against particular racial groups. But since the amendment in 1967, it was an affirmation that the primary object was beneficial.
❖ ‘For’ Does not mean ‘with respect to’ so as to enable laws intended to affect adversely the people of any race (Koowarta) – per Murphy J in dissent Note dissenting view of Gibbs CJ that the power in the Constitution was not
only for the purpose of enabling Parliament to make laws for the special protection of people of particular races.
❖ Majority ruling could be interpreted that laws could be made for the detreiment of
a race → although this specific issue was largely dodged as Gummow and Hayne held could remove a statutory benefit at least Not disadvantageous’ per Kirby J Gauldron reasoning it must be appropriately adapted and reasonable and this
wold likely lead to the Kirby position
❖ ‘Arguable that that power only authorised laws for the benefit’ Gauldron J Gummow J – noted in its original form it had allowed detrimental as well as
beneficial legislation
❖ Robert French noted problems of the justiciability of benefit in 2003 Australian Constitutional Landmarks
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982)
Kartingeri v Cth 1998 (Hindmarch Bridge Case)
Kruger v Cth (Stolen Generations)(1997)
S 51 (xxvi) The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: ‘the people of any race who it is deemed necessary to make special laws’
32 | P a g e
3.4 ‘Special’ → differential operation upon a race
❖ The special quality ascertained by reference to its differential operation upon people of a particular race, not by reference to circumstances which led the Parliament to deem it necessary to enact the law. when law confers a right or benefit or imposes an obligation or disadvantage,
especially on people of a particular race. The law may be special even when it confers a benefit generally, provided the
benefit is of special significance or importance to the people of a particular race. ❖ Special laws → laws that are of their nature special to the people of a particular race
per Stephen J: The law must be a law which of its own nature is special to the people of a particular race, because of their ‘special needs’ or because of a ‘special threat of or problem’ which they present, and hence, the necessity for the law to arise.
❖ The majority in Tasmanian Dams held s 51 (xxvi) extends to protecting the cultural
heritage of the people of a particular race, even if what is protected (e.g. aboriginal sites) may also be of significance to all Australians and indeed all humanity.
Native Title Act Case 1993
Kookwata v Bjelke-Petersen 1982
Tasmanian Dams (1983)
3.5 ‘Necessary’ → up to Parliament unless manifest abuse
❖ Necessary is to be defined by the Parliament’s judgement The majority of the High Court defined the scope of the race power by stating
that, unlike the aliens or corporations power, it is not expressed to be a power to make laws simply with respect to persons of a designated character. It must be deemed necessary that special laws be made for the people of any race.
the court said whether a law is necessary, is for the parliament to decide: “Section 51 (xxvi) can support a law only if that law is one which the Parliament has deemed necessary for the people of a race.”
Suggested (but did not conclude) that the Court retains a supervisory role in some circumstances: as the court retains some supervisory jurisdiction to examine the question of necessity against the possibility of a manifest abuse
❖ However, where there are grounds to do so, the court will not entirely abstain in
matters of manifest abuse and it remains for the Court to determine whether the law falls within the scope of s 51 (xxvi) Gaudron J: “It would be … a manifest abuse of the races power if Parliament were
to enact a law requiring or providing for the different treatment of the power of a particular race if it could not reasonably form the view that there was some difference requiring their treatment.”
Kirby J: defines it as “confined to legislation that the court considers to be „extreme‟, „outrageous‟, or „completely unacceptable‟
But Kirby J says the manifest abuse of power rule is an unworkable test because “By the time a stage of …manifest abuse’ and ‘outrage‟ is reached, courts have generally lost the capacity to influence or check such laws.
Native Title Act Case 1993
Katinyeri v Commonwealth (1998)
3.6 A subject Matter (yet kind of purposive power)
❖ The majority of the High Court defined the scope of the race power by stating that, unlike the aliens or corporations power, it is not expressed to be a power to make laws simply with respect to persons of a designated character. It must be deemed necessary that special laws be made for the people of the race.
❖ While not fully endorsed, a test proposed is that the Law must reasonably be
capable of being viewed as appropriate and adapted to the ‘difference’ which Parliament might reasonably judge to exist per Gaudron J
Kartinyeri (1998).
