Alley v Gillespie

Last updated

Alley v Gillespie
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case namePeter Alley v Dr David Gillespie
Argued12 December 2017
Decided21 March 2018
Citation [2018] HCA 11
Transcripts
Case opinions
7:0 (separate judgments by Nettle, Gordon and Gageler JJ) that liability under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 (Cth) must be determined by the House of Parliament in which the question arises or by the Court of Disputed Returns hearing a reference pursuant to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)

Alley v Gillespie, was a significant decision of the High Court of Australia that considered the purpose and scope of s 46 of the Australian Constitution. It was the first application brought under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 (Cth) ('Common Informers Act'). [1]

Contents

Section 46 and the Common Informers Act

Section 46 of the Constitution provides: [2]

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

In 1975 the Parliament of Australia "otherwise provided" by enacting the Common Informers Act which reduced the penalty claimable to $200 for every ineligible day sat prior to the commencement of the proceeding, and a further $200 for each day on which the High Court finds the person had sat while ineligible. The Common Informers Act was introduced hastily through the House of Representatives after questions arose over the eligibility of Senator James Webster relating to his share ownership in a family company, J.J. Webster Pty Ltd which had entered an agreement with the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth for the supply of timber to the Postmaster-General's Department. While the Court ultimately found that Senator Webster was eligible, [3] the Common Informers Act was introduced for the purpose of limiting the possible penalty exposure of Senator Webster, which at the time was significant under the unamended s 46 (at a rate of £100 per day for sitting while disqualified). On introducing the Common Informers Act, the Hon. Kep Enderby, the Attorney-General, said: [4]

The purpose of the provision is to allow alleged disqualifications to be independently tested. There is already another procedure for this and in normal circumstances it would seem to the Government that the House itself would refer the question to the High Court and have the matter properly judicially determined. One significant change that the Bill will make is that common informer proceedings, if brought, are to be brought in the High Court.

The High Court summarised the origins of common informer-style proceedings in their majority decision:

The origins of the common informer action lay in the need to provide incentives to citizens to put the processes of the law in train at a time when the State was weak and its laws not always enforced. English statutes gave common informers the right to bring a case to recover penalties for breaches of a wide range of laws including, by way of example, unlawful gaming, unlicensed disorderly houses, depositing of rubbish on the streets and throwing of fireworks.

Background to the decision

In Re Day (No 2) the Court of Disputed Returns found that, since 26 February 2016 (although three judges were prepared to say 1 December 2015), Day had had an "indirect pecuniary interest" in an agreement with the Commonwealth, and thus was in violation of section 44(v), by reason of his interest in a rental agreement over his electoral office. [5] The decision, which overturned the 1975 reading of s 44(v) by Barwick CJ in Re Webster (1975) 132 CLR 270, was widely considered to have significantly broadened the scope of s 44(v) of the Constitution. [6] [7]

On 7 July 2017 Peter Alley, the former Labor candidate for the 2016 federal election for the electorate of Lyne, filed a writ of summons in the High Court of Australia seeking the imposition of a penalty under the Common Informers Act against Dr David Gillespie for sitting while disqualified. In the proceeding Mr Alley alleged that Dr Gillespie, by reason of him owning a shopping centre in which a tenant was a licensee of Australia Post (a government owned corporation), was in breach of s 44(v) of the Constitution. Section 44(v), an anti-corruption provision, [7] prevents members of parliament from holding a "direct or indirect pecuniary interest with the Public Service of the Commonwealth". [8]

In the course of the proceeding, a question arose as to whether the High Court, not sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, could order a penalty without a prior finding by the House in which the member of parliament resided or by the Court of Disputed Returns determining a referral of the House. At a directions hearing on 29 September 2017 Bell J ordered that the question be referred to the Full Court for determination.

Judgment

The proceeding was stayed pending the determination of liability by the House of Representatives or a referral to the Court of Disputed Returns. Three judgments were delivered: the majority judgment of Kiefel CJ, Bell, Edelman and Keane JJ, and two separate judgments by Gageler J and Gordon and Nettle JJ. At [51] and [52] the majority said:

Whilst the question posed by these words in s 46 is one necessary to be determined before a person is liable to the imposition of a penalty, it is not necessary that the answer to that question be determined by the court hearing a common informer action. Indeed, there may be good reason to conclude that the question should not be determined in that proceeding, given that the same question is to be dealt with under s 47 and that it may be part only of the overlapping questions which may there arise.

