 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled — "Constitution Alteration (Marketing) 1936" ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
The Constitution Alteration (Marketing) Bill 1936, [1] was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to ensure that the Commonwealth could continue legislative schemes for the marketing of agricultural produce such as the quota for dried fruits. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 6 March 1937.
Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'Constitution Alteration (Marketing) 1936'?
The proposal was to insert section 92a into the constitution as follows:
The proposal was intended to overcome the effect of the decision of the Privy Council in James v Commonwealth which the found that the Commonwealth legislation regulating the sales of dried fruit was invalid. [2] [3] This judgment overturned a previous High Court decision in W & A McArthur Ltd v Queensland that section 92 of the constitution applied to state legislation but not to legislation passed by the Australian parliament. [4]
A 22 page booklet was prepared setting out the arguments in favour of the proposal and those against that were endorsed by a majority of members of parliament who voted for and against the proposal. [5]
The argument in favor of the amendments was prepared by the Attorney-General Robert Menzies. [lower-alpha 1] The Sun summarised the yes case as follows:
There can be no effective control of marketing of products in Australia, unless there can be control of interstate transactions in these products.
By 1928 it had been realised, as a result of legal decision, that no State Parliament was in a position to exercise effective control over Interstate trade. The Commonwealth Parliament was not bound by Section 92 of the Constitution, and the States concerned eagerly asked the Commonwealth to pass a law relating to interstate trade in dried fruits, which would be supplementary to and give effect to States' schemes of control, already in operation. The Commonwealth agreed, and the result was the Dried Fruits Act.
The Privy Council decided the Commonwealth had no power to pass an interstate trade or commerce law which interfered with the absolute freedom of that trade or commerce. The Commonwealth law became unconstitutional and the State laws were reduced to equal futility. The marketing of other primary products was affected.
The amendment is one to permit co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in the marketing field, which is at present constitutionally impossible. There is no invasion of State rights. The
States cannot legislate for the Australian marketing of goods without the Commonwealth help, and that help cannot be given unless the amendment is carried. [7]
The case in opposition to the marketing referendum was prepared by Labor and Lang Labor who opposed the Referendum Bill. [lower-alpha 2] The Sun summarised the no case as follows:
A "Yes" majority will give a few people power to tax many without their consent.
Monopolies will coerce small farmers, farm employees will get nothing, and wage-earners' wages will shrink as prices are artificially forced up.
When the Commonwealth legislated for dried fruits it did not protect the consumer, the farm employee, or the minority growers, but merely fastened together a collection of State laws.
In August, 1930, Mr. Menzies said it was ludicrous to suggest that prices of important commodities could be put up without reducing what the ordinary consumer would be able to buy week for week with his wages or salary.
We support full Commonwealth powers over marketing. We normally consume most of our own food. Reject this proposal and the way is cleared for a national and equitable solution of our marketing problems.
Under the cloak of technical and ambigious[ sic ] language upon the pretext of an emergency, the Government is making another attempt to whittle away self-government. [7]
| State | Electoral roll | Ballots issued | For | Against | Informal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote | % | Vote | % | |||||
| New South Wales | 1,550,947 | 1,461,860 | 456,802 | 33.76 | 896,457 | 66.24 | 108,601 | |
| Victoria | 1,128,492 | 1,074,278 | 468,337 | 46.58 | 537,021 | 53.42 | 68,920 | |
| Queensland | 562,240 | 519,933 | 187,685 | 38.78 | 296,302 | 61.22 | 35,946 | |
| South Australia | 358,069 | 341,444 | 65,364 | 20.83 | 248,502 | 79.17 | 27,578 | |
| Western Australia | 247,536 | 221,832 | 57,023 | 27.77 | 148,308 | 72.23 | 16,501 | |
| Tasmania | 133,444 | 125,016 | 24,597 | 21.88 | 87,798 | 78.12 | 12,621 | |
| Total for Commonwealth | 3,980,728 | 3,744,363 | 1,259,808 | 36.26 | 2,214,388 | 63.74 | 270,167 | |
| Results | Obtained majority in no state and an overall minority of 954,580 votes.Not carried | |||||||
This was the first of 12 referendums (as of October 2023 [update] ) that failed to achieve a majority in any state. [8]
The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.
The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.
Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.
The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Federal Government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether Indigenous Australians should be included in official population counts for constitutional purposes. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1946, was a successful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services. The question was put to a referendum in the 1946 Australian referendum with two other (unrelated) questions. It was carried and inserted into section 51 of the Australian Constitution.
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 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 (Corporations) Bill 1912, 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.
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.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1946, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth explicit power to make laws for the organised marketing of primary products and to exempt it from the freedom of interstate trade requirement of section 92 of the constitution. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 28 September 1946.
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.
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.
New South Wales v Commonwealth is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, which held that the federal government's WorkChoices legislation was a valid exercise of federal legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. In essence, the majority found the Constitution's corporations power capable of sustaining the legislative framework, while the conciliation and arbitration and territories powers were also seen as supporting parts of the law. Furthermore, the majority also held that the legislation permissibly limited State powers and did not interfere with State constitutions or functioning. A minority dissented.
Bank of New South Wales v The Commonwealth, also known as the Bank Nationalisation Case, is a decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional requirements for property to be acquired on "just terms", and for interstate trade and commerce to be free. The High Court applied an 'individual rights' theory to the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that lasted until 1988, when it was overturned in favour a 'free trade' interpretation in Cole v Whitfield.
Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .
The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law of Australia. It is a written constitution that sets down the political structure of Australia as a federation under a constitutional monarchy and outlines the structure and powers of the Australian Government's three constituent parts: the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:
... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.
The Constitution Act 1902 is the founding document of the State of New South Wales, and sets out many of the basic principles of the Government of New South Wales. This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1988, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to enshrine various civil rights, namely freedom of religion, rights in relation to trials, and rights regarding the compulsory acquisition of property. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 3 September 1988.
