Inter-State Commission

Last updated

Inter-State Commission
Agency overview
Formed1912
Dissolved1950 (first abolition); 1990 (final abolition)
Jurisdiction Commonwealth of Australia
Agency executive
  • Various, Chairman
Key documents

The Inter-State Commission, or Interstate Commission, is a defunct constitutional body under Australian law. The envisaged chief functions of the Inter-State Commission were to administer and adjudicate matters relating to interstate trade. The Commission was established in 1912, became dormant in 1920, was abolished in 1950, re-established in 1983, and absorbed into the Industry Commission in 1989.

Contents

Constitutional basis

The Constitution of Australia contains the following provisions relating to the envisaged body:

101. There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

102. The Parliament may by any law with respect to trade or commerce forbid, as to railways, any preference or discrimination by any State, or by any authority constituted under a State, if such preference or discrimination is undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State; due regard being had to the financial responsibilities incurred by any State in connexion with the construction and maintenance of its railways. But no preference or discrimination shall, within the meaning of this section, be taken to be undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State, unless so adjudged by the Inter-State Commission.

103. The members of the Inter-State Commission:

(i) shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council;
(ii) shall hold office for seven years, but may be removed within that time by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;
(iii) shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but such remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

104. Nothing in this Constitution shall render unlawful any rate for the carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of a State, if the rate is deemed by the Inter-State Commission to be necessary for the development of the territory of the State, and if the rate applies equally to goods within the State and to goods passing into the State from other States.

Section 73 provides that appeals on questions of law can be made on decisions of the Inter-State Commission to the High Court

Background in the Constitutional Conventions

At the first Constitutional Convention in Sydney in 1891, considerable debate occurred over the issue of freedom in interstate trade, especially over the abuses arising from differential and preferential railway rates being put into effect in New South Wales and Victoria. One delegate remarked that "'Nothing has caused more friction than the practice of imposing differential railway rates and so filching trade from a neighbouring colony ... in fact I know of no other cause of strong feeling between the people of these different communities than that which has arisen from commerce." [1] The later 1897 convention also saw concerns expressed over the effect such predatory rates were having on the river trade, [1] prompting Richard O'Connor to declare that interstate free trade would require institutional, as well as constitutional, [a] protection. [1] The proposal was strongly endorsed by the Convention, and it was later described by Sir John Quick as being a "necessary adjunct to the Constitution". [2] It was seen as being similar in nature to the US Interstate Commerce Commission and the UK Railway and Canal Commission. [3] [4]

History

Delay in creation (1901–1912)

William Lyne, promoter of the Commission's creation Williamlyne.jpg
William Lyne, promoter of the Commission's creation

While William Lyne, in his role as the first Minister for Home Affairs, had been working on a draft Bill as early as January 1901 to establish the Commission, [5] fiscal pressures brought on by the Braddon Clause [b] discouraged efforts to assure its passage before 1911, as its establishment was viewed to be a luxury. [7] Lobbying efforts by the Australian shipping industry, incensed that the Commission's scope would include ocean navigation, also contributed to the delay. [8] As a result, the initial Bill lapsed in 1902. [8]

No attempts were made during the Second Parliament of Australia, owing to the House seats split almost evenly between the Protectionist Party, the Free Trade Party and the new Labour Party. [9] [c]

The next effort to consider the proposal occurred in the Third Parliament of Australia in 1909, when Senator Sir Robert Best introduced the corresponding bill. It failed to proceed, notably because it was also intended to be an industrial tribunal with power to decide whether certain State industrial awards constituted unfair business competition between the States, [11] but the States declined to pass the necessary legislation under the referral power to make the Commission work. [11]

The commission's establishment occurred during the Fourth Parliament of Australia, at which time State practices concerning interstate rivalry and discrimination were becoming quite blatant. [12] Prime Minister Andrew Fisher pushed through the appropriate implementing legislation [13] in 1912. [12]

First establishment (1912–1920)

Albert Piddington, Chairman of the Inter-State Commission (1913-1920) Albert Piddington.jpg
Albert Piddington, Chairman of the Inter-State Commission (1913–1920)

In 1913, the newly elected Cook government appointed Albert Piddington as Chief Commissioner, joining George Swinburne and Sir Nicholas Lockyer. [14]

In addition to wide powers of investigation, [15] the Inter-State Commission Act 1912 granted the Commission judicial power which was broad in scope:

24. The Commission shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any complaint, dispute, or question, and to adjudicate upon any matter arising as to—

(a) any preference, advantage, prejudice, disadvantage, or discrimination given or made by any State or by any State authority or by any common carrier in contravention of this Act, or of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce or any law made thereunder;
(b) the justice or reasonableness of any rate in respect of inter-state commerce, or affecting such commerce;
(c) anything done or omitted to be done by any State or by any State Authority or by any common carrier or by any person in contravention of this Act or of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade or commerce or any law made thereunder.

The High Court of Australia disagreed in 1915, ruling by 4–2 in the Wheat Case [16] that the Constitution implicitly created a separation of powers, and therefore judicial power can only be vested in the judiciary. [d] Furthermore, it was held that Chapter Three of the Constitution had the effect that a court must have the following features:

  1. being vested with judicial power;
  2. not being vested with power other than judicial power; and
  3. its members having security of tenure, meaning that members are appointed for life. [e]

The Commission as it then existed violated all three criteria. Hence, as it was not part of the judiciary (ie, not a "Chapter Three Court"), it could not be vested with judicial power. As a result, the s. 73 provision providing for appeals on questions of law from the Commission to the High Court has been 'dead letter law' for most of the Court's history.