Ultimately, the majority determined (at [67]):

Properly understood, the place of s 46 in the scheme of Ch I Pt IV is to allow for the imposition and recovery of a penalty in a common informer action. It is the role of the Court to determine the quantum of the penalty under the Common Informers Act. It may do so when the anterior question of liability is determined by the means provided by s 47.

Gageler J, writing separately, rejected the ‘alternative view’ (see [75]–[77]) and noted that the Parliament had otherwise provided for the purpose of s 47 by a law enacted under s 76(i) and (ii), namely pt XXII of the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (at [78]). The jurisdiction conferred by s 5 of the Common Informers Act was ‘circumscribed to the extent of the continuing exclusive operation of s 47’ (at [79]), and the s 3 requirements of the Act could only be determined by the Senate or House or the Court of Disputed Returns acting pursuant to a referral (at [80]). Gageler J's primary consideration was the 'coherence' of the scheme provided for by ss 46, 47, 76 and 77 of the Constitution (at [70]). In particular, he noted that s 46 merely creates a cause of action and s 47 was 'squarely addressed to authority to decide and to nothing other than authority to decide' (at [71] and [72]). He said of the alternative arguments (at [75]):

The alternative view of the relationship between ss 46 and 47 is not without precedent. It was the view to which Gaudron J was persuaded in Sue v Hill. It was presaged by Professor Enid Campbell in an opinion prepared for the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration in 1976. Professor Campbell called in aid what she fairly described in that opinion as "dictum in the English case of Bradlaugh v Gossett which suggests that the court trying the suit for penalties would not be bound by the House's adjudication". The same dictum was noted in the edition of Erskine May's well-known treatise on parliamentary practice current at the time of federation as one of a number of "conflicting opinions as to the limits of parliamentary privilege, and the jurisdiction of courts of law".

Gordon and Nettle JJ said of the powers in s 47 (at [104]):

Section 46 does not expressly or by necessary implication empower the Parliament to provide for means of determining any question concerning the qualification of a senator or member of the House of Representatives. Section 47 does. That difference, and the considerations mentioned in what follows, signify that the determination of who is disqualified is left to the processes fixed under s 47.

The court made no finding as to the eligibility of Dr Gillespie.

Related Research Articles

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

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

In the Parliament of Australia, a casual vacancy arises when a member of either the Senate or the House of Representatives:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

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 Commonwealth Parliament 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.

A double dissolution is a procedure permitted under the Australian Constitution to resolve deadlocks in the bicameral Parliament of Australia between the House of Representatives and the Senate. A double dissolution is the only circumstance in which the entire Senate can be dissolved.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.

<i>Sue v Hill</i> Australian High Court case

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)</span> Special electoral jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Challenges regarding the validity of state elections are heard by the supreme court of that state, sitting as that state's court of disputed returns.

The Court of Disputed Returns is a court, tribunal, or some other body that determines disputes about elections in some common law countries. The court may be known by another name such as the Court of Disputed Elections. In countries that derive their legal tradition from the United Kingdom, the legal tradition is that Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the country. The same tradition mandates that as Parliament is sovereign, it alone has authority and jurisdiction to determine who and how a person can be elected to Parliament. Implicit in that authority is the jurisdiction to determine whether a person has been validly elected, which is commonly known as a "disputed return" and gives the court its name. The court is an attempt to eliminate the partisan nature of parliament and give the determination of electoral disputes to an independent and dispassionate neutral body. As parliament has the sole authority to determine these matters, parliament must create a special law to bring that body into existence to determine those disputes.

William Robert Wood is a British-born Australian who has campaigned on peace and justice issues. He was elected to the Australian Parliament in the 1987 elections as Senator for New South Wales, however the High Court subsequently declared his election was invalid as he was not an Australian citizen at the time.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution lists the grounds for disqualification on who may become a candidate for election to the Parliament of Australia. It has generally arisen for consideration by the High Court sitting in its capacity as the Court of Disputed Returns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Justice of Australia</span> Presiding justice of the High Court of Australia

The chief justice of Australia is the presiding justice of the High Court of Australia and the highest-ranking judicial officer in the Commonwealth of Australia. The incumbent is Stephen Gageler, since 6 November 2023.

