 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled — "Constitution Alteration (Corporations) 1912" ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
The Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill 1912, [1] was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to extend the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to corporations that was put to voters for approval in a referendum held in 1913.
Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "Constitution Alteration (Corporations) 1912"?
The proposal was to alter the text of section 51 of the Constitution to read as follows: [2]
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have Legislative power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
- (xx.)
Foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth:
- Corporations, including
- (a) the creation, dissolution, regulation, and control of corporations ;
- (b) corporations formed under the law of a State, including their dissolution, regulation, and control; but not including municipal or governmental corporations, or any corporation formed solely for religious, charitable, scientific, or artistic purposes, and not for the acquisition of gain by the ,corporation or its members ; and
- (c) foreign corporations, including their regulation and control :
| State | Electoral roll | Ballots issued | For | Against | Informal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote | % | Vote | % | |||||
| New South Wales | 1,036,187 | 717,855 | 317,668 | 46.79 | 361,255 | 53.21 | 37,676 | |
| Victoria | 830,391 | 626,861 | 298,479 | 49.14 | 308,915 | 50.86 | 19,139 | |
| Queensland | 363,082 | 280,525 | 146,936 | 54.31 | 123,632 | 45.69 | 9,736 | |
| South Australia | 244,026 | 195,463 | 96,309 | 51.34 | 91,273 | 48.66 | 7,664 | |
| Western Australia | 179,784 | 132,149 | 66,595 | 52.84 | 59,445 | 47.16 | 5,776 | |
| Tasmania | 106,746 | 80,398 | 34,724 | 45.08 | 42,304 | 54.92 | 3,244 | |
| Total for Commonwealth | 2,760,216 | 2,033,251 | 960,711 | 49.33 | 986,824 | 50.67 | 83,235 | |
| Results | Obtained majority in three states and an overall minority of 26,113 votes.Not carried | |||||||
The 1911 referendum asked a single question that dealt with trade and commerce, corporations and industrial matters. This resolution separated each of those matters into a different question. Like its forebear, none of these resolutions were carried. On each of the many occasions a similar question was asked at a referendum the public decided not to vest power in the Commonwealth over these matters. [4]
The Australian referendum of 12 December 1906 approved an amendment to the Australian constitution related to the terms of office of federal senators. Technically it was a vote on the Constitution Alteration Bill 1906, which after being approved in the referendum received the royal assent on 3 April 1907. The amendment moved the date of the beginning of the term of members of the Senate from 1 January to 1 July so that elections to the federal House of Representatives and the Senate could occur simultaneously.
The 1911 Australian referendum was held on 26 April 1911. It contained two referendum questions.
The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.
On 22 September 1951, a referendum was held in Australia which sought approval to alter the Australian Constitution to give Parliament the power to make laws regarding communism and communists, so that the Parliament would be empowered to instate a law similar to the Communist Party Dissolution Act of 1950. It was not carried.
The referendum of 13 April 1910 approved an amendment to the Australian constitution. The referendum was for practical purposes a vote on the Constitution Alteration Bill 1909, which after being approved in the referendum received the Royal Assent on 6 August 1910.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1910, was put to voters for approval in a referendum held in the 1911 referendums. The bill sought to alter the Australian Constitution to extend the Commonwealth power in respect of trade and commerce, the control of corporations, labour and employment and combinations and monopolies. All of the proposed changes were contained within the one question.
The Constitution Alteration (Monopolies) Bill 1910, was put to voters for approval in a referendum held in 1911 that sought to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth power to nationalise any corporation deemed by both houses of parliament to be a monopoly.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1912, was an unsuccessful referendum held in 1913 that sought to alter the Australian Constitution to extend Commonwealth legislative power in respect to trade and commerce.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1912, was an unsuccessful referendum held in 1913 that sought to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to industrial matters.
The Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill 1912, was an unsuccessful referendum held in 1913 that sought to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to trusts.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1912, was an unsuccessful referendum held in 1913 that sought to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to monopolies.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1912 was an unsuccessful referendum held in 1913 that sought to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth legislative power over industrial relations in the state railway services. The question was put to a referendum in the 1913 Australian referendum.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1926, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to extend the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to corporations, and to give it the power to make laws with respect to trusts and combinations in restraint of trade, trade unions and employer associations. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 4 September 1926.
The Constitution Alteration (Aviation) Bill 1936, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to extend the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to air navigation and aircraft. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 6 March 1937.
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.
New South Wales v The Commonwealth, the Incorporation Case, was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 8 February 1990 concerning the corporations power in s51(xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The states of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia brought an application seeking a declaration as to the validity of certain aspects of the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth).
Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.
Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead is a leading decision by the High Court of Australia that dealt with two issues under the Australian Constitution, the identification and extent of judicial power that is vested in the courts and the corporations power of the Parliament. The Court unanimously held that the inquiry provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 were not an exercise of judicial power. The judgement of Griffith CJ in particular continues to be cited in relation to its examination of the identification and extent of judicial power. The court however divided on the proper approach to the corporations power. The majority, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, strongly influenced by the now discredited doctrine of reserved State powers, held that the corporations power was to be construed narrowly because the trade and commerce power did not include intrastate trade and commerce. While the reserved powers doctrine was unambiguously rejected by the High Court in 1920, Huddart, Parker was not formally overruled by the High Court until Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971).
Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead was the last of a series of cases in which members of a cartel, described as the "Coal Vend" were prosecuted under the Australian Industries Preservation Act. The majority of the High Court held that the investigation power was spent once a prosecution had commenced and that under the Act, a corporation could not be required to answer questions. While the decision was based on the wording of the specific legislation, its ongoing significance is its foundation for the requirement that the government act as a model litigant.