Having lost its judicial power in 1915, the Commission "became a body of inquiry without any power of enforcing its decisions." [20] The Commission, without any real purpose, lapsed in 1920 when the terms of the initial Commissioners expired and new appointments were not made. [21] Although there was discussion in the 1930s about reviving the Commission [22] (and a bill on that matter actually received Senate passage in 1938 [23] ), nothing came about, and the Act itself was formally repealed in 1950. [24]

Second establishment (1975–1990)

The Commission was reconstituted by the Whitlam Government in 1975 with the envisaged role of inquiring into transport issues that arose due to the federal structure of the Australian government. [25] Issues on the agenda included Victorian shipping to the Riverina; Bass Strait ferries; and disruptions to Fremantle shipping to the eastern states in 1975. In this second incarnation, the Commission did not have any judicial power, but did have powers of arbitration and adjudication, and of investigation and reporting.

The Commission did not become active due to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. In 1984, following the re-election of Labor Party under Bob Hawke, the Commission received its appointments and was charged with investigating all matters relating to interstate transport. Its first President was the judge Merv Everett. [26]

In 1990, the Commission was abolished with its functions transferred to a new Industry Commission, [27] a statutory body directly responsible to the Commonwealth Government. [21]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ as envisaged in s. 92
  2. ↑ named after Sir Edward Braddon, Premier of Tasmania in the late 1890s, it referred to s. 87 of the Constitution of Australia, which provided for 75% of all receipts arising from customs and excise duties during the first ten years would be remitted to the States [6]
  3. ↑ Described by Alfred Deakin as three elevens in the field, [10] each fighting against the other two teams. [9]
  4. ↑ This possibility was contemplated, although described as being "of theoretical interest rather than of practical importance", as early as 1901. [17] However, the general views expressed in the Constitutional Debates as to any provision of the Constitution were held in 1904 to be irrelevant to constitutional interpretation in Tasmania v Commonwealth . [18] [19]
  5. ↑ as a consequence of the 1977 referendum, this has since been changed to mandatory retirement at age 70

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.

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 Constitution Alteration (Marketing) Bill 1936, 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.

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.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

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.

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.

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 1936 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 the conviction of daredevil pilot Goya Henry for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Australia</span> Supreme law of Australia

The Constitution of Australia is the fundamental law that governs the political structure of Australia. It is a written constitution, that establishes the country as a federation under a constitutional monarchy governed with a parliamentary system. Its eight chapters sets down the structure and powers of the three constituent parts of the federal level of government: the Parliament, the Executive Government and the Judicature.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

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.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1956, brought taxes on inter-State sales and purchases of goods other than newspapers within the exclusive legislative and executive power of the Union, and levied taxes on inter-State sales and purchase of goods other than newspapers. Although these taxes would be levied and collected in accordance with an Act of Parliament, they would not form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, but would accrue to the States themselves in accordance with such principles of distribution as may be formulated by Parliament by law.

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.

<i>Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General</i> (Cth) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth), is the only case in which the High Court issued a certificate under section 74 of the Constitution to permit an appeal to the Privy Council on a constitutional question. The Privy Council did not answer the question asked by the High Court, and the court never issued another certificate of appeal.

<i>Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead</i> Australian constitutional law case

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).

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<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. 1 2 3 Bell 2009, p. 59.
  2. ↑ Bell 2009, p. 60.
  3. ↑ as constituted under Part I of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 (51&52 Vict, c. 25)
  4. ↑ Gageler 2017, p. 208.
  5. ↑ Bell 2009, p. 61.
  6. ↑ Bell 2009, p. 61, fn. 43.
  7. ↑ Bell 2009, pp. 61–62.
  8. 1 2 Bell 2009, p. 62.
  9. 1 2 Gageler 2017, p. 209.
  10. ↑ Warhaft, Sally, ed. (2004). Well May We Say: The Speeches That Made Australia. Melbourne: Black Inc. pp. 146–148. ISBN   1-86395-277-2.
  11. 1 2 Bell 2009, p. 63.
  12. 1 2 Bell 2009, p. 64.
  13. ↑ Inter-State Commission Act 1912 (33). 1912.
  14. ↑ la Nauze 1937, p. 51.
  15. ↑ Inter-State Commission Act 1912, Part III
  16. ↑ New South Wales v Commonwealth ("Wheat case") [1915] HCA 17 , (1915) 20 CLR 54(23 March 1915)
  17. ↑ Quick 1901, p. 900.
  18. ↑ Bell 2009, p. 68, fn. 160.
  19. ↑ Tasmania v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 11, (1907) 1 CLR 329(8 June 1904)
  20. ↑ la Nauze 1937, p. 55.
  21. 1 2 "Australian federalism and intergovernmental relations". Australian Federalism: The Role of the States. Federal-State Relations Committee, Parliament of Victoria. October 1998. Archived from the original on 5 August 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
  22. ↑ la Nauze 1937, p. 57.
  23. ↑ Gageler 2017, p. 216.
  24. ↑ Statute Law Revision Act 1950 (80, Schedule 3). 1950.
  25. ↑ Inter-State Commission Act 1975 (109). 1975., as amended by the Inter-State Commission Amendment Act 1983 (142). 1983.
  26. ↑ Bennett, Scott (2010). "EVERETT, Mervyn George (1917–1988)". In Millar, Ann; Browne, Geoffrey (eds.). The Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate. Vol. 3. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. p. 181. ISBN   978-0-86840-996-2.
  27. ↑ Industry Commission Act 1989 (9, s. 48). 1990., later repealed by Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act 1998 (15, Schedule 1). 1998. upon the creation of the Productivity Commission

Sources

Further reading


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.