Section 46 of the Constitution of Australia provides a penalty for a Senator or member of the House of Representatives who sits while constitutionally ineligible or disqualified from holding that position.

Rodney Norman Culleton is an Australian politician who was sworn in and sat as a Senator for Western Australia following the 2016 federal election. At that time he was a member of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, but on 18 December 2016 he resigned from the party to sit as an independent.

<i>Blundell v Vardon</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Blundell v Vardon, was the first of three decisions of the High Court of Australia concerning the 1906 election for senators for South Australia. Sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, Barton J held that the election of Anti-Socialist Party candidate Joseph Vardon as the third senator for South Australia was void due to irregularities in the way the returning officers marked some votes. The Parliament of South Australia appointed James O'Loghlin. Vardon sought to have the High Court compel the governor of South Australia to hold a supplementary election, however the High Court held in R v Governor of South Australia; Ex parte Vardon that it had no power to do so. Vardon then petitioned the Senate seeking to remove O'Loghlin and rather than decide the issue, the Senate referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court held in Vardon v O'Loghlin that O'Loghlin had been invalidly appointed and ordered a supplementary election. Vardon and O'Loghlin both contested the supplementary election, with Vardon winning with 54% of the vote.

<i>Re Culleton</i> (No 2) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Re Culleton was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns on 3 February 2017. The case was an influential decision concerning the construction of Section 44(ii) of the Constitution, which held that Rod Culleton's conviction for larceny meant that he was incapable of being chosen as a senator and the subsequent annulment of that conviction did not operate retroactively to deny the legal effect to the conviction from the time that it was recorded.

<i>Chanter v Blackwood</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chanter v Blackwood and the related case of Maloney v McEacharn were a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns arising from the 1903 federal election for the seats of Riverina and Melbourne in the House of Representatives. Chanter v Blackwood , and Maloney v McEacharn , determined questions of law as to the validity of certain votes. In Chanter v Blackwood Griffith CJ held that 91 votes were invalid and because this exceeded the majority, the election was void, while Chanter v Blackwood dealt with questions of costs. In Maloney v McEacharn more than 300 votes were found to be invalid and the parties agreed it was appropriate for the election to be declared void.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis</span> Crisis over the eligibility of members of the Parliament of Australia over citizenship

Starting in July 2017, the eligibility of several members of the Parliament of Australia was questioned. Referred to by some as a "constitutional crisis", fifteen sitting politicians were ruled ineligible by the High Court of Australia or resigned pre-emptively. The situation arose from section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits parliamentarians from having allegiance to a foreign power, especially citizenship. On that basis, the High Court had previously held that dual citizens are ineligible for election unless they have taken "reasonable steps" to renounce the foreign citizenship before nomination.

<i>McGinty v Western Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

McGinty v Western Australia was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia in 1996. The plaintiffs sought to enshrine the principle of ‘one vote, one value’ in the Australian Constitution, and has had a significant impact on how the High Court approaches matters of the franchise, as well as malapportionment. The plaintiff's submissions were unanimously rejected by the court, who found that the interpretation of sections 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution did not require that all votes hold the same value. The High Court exercised its original jurisdiction in hearing the matter, meaning that the case did not need to proceed as an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

References

  1. ↑ Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 (Cth)
  2. ↑ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 46 Penalty for sitting when disqualified.
  3. ↑ Re Webster [1975] HCA 22 , (1975) 132 CLR 270(24 June 1975), High Court.
  4. ↑ Kep Enderby, Attorney-General (22 April 1975). "Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Bill" (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. pp. 1978–1979.
  5. ↑ Re Day (No 2) [2017] HCA 14 (5 April 2017), High Court.
  6. ↑ "Re Day [No 2] | Opinions on High". blogs.unimelb.edu.au. 5 April 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2018.
  7. 1 2 Gartrell, Michael Koziol, Adam (7 April 2017). "Labor demands Turnbull government investigate minister under eligibility cloud". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 April 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ↑ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 44 Disqualification.
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.