the tasmanian dam case Flashcards
Parties
- Commonwealth of Australia (Plaintiff)
- State of Tasmania (Defendant)
Key Facts
- The Tasmanian Government passed the Gordon River Hydro-Electric Power Development Act 1982 (Tas) to build a dam on the Gordon River for hydroelectric power.
- The Commonwealth Government passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) to prohibit the construction of the dam, arguing it was required to fulfill its obligations under the World Heritage Convention, which aimed to protect the area as part of the World Heritage List.
Issues in Dispute
- Whether the Commonwealth had the constitutional authority to intervene in a state matter based on its external affairs power under the Constitution.
- Whether the state law or the federal law should prevail.
High Court’s Decision
- The High Court, in a 4:3 decision, held that the Commonwealth had the power to legislate to fulfill its international treaty obligations.
- The Court found the Commonwealth law valid under the external affairs power and held that the federal law prevailed over the state law due to Section 109 of the Constitution.
Impact on Law-making Powers
- The decision expanded the scope of the Commonwealth’s external affairs power, allowing the federal government to legislate on matters related to international treaties even if they pertain to domestic issues traditionally managed by states.
- It reinforced the principle that federal law prevails over state law in cases of inconsistency, thus shifting some legislative power from the states to the Commonwealth.
facts
- In 1978, the Tasmanian Government proposed to construct the Franklin Dam on the Gordon River. The dam would have flooded a large section of the Franklin River in south-west Tasmania: an area which, in 1982, was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nations. The same year, the Tasmanian Parliament passed laws allowing the dam to proceed.
- In 1983, when initial construction for the dam had already commenced, the Australian Parliament passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The Act allowed the Australian Government to stop clearing, excavation and other activities that would damage the Tasmanian World Heritage site.
- The Tasmanian Government ignored the new Australian law and refused to halt construction of the dam. The Australian Government commenced proceedings against Tasmania in the High Court.
Verdict
The 7 justices of the High Court split 4 to 3 to decide that the Australian Parliament did have the constitutional power to make the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The law was valid and the Tasmanian Government needed to stop construction of the Franklin Dam.
Reasoning
In their majority judgement, the Court found the Australian Parliament could create laws to meet its international treaty obligations under Section51 (xxix) of the Constitution.
The use of the term ‘external affairs’ was deliberately broad. There were few international organisations in existence when the Constitution was written in 1901. (The United Nations was not established until 1945) To participate fully in international affairs in the modern era, the Court reasoned the Australian Government needed the power to not only sign international treaties but to put their obligations under those treaties into action. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 was a valid law because it put into action Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
The legacy of the Tasmanian Dams Case
- The Tasmanian Dams Case had a significant impact on the division of law-making power between the Australian Government and state governments.
- The court’s interpretation of Section 51(xxix) expanded the law-making power of the Australian Parliament, allowing it to make laws on matters related to international treaties.
- This case meant that the Australian Parliament could legislate on areas previously considered beyond its power.
- Critics argue that the case disrupted the balance of power by giving too much authority to the Australian Parliament.
- Supporters view the decision as a significant advancement for environmental protection in Australia, leading to new laws to safeguard environmental heritage and biodiversity.
- The case set a precedent for how High Court judgments are communicated to the public.
- Due to high public interest, the Court issued a media release summarizing their judgment in accessible language, emphasizing that their decision was based on the Constitution, not policy preferences.
- Today, the High Court issues a media release after every case.
Holding
The High Court conducted a characterisation test, interpreting the validity of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). It became a question for the High Court whether the following legislation implements an international treaty and if so, if the legislation was appropriate and adaptive. The High Court took a broad approach and Mason J asserted that a treaty must have a connection with the legislation. Since the legislation in question is reasonably capable to be appropriate and adaptive to fulfil Australia’s international obligations, with respect to the external affairs power under section 51(xxix), legislation can be enacted. This particular piece of legislation in question is enacted with Australia’s obligations under the UNESCO Convention. The High Court decision was held 4:3 in favour of the Commonwealth government and ultimately the Franklin River was saved.
Issues
- The High Court had to decide whether the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 was a valid Australian law.
- A central question was whether the power to make the law could be granted by section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution, which gives the Australian Parliament the power to make laws ‘with respect to … external affairs.’
According to precedent—past—cases, the scope of the ‘external affairs’ power was unclear. Did the Australian Parliament have the power to make laws to fulfil its obligations under international treaties such as the World Heritage Convention?
define express rights
rights that are stated in the Australian Constitution. Express rights are entrenched, meaning they can only be changed by referendum
limitations on the power:
– the laws must give effect to the international treaty
– the treaty must be genuine
– the power does not allow the Commonwealth to infringe on express rights
– the states otherwise maintain their residual area of power