Native Title Act Case
1993
Kartinyeri v Cth (1998)
49 | P a g e
6 External Affairs s 51 (xxix) : Both Subject Matter & Purposive
6.1 Summary Scope and Characterisation
There are 4 aspects of the External Affairs Power:
1. Matters physically external to Australia – Geographic Externality.
o Subject matter – sufficient connection
2. Relationship with other nation states – International comity o Purposive – Proportionality test, appropriate and adapted
3. Matters of international concern:
o Purposive – proportionality test, appropriate and adapted o Cases here often overlap with other tests. Where there is a matter of
international concern but no treaty e.g. Koowarta
4. Implementation of international instruments/treaties.
o Purposive – proportionality test, appropriate and adapted o Instruments includes: treaties, obligations, agreements that Australia is
subject/party to o Accepted rule is that treaties is only enforceable once in legislation, but can
be used for aid in interpretation o The law must be reasonably capable for implementing the treaty – must not
just be vague or go against the words of it (Tasmanian Dams Case) Power is construed flexible and broadly
● “it would be a serious error to construe par (xxix) as through the subject-
matter of those relations to which it applied in 1900 were not continually
expanding”
● “Accordingly, it is difficult to see any justification for treating the content of
the phrase “external affairs” as crystallised at the commencement of
federation, or as denying it a particular application on the ground that the
application was not foreseen or could not have been foreseen a century ago”
Koowarta
Tasmanian Dams Case
Victoria v Commonwealth
(Industrial Relations Act case) (1996)
6.1.1 Geographic Externality
▪ Under the external affairs power in the Constitution, the Commonwealth may legislate with respect to place, persons, matters, relationships, events and conduct which are territorially outside Australia
❖ Test: Subject Matter -- > sufficient connection to the head of power – look to the
rights, duties, obligations and privileges which it changes, regulates or abolishes
Current approach:
▪ ‘mere externality’ is sufficient connection ▪ Power extends to places, persons, matters or things physically external to
Australia.
Seas and Submerged Lands Case
Victoria v Cth (Industrial Relations Act Case)
S 51 (xxix) The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxix) External Affairs.
57 | P a g e
7 Executive Power – Spending and Prerogative Power
7.1 General Definition and Source of Power
Executive functions conferred by the Parliament but also certain inherent common laws executive powers to enable the functioning of a Federal Government. Includes
1. General executive power such as spending making laws etc which is linked to the legislative power of parliament
2. Prerogative powers
3. Reserve powers (out of scope)
4. Nationhood power (considered separately) S.61 has three purposes:
1. Ensure the executive power is exercisable by the GG
2. To ensure Parliament may make under s51 (xxxix), laws with the respect to matters incidental to the execution of the executive power.
3. Confer HCA jurisdiction to determine controversies relating to executive power
❖ “s 61 extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth … It is also limited by those terms in so far as it will not authorise the Commonwealth to act inconsistently with the distribution of powers and the limits on power for which the constitution provides”
Section 61 locates the source of executive power in the Crown exercised by the GG and with the exception of reserve powers these are undertaken “in council” that is on the advice of the Ministry (Sue v Hill (1999) The content of executive power is not exhaustively defined by s 61 Le Mesurier v Connor
(1929)
❖ Linked with legislative power of the parliament ❖ There is a nationhood element which exists to allow united government; is
beyond express power but is only where the Cth exercise does not interfere with State executives
❖ “Not amendable to exhaustive definition” Brennan J Purposive Powers: Proportionality → Test “Reasonably Adapted and Appropriate”
Ruddock v Vadarlis (Tampa Case) (2001)
Sue v Hill (1999)
Le Mesurier v Connor (1929)
Davis v Commonwealth (1988)
7.2 Appropriations: Power to Enter into Contracts & Spend $
S 81 Consolidated Revenue Fund All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.
S 61 (xxvi) Executive power: The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
78 | P a g e
9.1.4.3 What is Freedom of Communication
If the state needs no stronger justification for dealing with speech than it needs for dealing with other forms of conduct, then the principle of freedom of speech is only an illusion.”
“freedom of speech” can be said to exist where the government must pass a higher test to control “speech” than other types of conduct.
Alternatively, we could say that freedom of speech does not mean that either: a. there is simply a lack of need to regulate or a decision not to regulate speech; or b. that speech cannot be regulated at all. c. Speech that causes “harms” may be regulated → special justification needed
Includes protests and actions not just words or speech
Frederick Schauer (Free Speech: A
Philosophical Inquiry Cambridge Uni Press, 1982
Levy ; Borwn
9.2 Impact of Implied Freedoms
▪ Freedoms as expressed or implied in the Constitution are limits to Commonwealth law making power (the Cth cannot make a law which infringes a freedom).
▪ Freedoms can also limit the scope of State laws. It depends on the wording of the section or the scope of the implied freedom.
