Limitation of conferred power
Chief Justice French of the High Court of Australia in a speech on the Australian constitution commented:
- At the outset it may be observed that the power is not, in express terms, a power to refer matters. It is a power conferred upon the parliament of the Commonwealth to make new laws with respect to matters referred. This has the important consequence that the laws so made are federal laws. Federal laws must be uniform throughout the commonwealth and these laws only apply to certain States. These new laws made are more correctly State/Federal laws that can only be applied within a State and strictly speaking a State court exercising State/Federal jurisdiction. The legislative power conferred by section 51(xxxvii) is subject to the Constitution. A question has been raised in academic commentary about whether a law adopted by a State parliament pursuant to section 51(xxxvii) is also a Commonwealth law. The power conferred by section 51(xxxvii) is qualified so as to limit the operation of a law made under it to the referring States and to any States adopting that law. [1]
Justice Kirby commenting on the case of Thomas v Mowbray in regard to States referring anti terrorism laws justified a narrow reading of the referral due to the 'principle of legality' -
- Commonwealth power acquired through state references is ultimately power derived in such distinctive circumstances that a suitably different approach to its reading must necessarily follow. That approach must be to always interpret referrals strictly rather than expansively even if this runs counter to how the scope of Commonwealth power is normally viewed by the court and even if doing so inconveniences efforts at co-operative federalism.
The interpretative presumption that legislation is not intended to curtail common law rights or contravene international human rights standards. [2]
There was ambivalence on these issues within the constitutional convention itself. The issue of revocability has not been clarified today. This explains why referrals of power are usually very narrow. Referrals usually include in their terms an expiry period, after which a further referral is required. Limitations of time were upheld as valid by the High Court in 1964, [3] although the general issue of revocability was not resolved. Uncertainty may lead to the use instead of mirror legislation (see below), in which the states retain their legislative power.
The issue of exclusivity seems to have been resolved in favour of the concurrent legislative power approach. That is, as with other powers in section 51, states can continue to legislate subject to inconsistency with Commonwealth legislation (Constitution s 109). [4]
Examples of the use of Section 51(xxxvii)
This list is not comprehensive. Rather, this article intends to highlight some significant examples of referral of powers and demonstrate how and why the power is used.
De facto relationships
The Australian Constitution confers legislative power to the Commonwealth over marriage (Section 51(xxi)) and matrimonial causes (Section 51xxii)). The Australian Commonwealth created the Family Court of Australia as a specialist court dealing with divorce, including custody of children. However, the custody of children born outside of a marriage was outside of the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. As a result, these matters had to be litigated in non-specialist state courts.
Between 1986 and 1990 all states, except for Western Australia, referred the custody, maintenance, and access of ex-nuptial children to the Commonwealth. This referral excluded child welfare matters. Given that abuse of children is frequently a matter of contention in family law cases that reach litigation, this limitation is important in that it establishes a split system and creates bureaucratic hurdles. The referral also did not refer to property matters arising at the end of de facto relationships. As a result, maintenance orders are made in the Family Court and property settlements in state courts, although the matters may be inter-related. In 2003 Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales referred financial settlements to the Commonwealth. However, the issue remains unresolved in relation to other states.
Western Australia has not referred powers, and has its own specialist court, the Family Court of Western Australia.
Limited jurisdiction over de facto relationships since 1 March 2009
From 1 March 2009 a new section in the Family Law Act 1975 has limited jurisdiction over de facto relationships that have a geographical connection with a participating State, sections 90RG,90SD and 90SK of the Family Law Act. Participating States and territories are: New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. These States referred de facto matters under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution of Australia.
Difference in referral of power over marriage and de facto
The Commonwealth power to legislate for marriage and 'matrimonial causes' is supported by paragraphs 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution, whereas the power to legislate for de facto financial matters relies on referrals by States to the Commonwealth in accordance with paragraph 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. A special cause was created called a 'de facto financial cause' see the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [5] Explanatory Memorandum
However, the definitions of 'matrimonial cause' and 'de facto financial cause' differ in some respects, due to the different sources of Commonwealth power to legislate for these matters. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of 'de facto financial cause', in the Family Law Act 1975 therefore, limit the proceedings within each of those paragraphs to proceedings taken once the relevant de facto relationship has broken down.
