Egan v Willis

Last updated

Egan v Willis
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameEgan v Willis
Decided19 November 1998
Citation(s) [1998] HCA 71
Case opinions
The New South Wales Legislative Council has the implied power to require one of its members, who is a Minister, to produce State papers to the House, together with the power to counter obstruction where it occurs. (per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne)
dissenting
Callinan J
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ

Egan v Willis is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Contents

The court found that legislative chambers in Australia have an implied power to compel their members to produce papers to the house, together with an implied power to counter obstruction where it occurs. In particular, the New South Wales Legislative Council had the power to compel Michael Egan to produce certain documents to the chamber, and when he refused to do so; the forced removal of him from the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod did not constitute a trespass. [1]

Facts

Pictured: The legislative council chamber of the Parliament of New South Wales The legislative council chamber of NSW.jpg
Pictured: The legislative council chamber of the Parliament of New South Wales

In 1995 the NSW Legislative Council passed a resolution that there be tabled in the house, documents relating to various activities of the Government. In 1996 a further resolution was passed stating that it would be a sufficient compliance 'for the Minister to table the documents required by delivering them to the Clerk of the House'. Six days later the NSW Cabinet decided that they would decline to comply with the resolution. [2]

Bob Carr, former Premier of New South Wales. His cabinet had instructed its member, Michael Egan to not cooperate with the motion passed by the Legislative Council Bob Carr in 2009.jpg
Bob Carr, former Premier of New South Wales. His cabinet had instructed its member, Michael Egan to not cooperate with the motion passed by the Legislative Council

Michael Egan, a Member of the Legislative Council, had in his possession at least four documents capable of falling within the 1996 resolution. [3] He asserted that the Legislative Council was unable to compel compliance with their resolution. He was ejected from the chamber for refusing compliance, and in response sued in trespass. The central question of the appeal was whether there was any justification for the trespass constituted by his removal from the chamber; a question which presented an issue as to the powers of the Legislative Council with respect to its 1996 resolutions. [4]

Decision

The court found that 'If a member will not produce documents sought by the House there may be some limits to the steps it may take in response', and that '... one of the steps that the House may undoubtedly take is to resolve that the member be suspended for a limited time from the service of the House, and that is what happened here.' [5]

Significance

The case is notable for having established that the powers and proceedings of Australia's legislative chambers are justiciable issues for the courts. Politically the case is notable as a significant embarrassment at the time for the Carr Government. Law professor Gerard Carney described the 'constitutional significance' of the case as 'profound', as it serves to 'judicially confirm the fundamental role of each House of Parliament to scrutinize the activities of the Executive Branch'. [6]

Related Research Articles

International Chamber of Commerce Business organization

The International Chamber of Commerce is the largest, most representative business organization in the world. Its over 45 million members in over 100 countries have interests spanning every sector of private enterprise.

Murray Gleeson Australian former Chief Justice

Anthony Murray Gleeson is an Australian former judge who served as the 11th Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1998 to 2008.

In Australia, Torts are common law actions for civil wrongs. Unless barred by statute, individuals are entitled to sue other people, or the state; for the purpose of obtaining a legal remedy for the wrong committed.

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.

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Treaty on child abduction

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member country to another. The convention was drafted to ensure the prompt return of children who have been abducted from their country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained in a contracting state not their country of habitual residence.

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:

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

Section 51(xxxi) is a section of the Constitution of 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.

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

Contractual term Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia Australian Constitution section regarding religion

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

The President of the New South Wales Legislative Council is the presiding officer of the upper house of the Parliament of New South Wales, the Legislative Council. The presiding officer of the lower house is the speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The role of President has generally been a partisan office, filled by the governing party of the time. As of May 2021, the president is Matthew Mason-Cox.

A referendum concerning the abolition of the New South Wales Legislative Council was put to New South Wales voters on 29 April 1961. The abolition was specifically rejected by voters. The text of the question was:

Do you approve of the Bill entitled "A Bill for an Act to Abolish the Legislative Council to provide that another Legislative Council shall not be created, constituted or established nor shall any Chamber, Assembly or House, other than the Legislative Assembly, designed to form part of the Legislative Parliament of New South Wales, be created, constituted or established until a bill for the purpose has been approved by the electors in a referendum to amend the Constitution Act, 1902 and certain other Acts; and for purposes connected therewith."

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia

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.

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.

Constitution Act 1902 Australian legislation

The Constitution Act 1902 is the founding document of the State of New South Wales, and sets out many of the basic principles of the Government of New South Wales. This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters.

Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan described judicial independence as existing "to serve and protect not the governors but the governed", albeit one that "rests on the calibre and the character of the judges themselves". Despite general agreement as to its importance and common acceptance of some elements, there is no agreement as to each of the elements of judicial independence.

<i>Comcare v Banerji</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Comcare v Banerji is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by Comcare against former public servant Michaela Banerji, seeking to overturn a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal had declared that termination of her employment was not a reasonable administrative action; once regard was had to the implied freedom of political communication.

References

  1. ↑ Griffith, Gareth (1999). Egan v Willis & Cahill: The High Court Decision (PDF). NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE.
  2. ↑ Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71 at para. 19
  3. ↑ Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71 at para. 20
  4. ↑ Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71 at para. 7
  5. ↑ Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71 at para. 54
  6. ↑ Carney, Gerard (2007). "Egan v Willis and Egan v Chadwick: The Triumph of Responsible Government" (PDF). The Federation Press: 298.
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.