Section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution

Last updated

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. [1] It empowers the Commonwealth to make laws regarding the acquisition of property, but stipulates that such acquisitions must be on just (fair) terms. The terms is sometimes referred to in shorthand as the 'just terms' provision.

Contents

Aside from its importance to Australian constitutional law and property law, the section is notable for its role as a plot device in the Australian film The Castle .

Text

Section 51(xxxi) reads: [1]

s.51 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

...
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
...

Jurisprudence

While s51(xxxi) was adapted from the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, it has many differences.

The 'just terms' requirement has been held not to affect the state parliaments.

In Grace Bros Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1946), Justice Dixon stated that the inclusion of the condition was to "prevent arbitrary exercises of the power at the expense of a State or a subject." [2]

The interpretation of the terms "acquisition" and "just terms" by the High Court of Australia has had the effect, however, of limiting its protection of property rights. Moreover, it operates at any time the Commonwealth makes a compulsory acquisition of property. As such, it is a contingent guarantee rather than a general constitutional right or freedom to enjoy property rights.

The Commonwealth may only acquire property on just terms for a "purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws". This means that every law supported by s 51(xxxi) must not be supported by any other additional legislative power.

Property

The High Court of Australia has taken a wide view of the concept of "property". Several members of the court took the opportunity to consider the meaning of the term property in Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944). Justice Starke said the term includes: "every species of valuable right and interest including real and personal property, incorporeal hereditaments such as rents and services, rights-of-way, rights of profit or use in land of another, and choses in action. Justice McTiernan confirmed the term property extends to tangible and intangible property. [3]

An example of the breadth of the concept of property in section 51(xxxi) is provided by Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (the Bank Nationalisation Case). In that case, federal legislation contemplated the acquisition of private banks through the vesting of shares in private banks in the Commonwealth, and later the appointment of directors by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank. Justice Dixon characterised the provisions as removing effective control over the property of the private banks. He concluded that this was, in the essential sense, an acquisition of a proprietary right. [4]

While statutory licences have sometimes been equated with proprietary interests, the removal of rights enjoyed under a statutory licence does not typically constitute an acquisition of property within section 51(xxxi), as licence conditions are inherently susceptible to change.

Acquisition

For the purposes of section 51(xxxi), property must have been acquired by somebody, and the acquisition must be for a Commonwealth purpose. [5] This is in contrast to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, where the destination does not matter – it is enough that the holder of property has been deprived of it. [6] Thus, in JT International SA v Commonwealth , the High Court held that the Commonwealth's plain tobacco packaging laws, which restricted the plaintiff's use of its trademark, did not involve the Commonwealth acquiring any property. [7] Similarly, in Cunningham v Commonwealth, the High Court held that changes to the retiring allowances and life Gold Pass for retired members of Parliament were not an acquisition of property. [8]

In P J Magennis Pty Ltd v Commonwealth the High Court held that a grant to NSW which was tied to NSW compulsorily acquiring property was invalid as an acquisition of property upon terms which were not just. [9] The validity of a grant in the absence of a requirement to acquire property was upheld in the later case of Pye v Renshaw . [10]

Just terms

Typically, a determination of just terms based on the market value of the property at the time of acquisition will be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of just terms. Unlike the "just compensation" requirement in the American Fifth Amendment, however, "just terms" imports no equivalence of market value. The arrangements offered must be "fair", or such that a legislature could reasonably regard them as "fair". [11] However, this judgment of "fairness" must take account of all the interests affected, not just those of the dispossessed owner.

The requirement of "just terms" does not necessarily require that a compensation package be presented as part of the acquisition scheme. It is sufficient that the scheme provides adequate procedures for determining fair compensation. However, the Court may scrutinise such procedures closely to ensure their adequacy.

There may be some acquisitions of property to which section 51(xxxi) does not apply, such as those made under laws supported exclusively by section 122 of the Constitution. [12] [13] [14]

Section 51(xxxi) is an exception to the norm for interpretation of the subsections of section 51, that one grant of power cannot be used to "read down" another. In this case, however, the Court will not allow another grant of power to be read so broadly as to circumvent the specific limitation to the power granted by section 51(xxxi). [15]

The Deakin government's Lands Acquisition Act 1906, largely drafted by Littleton Groom, was the first to deal with the compulsory acquisition of land by the federal government. Its most contentious provision was a clause authorising the federal government to grant mining leases and regulate mining on Commonwealth land. Responsibility for compulsory acquisition was initially placed with the Department of Home Affairs. [16]

