Croome & Anor v State of Tasmania

In *Croome & Anor v State of Tasmania*, Brennan CJ, sitting in chambers, considered an application for an interlocutory injunction. The applicants, Croome and another, sought to restrain the respondent, the State of Tasmania, from proceeding with the implementation of the *Prostitution Control Act 1994* (Tas). The applicants contended that the Act, which criminalised the operation of brothels and the employment of prostitutes, was invalid by reason of its inconsistency with section 109 of the *Constitution*.

The central legal issue before Brennan CJ was whether the Tasmanian Act was invalid due to inconsistency with Commonwealth legislation, specifically the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and regulations made thereunder. The applicants argued that the Tasmanian Act, by prohibiting the employment of prostitutes, interfered with the ability of non-citizens who held temporary entry permits allowing them to work as prostitutes to do so, thereby frustrating the purpose of the Commonwealth legislation.

Brennan CJ found that the *Migration Act* and its regulations did not confer any right or entitlement upon non-citizens to engage in prostitution. Rather, the Commonwealth legislation regulated entry into Australia and the conditions of stay, including the authorisation to work. The Tasmanian Act, by prohibiting prostitution, did not prevent the Commonwealth from exercising its constitutional power to control migration or to prescribe conditions of entry and stay. Therefore, there was no inconsistency between the Commonwealth and State legislation that would render the Tasmanian Act invalid under section 109 of the *Constitution*.

The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.