Class Notes (835,094)
Australia (1,845)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
All (349)
Lecture

1. General Interpretation.doc

5 Pages
92 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law
Course
JSB171
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Spring

Description
Interpretation Scope/Need for a head of power Commonwealth • Requires head of Commonwealth legislative power: Attorney-General v Colonial Sugar Refining Co (the Royal Commissions case) (1913) 17 CLR 644 (words of legislative powers restrict power to legislate—not a general power) - most likely contained in s51, although there are others State • Not limited to any specific subject matter  Have the power to legislate for ‘peace, order/welfare and good government’ ← plenary power  These words do not limit the power: Union Steamship Co v King • Must be cleared to be valid from other criterion:  General prohibitions— • s92: freedom of interstate trade and commerce and intercourse • s117: right of a citizen of one state to not be discriminated against another  State-oriented prohibitions— • s114: state not to raise taxes against Commonwealth property of any kind, nor to raise defence forces • s115: state not to print money  Exclusive Commonwealth power— • s52: exclusive powers relating to the public service, seat of government an other areas in the constitution • s90: exclusive control of customs etc.  Extra-territoriality powers of a state – whether there is a sufficient connection with the state; and then  Inconsistency with any Commonwealth law → struck down to the extent of the inconsistency: s109 Constitution Interpretation • Context and text of the Constitution, where the broad interpretation is narrowed due to the context or other express provisions of the constitution: Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners’ Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 • Implications: Where there are some implications made into the text, where they are suggested by the structure or text of the Constitution: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520  Implications include freedom of political communication due to the prescribed system of representative/responsible govt: Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106;  Commonwealth-state legislative immunities due to the federal nature in the constitution: Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31 • Plain and natural meaning: contrasting the implications doctrine, there is also a need to give the words of the Constitution its plain and natural meaning: Engineers’ case Andrew Trotter LWB242 2009-1  Prevented implications such as the ‘reserved powers’ doctrine, which said the Constitution impliedly left the states exclusive power to legislate on certain areas • Commonwealth legislative power is to be interpreted broadly, so as to give some flexibility to the document to deal with varying conditions: Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners’ Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 o Parliament is able to make and unmake any laws it wishes within its heads of power: Arthus Yates & Co Pty Ltd v Vegetable Seeds Committee (1945) 72 CLR 72 o Parliament’s law-making ability also has a corresponding power to unmake laws: Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 Connection with Head of Power • Can’t be too remote or indirect to be properly classified as a law related to that purpose: Re Dinjan; Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323 o Look to substance rather than form: Bank of NSW v Commonwealth • Words can refer to either their contemporary meaning (denotation) or the meaning at the time of enactment (connotation) o Eg of ‘denotation’: where the terms ‘postal, telegraphic and telephonic and other like services was extended to mean all forms of communication, including radio: R v Brislan; Ex parte Williams (1935) 54 CLR 262 • Power to legislate includes— o Regulate the pursuit: Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (176) 136 CLR 1 o Prohibit its occurrence, whether absolutely or conditionally: Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (176) 136 CLR 1 o Participate itself: Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 29; or o Protect the rights held by it: Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169 • Where there is an express exclusion, the Commonwealth can’t legislate around it by using a different power o Eg: can’t legislate for state banks under the corporations power: Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1 Purpose of Power • The court will look at the purpose of the law where that law is a purposive power, such as defence. • To test the purpose of the legislation – the ‘reasonable proprotionality’ test: • The test involves whether the law goes further than is necessary to achieve its purpose: Leask v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 579, or whether there is a less restrictive means
More Less

Related notes for JSB171

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit