Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution of Australia

Last updated

Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia the right to legislate with respect to "external affairs". [1]

Contents

In recent years, most attention has focused on the use of the power to pass legislation giving effect within Australia to its obligations under international treaties and conventions. In some cases, as with human rights or environmental protection, the activities regulated by treaty-implementing legislation have not been international in nature but rather located solely within Australia or even solely within a particular State.

In Australia, developments in international law have no direct effect for domestic purposes unless a deliberate law-making act by the proper law-making authority has "transformed" the international rule into a domestic rule.

Origins

According to Constitutional law academic Michael Coper, it is "not entirely clear what the founding fathers intended" by conferring upon the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to "external affairs". [2] Section 51(xxix) was amended a number of times in the Constitutional Conventions that debated the draft Constitution in the 1890s. The draft Constitution adopted by the 1891 Sydney Convention allowed the Parliament to make laws with respect to "External affairs and Treaties". This wording carried through the 1897 Adelaide Convention but the New South Wales Legislative Council, when considering whether to ratify the draft, resolved to omit the words "and Treaties" on the basis that only the Imperial Parliament ought to enter treaties that bound Australia. The removal of the explicit reference to treaties was confirmed by the delegates to the 1897 Sydney Convention and the 1898 Melbourne Convention. [3]

In 1901, Robert Garran and John Quick suggested that the external affairs power would "prove to be a great constitutional battle-ground." [4] Some 86 years later, Coper remarked that their prediction "showed remarkable foresight". [5]

External affairs

Relations with other countries

The term "external affairs" was used in section 51(xxix) rather than "foreign affairs" to make it clear that relations with the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire were intended to be included. When the Australian Constitution was created in 1901, the United Kingdom and its possessions were not conceived of as "foreign" to Australia.

Chief Justice Latham said in R v Sharkey (1949) that "external affairs" was not confined to the "preservation of friendly relations with other Dominions", but extended to relations with "all countries outside Australia". [6] Justice Brennan in Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) extended this to relations with other "international persons", especially the United Nations and its various specialised agencies. [7]

The judges in Seas and Submerged Lands case (1975) differed as to whether the "external affairs" power entitled the Commonwealth to assert its sovereignty over Australia's territorial sea, though a majority held that it did. [8] The underlying reason for this was that the idea of national rights with respect to the "continental shelf" had emerged since 1945 distinctly as a product of international relations and international law.

Matters external to Australia

According to Chief Justice Barwick in Seas and Submerged Lands Case, the external affairs power extends to anything "which in its nature is external to" Australia, or according to Justice Mason "to matters or things geographically situated outside Australia". [8] [9] These suggestions were reinforced in later cases, and finally assumed decisive importance in Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (War Crimes Act Case) (1991). [10] [11] In this case, all judges other than Justice Brennan held that s 51(xxix) contained a sufficient grant of power to support a law to identify and prosecute "war crimes" committed in Europe during World War II. Chief Justice Mason, and justices Deane, Dawson and McHugh held that this conclusion was sufficiently based on the fact that the geographical location in which the relevant acts were alleged to have been done was physically external to Australia.

Implementing treaties (international law)

To some extent, there has been debate over whether the ratification of an international treaty may justify the exercise of Commonwealth legislative power for the purpose of the implementation of that treaty. There is a marked difference between earlier and modern approaches to this issue. Initial approaches produced an unqualified view that Parliament could legislate to give effect to any obligation or even non-binding recommendation contained in an international treaty once ratified. It was later qualified by Stephen J that it was necessary that the treaty at the very least deals with an area of international concern. However, this test of 'international concern' was rejected by Mason J in Tasmanian Dam Case in 1983, which outlines the current approach to implementing treaties and was later confirmed by subsequent cases. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution.

Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981. He was known as one of Australia's leading federalist judges although he presided over the High Court when decisions such as Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen in 1982 and Commonwealth v Tasmania expanded the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states. Gibbs dissented from the majority verdict in both cases. On 3 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Queensland Library opened the Sir Harry Gibbs Legal Heritage Centre. It is the only legal heritage museum of its kind in Queensland and features a permanent exhibition dedicated to the life and legacy of Sir Harry Gibbs.

Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia enumerates the legislative powers granted to the Parliament of Australia by the Australian States at Federation. Each subsection, or 'head of power', provides a topic under which the parliament is empowered to make laws. There are other sections in the constitution that enable the parliament to enact laws, although the scope of those other sections are generally limited in comparison with section 51.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<i>Commonwealth v Tasmania</i> 1983 Australian constitutional law case

Commonwealth v Tasmania was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.

<i>Polyukhovich v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501, commonly referred to as the War Crimes Act Case, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the external affairs power in section 51(xxix) of the Constitution and the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian legal system</span> Codified and uncodified forms of law of Australia

The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is the same across the states and territories.

<i>Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 11 May 1982. It concerned the constitutional validity of parts of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the discriminatory acts of the Government of Queensland in blocking the purchase of land by Aboriginal people in northern Queensland.

Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia, commonly called "the race power", is the subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia granting the Australian Commonwealth the power to make special laws for people of any race.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

Section 51(v) of the Constitution of Australia is a subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia that gives the Australian Parliament power to legislate on "postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services".

In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

<i>R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry, is a High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside a conviction for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia</span> Australian Constitution section regarding religion

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

<i>Roche v Kronheimer</i>

Roche v Kronheimer is an early case in which the High Court considered the defence power and external affairs power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution and the Parliament's power to delegate certain legislative powers to the Executive. The Court concluded that Federal Parliament had the power to implement the Treaty of Versailles under the defence power and to delegate that implementation to the Governor-General. Higgins J also saw it as a valid exercise of the external affair power.

Section 51(xxx) of the Constitution of Australia grants the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to "the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific".

<i>SS Kalibia v Wilson</i>

SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.

References

  1. ↑ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Cth) s 51(xxix).
  2. ↑ Coper 1987 , p. 10
  3. ↑ McDermott 1990 , p. 123 to 131
  4. ↑ Quick & Garran 1901 , p. 631
  5. ↑ Coper 1987 , p. 11
  6. ↑ R v Sharkey [1949] HCA 46 , (1949) 79 CLR 121 , High Court.
  7. ↑ Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen [1982] HCA 27 , (1982) 153 CLR 168, High Court.
  8. 1 2 New South Wales v Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands case) [1975] HCA 58 , (1975) 135 CLR 337, High Court.
  9. ↑ Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33 , High Court.
  10. ↑ Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (War Crimes Act case) [1991] HCA 32 , (1991) 172 CLR 501, High Court.
  11. ↑ Horta v Commonwealth [1994] HCA 32 , (1994) 181 CLR 183, High Court.
  12. ↑ Richardson v Forestry Commission of Tasmania [1988] HCA 10 , (1988) 164 CLR 261, High Court and Victoria v Commonwealth (Industrial Relations Act case) [1996] HCA 56 , (1996) 187 CLR 416, High Court.

Cited texts

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.