9.3 Lange/McCloy/Brown Test
1. Does the law effectively burden the freedom of comm. about govt & politics either in its terms, operation or effect. No → Valid
2. Does it serve a legitimate purpose which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government? No → Invalid
3. It is reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance a legitimate object/purpose in a manner compatible with maintenance of constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government (Proportionality)? No→ Invalid
a) Suitable: Have A rational connection to their purpose
b) Necessary - in the sense that there is no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practical means of achieving the same purpose which is less restrictive on the freedom
c) Adequate in its balance – requiring a value judgement as to the relative importance of the purpose served by the measure, with the restriction it imposes on the freedom.
9.3.1 Burden: Scope → what is protected
▪ Does the law effectively burden the freedom of comm. about govt & politics either in its terms, operation or effect. No → Law is Valid (on this test) Yes → review Compatibility
1. Freedom applies to restrict both Federal and State legislative power: affirmed in
joint judgement in McCloy.
2. Protected “communication” includes non-verbal communication and protest: Levy v Victoria (1997); Brown v Tasmania [2017]
3. Protected “communication” may be offensive: Coleman v Power (2004;) Monis v The
Queen (2013) . and protecting civility of discourse is not a legitimate end Although the dissenters found that a prohibition on threatening abusive and
insulting words was constitutionally valid and the majority read down the
Unions NSW v NSW (2013)
Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579; Brown v
Tasmania [2017]
Coleman v Power (2004)
Limb 1 : Burden
Lim
b 2
: C
om
pat
ibili
ty
and
Pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Limb 2 q1: Compatibility (question 2 overall)
Limb 2 q2: Proportionality (question 3 overall)
105 | P a g e
13.1.1 What are Laws for the purpose of s 109
▪ “Laws” for the purposes of s 109 1. Acts Engineers Case (1920) 2. Regulations included subordinate legislation Rules etc O’Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat 3. Rules of Court Flaherty v Girgis (1987) 4. Commonwealth laws made under s 122 parliament makes laws for the government
of any territory Lamshed v Lake (1958) 5. Industrial awards → made pursuant to an Act of Parliament ex parte McLean (1930)
‘The expressions "a law of the State" and "a law of the Commonwealth" in s 109 are sufficiently general for s 109 to be capable of applying to inconsistencies which involve not only a statute or provisions in a statute, but also … an industrial order or award, or other legislative instrument or regulation, made under a statute’: Jemena Asset Management (3) Pty
Ltd v Coinvest Limited (2011)
▪ Not “Laws” for the purposes of s 109
1. Administrative orders / instructions made by members of the executive Airlines of
NSW Pty Ltd v NSW (no.1) 2. Common law Felton v Mulligan (1971) ; WA v The Commonwealth (Aka the Wororra
Peoples and Anor v. WA (1995)) 3. The Constitution itself Re Colina; Ex parte Torney (1999)
Jemena Asset Management (3) Pty
Ltd v Coinvest Limited (2011)
13.1.2 Summary: test for State law Validity
1. Is it valid? - Union steamship: just about any law is within a State’s legislative competence - S 5 of Each State Constitution gives States plenary (unlimited -due to the
‘welfare clause’) subject to the Australian constitution, power to make laws
Constitution Act 1902 Section 5 NSW The Le1gislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever: Provided that all Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any new rate, tax or impost, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly.
2. Does it infringe any express or implied limits in the constitution? a. Implied freedom of political communication b. Kable doctrine or other separation of powers issues for instance is there a
State Court exercising non-judicial power? c. Exclusive powers: s 52 (Exclusive powers of the parliament – basically seat
of Cth Government, places acquired by Cth for public purposes, matters relating to the Federal public services), 90 (exclusive powers over customs, excise and bounties), 114 (States may not raise forces, taxation of property of the Commonwealth or a state), 115 (States not to coin money)
- Union steamship
13.1.3 Summary: Test for Cth Law Validity
1. Characterised under a commonwealth head of power (s 51); and
2. Not found to breach any other limitation in the Constitution
3. Not repealed
114 | P a g e
14 Acquisition on Just Terms
14.1 General
▪ It is a power and a constitutional guarantee of just compensation for property rights contingent on exercises Bank of NSW v Commonwealth 1948
▪ Makes it clear that the Cth can, where there is a legislative head of power that could be
called upon to enable it, acquire property. S 51 (xxxi) o The presence of the contingent right means that the requirement of just terms
operates at any time the Commonwealth makes a compulsory acquisition of property AG v Shmidt (1961)
USE OF S 51 (xxxi) must stand on its own → not under an incidental power attached to another head of power Does apply to Territory acquisition Newcrest Mining WA V Cth (1997) + Wurridjal v Cth (2009)
Although in Teori Tau v Cth (1969): HC held that s 51(xxxi) did not operate to restrict the territories’ power
Does not apply to State acquisitions
unless State is acting as an agent PJ Magennis Pty Ltd v The Cth (1945) Including under a S 96 grant given to acquire property Rye v Renshaw 1951
However → An informal arrangement ‘decoupled’ from the formal intergovernmental agreement/grant could include an understanding that a state would acquire property without s 51(xxxi) being implicated (i.e. no need for ‘just terms’) Pye v Renshaw (1951):
Property Owner must show they will suffer because of the acquisition Only applies to compulsory aqusition → where the Cth imposes as opposes to negotiates John Cooke & Co Pty ltd v Commonwealth (1924) ❖ Executive may have right to acquire property not on just terms in a national emergency
Johnston Fear and Kingham & The Offset Printing Co Ltd v Cth (1943)
Bank of NSW v Commonwealth 1948
AG v Shmidt (1961)
Newcrest Mining WA V Cth (1997) + Wurridjal
v Cth (2009) Teori Tau v Cth (1969)
PJ Magennis
Rye v Renshaw 1951
14.2 Summary Characterisation Process : 3 Limbs
1. ‘Property’ is involved →
2. Property has been ‘acquired’ / taken as a result of Cth action/legislation
3. Limitations → ‘Just terms’ has been provided
4. Other Limitations eg s 96
S 51 (xxxi) T The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has powers to make laws.
115 | P a g e
14.3 Definition of Property for purposes of s 51 (xxxi)
Interpreted Broadly Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944)
Any “proprietary’ interest in property including
● full title and ownership
● possession and control Bank Nationalisation Case
● real and personal property Dalziel
● tangible or intangible property. Dalzziel
Statutory rights are property Wurridjal v Cth (2009) but benefits usually get knocked out under the acquisition limb
Causes of Action Georgiadis v Australian and OS Telecoms Corp (1994)
‘Bundle of rights’ Telstra v The Cth [2008]
‘Legally endorsed concentration of power over things and resources’ Telstra v The Cth [2008]
Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel
(1944)
Wurridjal v Cth (2009)
Georgiadis v Australian and OS Telecoms Corp
(1994)
Telstra v The Cth [2008]
14.4 Acquisition
A. Acquired benefit – a recognised form of acquisition or under s51(xxxi) … usually involves taking property on behalf of the Cth: PJ Magennis Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. Requires compensation on just terms.
b. Statutory benefit - usually involves some sort of statutory right or
benefit that the government provides one day and then takes away the next. Such an acquisition does not require compensation: Health
Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994); Mutual Pools & Staff Pty Ltd v Cth
(1994) c. Incidentall - where the acquisition is made under a separate head of
power (i.e. the tax power s51(ii) as per Dixon CJ, in Attorney-General (Cth)
v Schmidt (1961); or the external affairs power s51(xxix) as in Newcrest
Mining (WA) Ltd v Cth (1997)). Such an acquisition does not require compensation.
1. Requires taking
2. Does not have to be taking of full control by the Cth Dalziel (1944)
3. The taking can be done by an agent if authorised by Cth legislation PJ Magennis Pty
Ltd v The Cth (1945)
4. Must be coercive/compulsory TPC v Tooth Co Ltd (1979)
5. Requires more than the extinguishment a right … Australian Tape Manufacturers Ass. v
Cth (1993)
6. There needs to be some benefit/interest relating to the use or ownership of the property acquired Does not need to be acquired by the Cth PJ Magennis Pty Ltd v The Cth (1945)
7. but it need not be the property that is lost Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Cth (1997)
❖ ‘ the mere extinction or diminution of a proprietary right residing in one person does not necessarily result in the acquisition of a proprietary right by another Australian Tape Manufacturers Ass. v Cth (1993)
8. Method of Acquisition is irrelevant Dalziel (1944) ❖ “The language used is perfectly general. It says the acquisition of property. It is
not restricted to acquisition by particular methods or of particular types of interests, or to particular types of property. It extends to any acquisition of any interest in any property.”
PJ Magennis Pty Ltd v Commonwealth
Health Insurance Commission v Peverill
(1994); Mutual Pools & Staff Pty Ltd v Cth
(1994)
Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt (1961)
Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Cth (1997)
Dalziel (1944) PJ Magennis Pty Ltd v
The Cth (1945)
TPC v Tooth Co Ltd (1979)
Australian Tape Manufacturers Ass. v
Cth (1993)
PJ Magennis Newcrest Mining
Australian Tape
Manufacturers Ass. v Cth (1993)
Dalziel (1944)
Does Not
enliven s 51
(xxxi)