The Chifley government's Darwin Lands Acquisition Act 1945 compulsorily acquired 53 acres (21 ha) of land owned by Chinese-Australians in Darwin, leading to the end of the local Chinatown. The legislation was suggested in 1943 by the Northern Territory's administrator Aubrey Abbott, who proposed a combination of compulsory acquisition and conversion of the land to leasehold in order to effect "the elimination of undesirable elements which Darwin has suffered from far too much in the past" and stated that he hoped to "entirely prevent the Chinese quarter forming again". He further observed that "if land is acquired from the former Chinese residents there is really no need for them to return as they have no other assets". The territory's civilian population had mostly been evacuated during the war and the former Chinatown residents returned to find their homes and businesses reduced to rubble. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia enumerates the legislative powers granted to the Parliament of Australia by the Australian States at Federation. Each subsection, or 'head of power', provides a topic under which the parliament is empowered to make laws. There are other sections in the constitution that enable the parliament to enact laws, although the scope of those other sections are generally limited in comparison with section 51.

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.

<i>Commonwealth v Tasmania</i> 1983 Australian constitutional law case

Commonwealth v Tasmania was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.

<i>Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i> 1992 Australian High Court case

Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

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:

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>Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd</i>

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.

<i>P. J. Magennis Pty. Ltd. v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

P. J. Magennis Pty. Ltd. v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the Commonwealth's power of acquisition of property, which must be on just terms, as specified in section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

<i>Pye v Renshaw</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pye v Renshaw, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the interaction between section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, and section 96 of the Constitution.

<i>Bank Nationalisation Case</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

The Bank Nationalisation Case, also called Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, is a 1948 decision of the High Court of Australia that invalidated Chiefley government legislation that attempted to nationalise the private banking sector. Separate majorities held that the legislation breached three different provisions of the Constitution: section 92, section 51(xxxi) and section 75(iii).

<i>Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd</i> (No 2) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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 .

<i>Telstra Corporation Ltd. v Commonwealth</i>

Telstra Corporation Limited v The Commonwealth was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 March 2008.

<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 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>Roche v Kronheimer</i>

Roche v Kronheimer is an early case in which the High Court considered the defence power and external affairs power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution and the Parliament's power to delegate certain legislative powers to the Executive. The Court concluded that Federal Parliament had the power to implement the Treaty of Versailles under the defence power and to delegate that implementation to the Governor-General. Higgins J also saw it as a valid exercise of the external affair power.

<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.

Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia deals with matters relating to the governance of Australian territories. It gives the Commonwealth Parliament complete legislative power over the territories. This power is called the territories power. The extent and terms of the representation of the territories in the House of Representatives and the Senate are also stated as being at the discretion of the Commonwealth Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1988 Australian referendum (Rights and Freedoms)</span> 1988 Unsuccessful constitutional proposal in Australia

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.

References

  1. 1 2 Constitution (Cth) s 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament.
  2. ↑ Grace Brothers Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1946] HCA 11 , (1944) 72 CLR 269 (17 April 1946), High Court.
  3. ↑ Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel [1944] HCA 4 , (1946) 68 CLR 261 (17 April 1946), High Court.
  4. ↑ Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth [1948] HCA 7 , (1948) 76 CLR 1 (11 August 1948), High Court (Australia).
  5. ↑ Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams case) [1983] HCA 21 , (1983) 158 CLR 1(1 July 1983), High Court.
  6. ↑ Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v Department of Community Services and Health [1990] FCA 151 at para 150-151, (1990) 22 FCR 73 at pp 116-7(16 May 1990), Federal Court (Australia).
  7. ↑ JT International SA v Commonwealth [2012] HCA 43 , (2011) 250 CLR 1 "judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 5 October 2012.
  8. ↑ Cunningham v Commonwealth [2016] HCA 39 , (2016) 259 CLR 536 "judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 12 October 2016.
  9. ↑ P J Magennis Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1949] HCA 66 , (1949) 80 CLR 382 (1 December 1949), High Court.
  10. ↑ Pye v Renshaw [1951] HCA 8 , (1951) 84 CLR 58 (8 October 1951), High Court.
  11. ↑ Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2001] HCA 7 , (2001) 205 CLR 399(15 February 2001), High Court (Australia).
  12. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 122 Government of territories.
  13. ↑ Teori Tau v Commonwealth [1969] HCA 62 , (1997) 190 CLR 5134(14 August 1997), High Court (Australia).
  14. ↑ Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 , (1969) 119 CLR 564(9 December 1969), High Court (Australia).
  15. ↑ Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt [1961] HCA 21 , (1961) 105 CLR 361 at pp 371–2 per Dixon CJ (27 April 1961), High Court (Australia).
  16. ↑ Carment, David (1975). Australian liberal: a political biography of Sir Littleton Groom, 1867-1936 (PDF) (PhD thesis). Australian National University. pp. 57–59.
  17. ↑ Giese, Diana (1995). Beyond Chinatown (PDF). National Library of Australia. pp. 35–37. ISBN   0642106339.
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.