Constitutional Law (Cth)—Judicial power of the Commonwealth—State Act empowering Her Majesty to refer questions or matters affecting State or its laws to Judicial Committee of Privy Council—State Attorney-General authorized to apply to Supreme Court for certificate that question or matter should be referred to Judicial Committee—Validity—Power of State Parliament to deal with jurisdiction of Judicial Committee—Conflict with Ch. III of Commonwealth Constitution—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 74—Appeals and Special Reference Act 1973 (Q.), ss. 3, 4.
Decisions
October 10. The following written judgments were delivered:- BARWICK C.J. I have had the advantage in this matter of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Gibbs. I agree that ss. 3 and 4 of the Appeals and Special Reference Act 1973 (Q.) are valid, their enactment being beyond the competence of the legislature of Queensland. I also agree generally with my brother's reasons for reaching that conclusion. I do not wish to add anything to those reasons. The defendants' motion should be dismissed and the plaintiff's demurrer allowed. (at p303)
McTIERNAN J. I agree that the order of the Court should be that the defendants' motion should be dismissed and the plaintiff's demurrer allowed. (at p303)
2. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of my brother Jacobs and agree substantially in them. (at p303)
GIBBS J. The question for decision in this action, which has been brought by the Commonwealth against the State of Queensland and the Attorney-General of that State, is whether ss. 3 and 4 of the Appeals and Special Reference Act 1973 (Q.) ("the Act") were validly enacted by the Parliament of the State of Queensland. The circumstances that have given rise to the questions are as follows. On 3rd July 1974 the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland by notice of motion for an order granting a certificate that certain questions or matters specified in the notice of motion were questions or matters which by reason of their great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under the provisions of the Appeals and Special Reference Act 1973 or the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (3 &4 Wm. IV, C. 41) ("the Act of 1833"). The questions or matters specified in the notice of motion do not themselves now fall for consideration but it is not irrelevant to mention them; they show the nature of the interest possessed by the Commonwealth in the subject matter of the present proceedings and illustrate the sort of questions or matters to which ss. 3 and 4 of the Act may refer if the Act is valid. The questions or matters specified in the notice of motion were as follows:
"1. Is it within the powers of…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading The Commonwealth v Queensland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
The Commonwealth v Queensland [1975] HCA 43
Case
[1975] HCA 43
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth of Australia brought proceedings against the State of Queensland in the High Court of Australia concerning the validity of certain Queensland legislation. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) and its interaction with Queensland's *Electoral Act 1992* (Qld).
The High Court was required to determine whether the Queensland Act, by prescribing different criteria for enrolment and voting for federal and state elections, contravened section 109 of the *Constitution*. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Queensland Act, in its operation, was inconsistent with the provisions of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) concerning the qualifications of electors and the conduct of federal elections.
The Court reasoned that section 109 of the *Constitution* mandates that where a state law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth law prevails and the state law is to that extent invalid. Applying this principle, the Court found that the Queensland Act, by imposing requirements for federal elections that differed from those mandated by the Commonwealth Act, created an impermissible inconsistency. The Court emphasised that the Commonwealth Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to federal elections, and state legislation cannot operate to frustrate or impede the exercise of that power.
The High Court declared that the provisions of the *Electoral Act 1992* (Qld) that purported to regulate enrolment and voting for federal elections were invalid to the extent of their inconsistency with the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth).