Constitution (Fixed Term Parliament) Special Provisions Act 1992 (Repealed) (TAS)

In the case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Constitution (Fixed Term Parliament) Special Provisions Act 1992 were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution, and that they were therefore invalid. The dispute centred on the operation of the Act in the context of the fixed term of the Tasmanian Parliament. The plaintiffs argued that the provisions of the Act that limited the duration of parliamentary terms were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of political communication. The defendants, representing the Tasmanian Government, maintained that the Act was valid and within the legislative power of the State.

The court was required to determine whether the provisions of the Act were consistent with the Commonwealth Constitution. In particular, the court needed to examine whether the provisions limiting the duration of parliamentary terms were compatible with the implied freedom of political communication. The court also needed to consider whether the provisions were authorised by section 10 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which provides that the powers of the Parliament of a State include "all powers of a legislative nature which the Parliament of the Commonwealth can exercise, except in so far as the Commonwealth Parliament exercises those powers." Additionally, the court had to consider the extent to which the provisions of the Act could be seen as an implied limitation on the power of the Tasmanian Parliament to legislate on matters of parliamentary procedure.

The court held that the provisions of the Act that limited the duration of parliamentary terms were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution. The court found that the provisions interfered with the implied freedom of political communication by limiting the ability of members of the Parliament to communicate with their constituents over an extended period. The court further held that the provisions were not authorised by section 10 of the Commonwealth Constitution, as they represented an implied limitation on the legislative power of the Tasmanian Parliament. The court therefore declared the provisions of the Act to be invalid and of no effect.

The court made a declaration that the provisions of the Constitution (Fixed Term Parliament) Special Provisions Act 1992 that limited the duration of parliamentary terms were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution and were therefore invalid and of no effect. The court further ordered that the plaintiffs' costs be paid by the defendants.