No jurisdiction over de facto relationships outside Australia
Unlike a marriage which has a recognised legal status in the Constitution and is also internationally recognised, the legal status of a de facto relationship and a 'de facto financial cause' can only be applied within a participating State due to the limitations of section 51 (xxxvii) where it states the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterward adopt the law.
To explain further, the unmarried couple do not take the State with them when they move out of the State and the de facto legal status cannot exist outside of a participating State. Thus, the unmarried couple's relationship is then covered by the countries laws on unmarried relationships of where they are ordinarily resident. To otherwise interpret the legislation would be to override the Australian constitution due to limitations on how the power was derived from State power and the international human rights on the right for self-determination and to choose status, see Articles 1 and 2 [6] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Corporations
The corporations power, Constitution s 51(xx), empowers the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". On the basis of this power, in 1989 the Commonwealth enacted comprehensive legislation on corporations in Australia, the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth).
The Act covered not only corporations already in existence but also processes of incorporation. Having different sets of rules in each jurisdiction for the establishment of companies, and different registers for the existence of companies, created red-tape and legal hurdles for business. However, in the Incorporation Case (1990), [7] the High Court held that "formed" related to corporations only after their creation and so did not support legislation prescribing incorporation processes. To that extent, the act was invalid.
The Commonwealth then obtained power to legislate with respect to incorporation processes by persuading the states to refer their powers over incorporation processes to the Commonwealth. The current Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is supported by the combination of the corporations power with this referral of power. The referral also allowed the passage of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
Terrorism
Although Section 51(vi) of the Constitution of Australia (the defence power) empowers the Commonwealth to legislate on military matters, it is considered unlikely that this power extends to the making of laws relating to internal security.
In 2002–2003, all states referred a limited power to allow the enactment of the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth). The referral required that the act not be amended without consultation with the states.
Consumer credit
In 2009, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (Cth) transfers regulatory responsibility for credit from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. This is a wide-reaching reform of the regulation of the consumer credit in Australia. Previously, consumer credit was regulated at state level amongst each of the states but it was agreed at a COAG meeting that this area of the law should be reformed as a result of the 2007–2008 financial crisis and on a constitutional level, this was made possible because of the referral power.
Mutual recognition
In 1992, the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 was enacted and it allowed for mutual recognition between the various states of certain goods and occupations. It allowed people with certain occupations (e.g. nurse, physician, teacher) to work that occupation in another state with minimal delay or fuss. Likewise, most goods that meet the standards of the state they originated from can be sold in any other state regardless of the specific standards of that state. [8] [9]
The Family Court of Australia was a superior Australian federal court of record which deals with family law matters, such as divorce applications, parenting disputes, and the division of property when a couple separate. Together with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, it covered family law matters in all states and territories of Australia except for Western Australia, which has a separate Family Court. Its core function was to determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties, to cover specialised areas in family law, and to provide national coverage as the national appellate court for family law matters.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system, which superseded Indigenous Australian customary law during colonisation. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is the same across the states and territories.
Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia the right to legislate with respect to "external affairs".
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.
Section 51(v) of the Constitution of Australia is a subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia that gives the Australian Parliament power to legislate on "postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services".
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.
New South Wales v The Commonwealth, the Incorporation Case, was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 8 February 1990 concerning the corporations power in s51(xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The states of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia brought an application seeking a declaration as to the validity of certain aspects of the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth).
The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. It has 15 parts and is the primary piece of legislation dealing with divorce, parenting arrangements between separated parents (whether married or not), property separation, and financial maintenance involving children or divorced or separated de facto partners: in Australia. It also covers family violence. It came into effect on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act 1961, which had been largely based on fault. On the first day of its enactment, 200 applications for divorce were filed in the Melbourne registry office of the Family Court of Australia, and 80 were filed in Adelaide, while only 32 were filed in Sydney.
Common rule awards are a particular form of industrial award used in Australia to regulate minimum terms and conditions of employment. Awards are the end product of the processes of conciliation and arbitration where an industrial tribunal makes an award in settlement of an industrial dispute. Whereas awards are legally binding on all parties to the dispute which are named in the award, with common rule awards all employers in the industry or occupation covered by the award are bound by it.
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 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.
Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).
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).
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.