Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia

Last updated

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.

Contents

The powers

The powers enumerated within section 51 are reflective in their topics of being those that Australia's colonies perceived as being best within the purview of a national government. The full list of powers is available on the Australian Parliament's website.

In modern times, the most prominent heads of power for Commonwealth legislative purposes are arguably: (i) the interstate trade and commerce power, (ii) the taxation power, (xx) the corporations power, and (xxix) the external affairs power. This is because these sections have been interpreted by the High Court as wide in scope, and so are extensively relied upon by the Commonwealth when attempting legislative enactment. The wide scope of these sections have at times been legally controversial in Australia; most notably in the Workchoices and Tasmanian dams cases, which expanded the understood applicable scope of the corporations power, and external affairs power, respectively.

Other particularly notable powers in history have been the (vi) defence power, (see: Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth), the (xix) naturalisation and aliens power, the (xxxi) 'just terms' property acquisition power, the (xxvi) power to make special laws in relation to peoples of a particular race, and the s51(xxiii) & (xxiiiA) power to provide social services (notable in part for having been implemented in 1946 via referendum)

With some exceptions, the remainder of the powers in s51 pertain to the standardization of commerce across Australia, empowering the federal government to enact laws in relation to metrics, statistics, finance, interstate commercial disputes, and other related issues.

Additionally, two subsections provide for the referral of matters to the Australian Parliament by Australia's State Governments. Specifically, (xxxvii) allows State Parliaments to refer matters within their competence to the commonwealth, and (xxxviii) allows state parliaments to refer any matter that the UK Parliament or Federal Council of Australasia could legislate on their behalf at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

The incidental power (xxxix) allows the Commonwealth to act on matters 'incidental' any power of the constitution. Most notably this includes section 61 of the constitution, which vests the Australian Government with Executive Power. As a result, it is one of the most important sections in practice.

Interpretive history

The High Court's approach to section 51 has changed over time. Initially, the court adopted the 'Reserved Powers' doctrine, an interpretive view that the Australian States had implicitly retained competence in core areas, which were unable to be displaced by the Commonwealth even through reliance upon the powers enumerated in s51.

This doctrine was famously, and emphatically, rejected by the Isaac's court in the Engineers' Case. Following this case, the reserved powers doctrine was abandoned; although it has notably reappeared a number of times in argument by State governments when arguing against Commonwealth legislation.

Since federation the enumerated powers in section 51 have tended overall to have expanded in scope. In particular, the Corporations and external affairs powers are notable for having a significantly larger breadth in modern times than at federation.

When interpreting whether a particular act of parliament is within the scope, or is incidental to an enumerated power; the dominant test legal test applied by the court has been whether the law in question is a reasonable and appropriate means of furthering an object or purpose in the power. [1]

Tied grants

In practice, section 51 is not a strong limit on federal involvement in Australia's political life. Section 96 of the Australian Constitution grants the power to grant money to any State, "on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit." In effect, the Commonwealth can make grants subject to States implementing particular policies in their fields of legislative responsibility. Such grants, known as tied grants (since they are tied to a particular purpose), have been used to give the federal parliament influence over state policy matters such as public hospitals and schools.

Section 96 does not compel a state to accept a grant, so constitutionally a state may refuse a grant and not implement any policy conditions. However, since a uniform federal system of income tax was introduced in 1942 (under s51(ii)) a vertical fiscal imbalance has arisen and the Commonwealth Parliament has had a vastly larger budget. It also has control over state borrowings (under subsection iv). This has meant that the Parliament's powers have effectively been extended beyond the constraints of section 51 and other explicit grants of legislative power (e.g. section 52 and section 90).

See also

Related Research Articles

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the phrase "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) is an expression used in law to express the legitimate objects of legislative powers conferred by statute. The phrase appears in many Imperial Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent, most notably the constitutions of Barbados, Canada, Australia and formerly New Zealand and South Africa.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian legal system</span>

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. 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.

<i>Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 11 May 1982. It concerned the constitutional validity of parts of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the discriminatory acts of the Government of Queensland in blocking the purchase of land by Aboriginal people in northern Queensland.

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 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(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. 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.

Section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution of Australia is a provision in the Australian Constitution which empowers the Australian Parliament to legislate on matters referred to it by any state. As Australia is a federation, both states and the Commonwealth have legislative power, and the Australian Constitution limits Commonwealth power. Section 51(xxxvii) allows for a degree of flexibility in the allocation of legislative powers.

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>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1990) Australian constitutional law case

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).

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (2006) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

New South Wales v Commonwealth is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, which held that the federal government's WorkChoices legislation was a valid exercise of federal legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. In essence, the majority found the Constitution's corporations power capable of sustaining the legislative framework, while the conciliation and arbitration and territories powers were also seen as supporting parts of the law. Furthermore, the majority also held that the legislation permissibly limited State powers and did not interfere with State constitutions or functioning. A minority dissented.

<i>South Australia v Commonwealth</i>

South Australia v Commonwealth is a decision of the High Court of Australia that established the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax across the country and displace the State. It was a major contributor to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government, and was thus a watershed moment in the development of federalism in Australia.

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.

<i>Attorney-General (Vic) ex rel Dale v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth, commonly known as the "First Pharmaceutical Benefits case", was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under section 81 of the Constitution of Australia, to take and spend money by legislation, in this case to fund reduced prices for prescription medicines.

Section 96 of the Constitution of Australia authorises the Australian (Commonwealth) Parliament to grant financial assistance to any state on the terms and conditions that it sees fit, subject to acceptance by the state(s) concerned. The expanded use of the power under section 96 has added to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance and enabled the Commonwealth to have a significant influence over matters that would otherwise be constitutionally State responsibilities.

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.

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.

References

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.