Intergovernmental immunity (Australia)

Last updated

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.


Early doctrine

The inaugural High Court

Prior to 1920, the High Court of Australia tended to employ the US jurisprudence governing intergovernmental immunity, expressing it as an implied immunity of instrumentalities, where neither the Commonwealth nor State governments could be affected by the laws of the other. [1] :508 This was first expressed in D'Emden v Pedder , [2] Deakin v Webb , [3] and the Railway Servants' case. [4] As Griffith CJ declared in the first case:

In considering the respective powers of the Commonwealth and of the States it is essential to bear in mind that each is, within the ambit of its authority, a sovereign State, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and to the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or necessarily implied... a right of sovereignty subject to extrinsic control is a contradiction in terms. It must, therefore, be taken to be of the essence of the Constitution that the Commonwealth is entitled, within the ambit of its authority, to exercise its legislative and executive powers in absolute freedom, and without any interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself... It follows that when a State attempts to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, is to that extent invalid and inoperative. [2]

However, the doctrine did have limits. Deakin v Webb was overturned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1906, [5] although the High Court largely ignored the ruling and stuck to its precedent in D'Emden. In the Steel Rails case, it was held that States were still liable to pay customs duties. [6]

The Engineers' case

The inconsistency within the jurisprudence was not addressed until 1920, where the High Court overturned the Railway Servants' case, [4] and affirmed the Steel Rails case, [6] as a result of its ruling in the Engineers' case, [7] holding that the laws of the Commonwealth and the States have full operation within the subjects upon which they have power to legislate, subject to S. 109 in the event of inconsistency. Commonwealth laws could therefore bind the States and State laws could bind the Commonwealth. [1] However the majority judgment, commonly attributed to Isaacs J, [8] noted that different considerations may apply in the case of discriminatory laws, as well as in some other matters:

If in any future case concerning the prerogative in the broader sense, or arising under some other Commonwealth power—for instance, taxation,—the extent of that power should come under consideration so as to involve the effect of the principle stated in the passage just quoted from the Bonanza Creek Case, [9] and its application to the prerogative or to the legislative or executive power of the States in relation to the specific Commonwealth power concerned, the special nature of the power may have to be taken into account. That this must be so is patent from the circumstance that the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament are all prefaced with one general express limitation, namely, "subject to this Constitution," and consequently those words, which have to be applied seriatim to each placitum, require the Court to consider with respect to each separate placitum, over and beyond the general fundamental considerations applying to all the placita, whether there is anything in the Constitution which falls within the express limitation referred to in the governing words of sec. 51. That inquiry, however, must proceed consistently with the principles upon which we determine this case, for they apply generally to all powers contained in that section. [7]

The rule was more succinctly expressed in 1930 by Dixon J in Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways Commissioners, where he stated:

... every grant of legislative power to the Commonwealth should be interpreted as authorizing the Parliament to make laws affecting the operations of the States and their agencies, at any rate if the State is not acting in the exercise of the Crown's prerogative and if the Parliament confines itself to laws which do not discriminate against the States or their agencies. [10]

The Melbourne Corporation case

In 1947, Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth explored the nature of what constituted a discriminatory law. [11] In that case, as refined in subsequent jurisprudence, the implied limitation on legislative power arose upon the application of a two-part test, which was clarified in subsequent jurisprudence and summarised by Mason J in Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth: [12]

23. This review of the authorities shows that the principle is now well established and that it consists of two elements:

  1. the prohibition against discrimination which involves the placing on the States of special burdens or disabilities; and
  2. the prohibition against laws of general application which operate to destroy or curtail the continued existence of the States or their capacity to function as governments...

The second element of the prohibition is necessarily less precise than the first; it protects the States against laws which, complying with the first element because they have a general application, may nevertheless produce the effect which it is the object of the principle to prevent. [12]

Modern jurisprudence

Discriminatory laws – Cigamatic, Residential Tenancies and Austin

Although Dixon J had suggested in the Melbourne Corporation case that the States lack the power to legislate with respect to the rights and activities of the Commonwealth, [13] } it was not until 1962 when, as Chief Justice, he declared in Commonwealth v Cigamatic Pty Ltd (In Liq): [14]

It is not a question, as it appears to me, of interpreting some positive power of the State over a given subject matter. It is not a question of making some implication in favour of the Commonwealth restraining some acknowledged legislative power of the State. If you express the priority belonging to the Commonwealth as a prerogative of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, the question is whether the legislative powers of the States could extend over one of the prerogatives of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. If, as in modern times I think it is more correct to do, you describe it as a fiscal right belonging to the Commonwealth as a government and affecting its Treasury, it is a question of State legislative power affecting to control or abolish a federal fiscal right. It is not a question of the authority of the power of a State to make some general law governing the rights and duties of those who enter into some description of transaction, such as the sale of goods, and of the Commonwealth in its executive arm choosing to enter into a transaction of that description. It is not a question of the exercise of some specific grant of power which according to the very meaning of the terms in which it is defined embraces the subject matter itself : for it is not the plan of the Constitution to grant specific powers to the States over defined subjects. It is, I think, a question which cannot be regarded as simply governed by the applicability of the principles upon which Melbourne Corporation v. The Commonwealth ... depended. [14]

This was endorsed in 1997 in the Residential Tenancies case , [15] where it was stated:

No implication limiting an otherwise given power is needed; the character of the Commonwealth as a body politic, armed with executive capacities by the Constitution, by its very nature places those capacities outside the legislative power of another body politic, namely a State, without specific powers in that respect.... [T]he fundamental point made in Cigamatic is that in the absence of a like power being conferred upon the States, the priority of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in the payment of debts is not something over which the States have legislative power. [15]

By implication, both Cigamatic, [14] and Residential Tenancies, [15] hold that: [1] :515–516

  • State laws of general application which regulate such activities as the sale of goods or entering into contracts are validly binding on the executive government of the Commonwealth, but
  • where such a law alters or impairs the capacities or functions of the executive, it will be invalid as being beyond the legislative power of the State.

