Commonwealth v Tasmania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Commonwealth v Tasmania | |
|---|---|
High Court of Australia |
|
| Date decided | July 1, 1983 |
| Full case name | The Commonwealth of Australia v State of Tasmania |
| Citations | (1983) 158 CLR 1, [1983] HCA 21 |
| Judges sitting | Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy, Wilson, Brennan, Deane & Dawson JJ |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | none |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (4:3) the Commonwealth validly prohibited construction of the dam, by virtue of the World Heritage Act (per Mason, Murphy, Brennan & Deane JJ)
(4:0) any Constitutional restriction preventing the Commonwealth from inhibiting the functions of the States did not apply (per Mason, Murphy, Brennan & Deane JJ) |
|
Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, (popularly known as the Tasmanian Dam Case) was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on July 1, 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred around the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Franklin River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmentalist groups.
Contents |
[edit] Background to the case
In 1978, the Hydro-Electric Commission, then a body owned by the Tasmanian government, proposed the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Franklin River, in Tasmania's rugged south-west region. In June 1981 the Labor state government created the Wild Rivers National Park in an attempt to protect the river.
In May 1982, a Liberal state government was elected which supported the dam. The federal government at the time, also Liberal (under Malcolm Fraser), rejected requests for federal intervention in what was widely regarded as a Tasmanian state issue.
In November 1982, UNESCO declared the Franklin area a World heritage site. During the federal election of 1983, the Labor party under Bob Hawke had promised to intervene and prevent construction of the dam. After winning the election, the Labor government passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (full text: [1]), which, in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 enabled them to prohibit clearing, excavation and other activities within the Tasmanian Wilderness World heritage area.
The Tasmanian government challenged these actions, arguing that the Australian Constitution gave no authority to the federal government to make such regulations. In May and June of 1983, both governments put their case to the High Court of Australia.
[edit] The case
The case revolved around several major constitutional issues, the most important being the constitutional validity of the World Heritage Act. The division of powers between the Australian federal government and the individual state governments is defined by section 51 of the Australian constitution. The federal government had taken a range of actions, which they claimed were authorised under specific subsections of section 51. The Tasmanian government disputed these claims.
[edit] External Affairs
Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution gives the federal parliament the power to make laws with regard to external affairs, a nebulously defined provision. The Hawke government passed the World Heritage Act under this provision, claiming that the Act was giving effect to an international treaty to which Australia was a party, in case the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage [2], which governs UNESCO's World heritage program.
The Tasmanian government (as well as the governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland) opposed this action. Allowing the federal government such broad new powers would infringe on the States' power to legislate in many areas, and would upset the "federal balance". Chief Justice Gibbs said that although all of the Constitution is open to interpretation, "the external affairs power differs from the other powers conferred by s 51 in its capacity for almost unlimited expansion." Defining which affairs were of “international character” was a difficult task for the court.
However, Justice Mason recognised that the external affairs power was specifically intended to be ambiguous, and capable of expansion. When the Constitution came into effect in 1901, there were few (if any) international organizations such as the United Nations in existence (not to mention multinational corporations). However in modern times, there are many more areas in which nations cooperate.
In his judgement, Justice Murphy said that in order for a law to have international character, it is sufficient that it:
- implements an international law or treaty;
- implements a recommendation from the United Nations or a related body, such as the WHO or ILO;
- deals with relationships between bodies (public or private) within Australian and bodies outside; or
- deals with things inside Australia of international concern.
It is important to note that the decisions of UNESCO in designating World heritage sites have no binding force upon any government. However, the ratification of the Convention could be seen as a commitment to upholding its aims, and an acceptance of obligations under it.
[edit] Applicability to Hydro-Electric Commission
The Tasmanian government argued that even if the federal government had the authority to enact the World Heritage Act, it would not apply to the Hydro-Electric Commission since it was in effect a department of the Tasmanian government, and not a corporation (section 51 subsection 20 provides that the federal government has powers to make laws regarding corporations). However, the HEC was engaged in the widespread production and sale of electricity, and it did have a degree of independence from the government.
[edit] Acquisition of property
Section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution provides that the federal government has the power to appropriate property “on just terms” for any other purpose it has powers to make laws about (see Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: for example, acquiring land to build a military base). The crucial phrase in this section is “on just terms”. Tasmania argued that the federal government has deprived it of property unjustly by passing the World Heritage Act. Justice Brennan said however that Tasmania had no proprietary rights over the site for the proposed dam (that is, it was not private land), and therefore it had not been deprived of any property.
[edit] The decision
A four to three majority of the court held that the federal government had legitimately prevented construction of the dam, and that the World Heritage Act was authorised under the "external affairs" power. Although other parts of the Act were invalid, the provision banning the construction of dams was valid.
[edit] Consequences
The case ended the HEC’s plans to construct more hydro-electric dams in Tasmania, and indeed there have been few plans for dams in Australia since. The debate over the extent of the "external affairs" power continues, in areas such as racial and sexual discrimination.
[edit] Judges sitting
- Chief Justice Gibbs
- Justice Mason
- Justice Murphy
- Justice Wilson
- Justice Brennan
- Justice Deane
- Justice Dawson
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- The Commonwealth v Tasmania – full text
- Australian Constitution – full text
- World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 – full text
- UNESCO – the World Heritage Centre
