Constitutional Cases

Question 1

First Uniform Tax Case (1942)

Answer 1

• states challenged the commonwealth’s right to levy income tax (traditionally the states’ revenue source)
• hc found they did have the power under s.51 (ii) and could use s.96 coercively
• big contributor to vertical fiscal imbalance

Question 2

Koowarta v Bjelke-Peterson (1982)

Answer 2

• QLD gov stopped some indigenous people buying land, enforcing a gov policy that prevented aboriginals owning large amounts of land
• Koowarta argued that it breached the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), B-P argued the act was ultra vires
• HC found the act valid under the external affairs power s.51 xxix as it was passed to ratify an international UN treaty.
• developed indigenous rights, extended the exclusive external affairs power beyond trade/military agreements into the area of personal rights

Question 3

Tasmanian Dams/Commonwealth vs Tasmania (1983)

Answer 3

• Tasmania challenged gov legislation protecting a site they want to build a dam on from development
• commonwealth argued the legislation was valid under s51 xxix as it was made in response to an international treaty declaring the area a world heritage sight
• also argued that the corporations power s51 xx applied to the hydro-electricity commission who wanted to build the dam
• commonwealth won, expanded corporations and foreign affairs powers (shifted federal balance)

Question 4

Ha vs New South Wales (1995)

Answer 4

• cig retailer Ha challenged the right of the nsw gov to charge an excise on tabacco as s90 made customs and excise an exclusive power
• ha won, state revenue decreased and vertical fiscal imbalance shifted in favour of commonwealth

Question 5

Workchoices/nsw vs commonwealth (2006)

Answer 5

• states challenged the validity of the workchoices bill (2005) as the commonwealth doesn’t have power over industrial relations
• hc agreed with commonwealth argument that it was valid under s51 xx, expanding the corporations power

Question 6

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2006)

Answer 6

• Rowe challenged Howard gov amendment to the electoral act preventing enrolment after an election had been called.
• she won on the claim that it breached s7 and 24, confirming an implied right to vote in the constitution
• Rowe was assisted by pressure group getup, an example of pressure groups influencing court lawmaking.

Question 7

Malaysia Solution Case (2011)

Answer 7

• an asylum seeker challenged a gov agreement to exchange asylum seekers in Australia for processed refugees in Malaysia, claiming it went against legislative requirements that the destination country be safe for refugees.
• hc upheld this, citing being a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention as the standard rather than the govs arbitrary decision
• this resulted in political problems for the Gillard gov and is an example of the hc using an international treaty in their reasoning

Question 8

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia (2012) (Williams no 1)

Answer 8

• Williams argued that the commonwealth couldn’t use s61 to fund chaplaincy programs
• HC ruled in favour of Williams, holding gov accountable for misusing executive power

Question 9

Williams v Commonwealth (2014) (Williams no 2)

Answer 9

• Williams argued the gov didn’t have the power to pass legislation allowing funding for chaplains as it didn’t have a head of power for it.
• Commonwealth said they had the power to legislate for the benefit of the people under the social services head of power; Williams won with the counter argument that it was for the benefit of the chaplains, not the Australian people.

Question 10

Capital Television (1992)

Answer 10

• commercial tv stations challenged legislation restricting electronic advertising during election campaigns
• the court found in their favour, finding an implied right to political free speech in s24 and 40
• controversial decision, seen as activism by many