In 2003, the first prong of the Melbourne Corporation test (relating to considerations about discrimination) was given diminished importance in Austin v Commonwealth , [16] where it was stated, "To fix separately upon laws addressed to one or more of the States and upon laws of so-called 'general application', and to present the inquiry as differing in nature dependent upon the form taken by laws enacted under the one head of power, tends to favour form over substance." [16] There is debate as to whether such a move was either necessary or desirable. [17]


The exception relating to taxation that was noted in Engineers, [7] was rejected by the High Court in 1971 with the Payroll Tax case , [18] which upheld the Commonwealth's ability to impose a payroll tax on all employers. Barwick CJ noted: " my opinion, the statement that the imposition of this tax threatens or impairs the independence of the State is, as a statement of a legal conclusion, unwarranted". [19]

Australian Education Union

In 1995, in the AEU case, [20] the High Court struck down a Commonwealth law on the grounds that it impaired the capacity of a State to function as an independent government. This was the first time in the Court's history that such action had taken place. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

Australian constitutional law

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>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Australian case

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.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i>

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

<i>Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth</i>

Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth, also known as the Melbourne Corporation case or the State banking case, is an important case in Australian constitutional law. It stands for the proposition that there are limits on the scope of express Commonwealth legislative powers which can be implied from the federal character of the Constitution.

The legal system of Australia consists of multiple forms of law. The country's legal system comprises of a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law.

The doctrine of the separation of powers in Australia divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature makes the laws; the executive put the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws. The doctrine of the separation of powers is often assumed to be one of the cornerstones of fair government. A strict separation of powers is not always evident in Australia; instead the Australian version of separation of powers combines the basic democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. The issue of separation of powers in Australia has been a contentious one and continues to raise questions about where power lies in the Australian political system.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent State laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the Paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdictions is considered persuasive in the others.

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.

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.

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.

<i>R v Barger</i>

R v Barger is a 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.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i> Jump to navigationJump to searchlegal case heard in the High Court of Australia in 1904

D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.

<i>Pirrie v McFarlane</i>

Pirrie v McFarlane is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia on Intergovernmental immunity between tiers of government in the Australian Constitution.

<i>Henderson v Defence Housing Authority</i> legal case

Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution.

<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.

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i>

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>Farey v Burvett</i>

Farey v Burvett, is an early High Court of Australia case concerning the extent of the defence power of the Commonwealth. The majority of the Court took an expansive view of the defence power in a time of war, holding that the defence power extended to fixing the maximum price for bread. The Court adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power which emphasised the purpose of the legislation, the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter. As the law fell within a Commonwealth power, whether the law was necessary or appropriate for the defence of Australia was a matter for Parliament.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW)

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.


  1. 1 2 3 A Twomey. "Federal limitations on the legislative power of the States and the Commonwealth to bind one another" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 February 2017. Retrieved 22 April 2013. (2003) 31 Federal Law Review 507.
  2. 1 2 D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91.
  3. Deakin v Webb [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 585.
  4. 1 2 Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association (Railway Servants' case) [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91.
  5. Webb v Outtrim [1906] UKPC 75 , [1907] AC 81((6 December 1906), P.C. (on appeal from Victoria)
  6. 1 2 Attorney-General (NSW) v Collector of Customs (NSW) (Steel Rails case) [1908] HCA 28 , (1908) 8 CLR 818.
  7. 1 2 3 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers' case) [1920] HCA 54 , (1920) 28 CLR 129.
  8. A Twomey (2015). "Ch 6 the Knox Court". In Dixon, R; Williams, G (eds.). The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9781107043664.
  9. The Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Company Limited v The King and another [1916] UKPC 11 , [1916] 1 AC 566(24 February 1916), PC (on appeal from Canada)
  10. Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1930] HCA 52 , (1930) 44 CLR 319.
  11. Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (State Banking case) [1947] HCA 26 , (1947) 74 CLR 31.
  12. 1 2 Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth [1985] HCA 56 , (1985) 159  CLR  192.
  13. 1 2 3 Commonwealth v Cigamatic Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1962] HCA 40 , (1962) 108  CLR  372.
  14. 1 2 3 Henderson v Defence Housing Authority (Residential Tenancies case) [1997] HCA 36 , (1997) 190  CLR  410.
  15. 1 2 Austin v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 3 , (2003) 215  CLR  185 at [143].
  16. A Simpson. "State Immunity from Commonwealth Laws: Austin v Commonwealth and Dilemmas of Doctrinal Design". (2004) 32 University of Western Australia Law Review 44 at p 45.
  17. Victoria v Commonwealth (Payroll Tax case) [1971] HCA 16 , (1971) 122  CLR  353.
  18. Victoria v Commonwealth (Payroll Tax case) [1971] HCA 16 , (1971) 122  CLR  353 at p. 374.
  19. Re Australian Education Union & Australian Nursing Federation; Ex Parte Victoria (AEU case) [1995] HCA 71 , (1995) 184  CLR  188.
  20. L Zines (2008). The High Court and the Constitution (5th ed.). Federation Press. p. 456. ISBN   978-1-86287-691-0.

Other significant cases

Further reading