Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:57:17.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case against Improper Purpose as the Touchstone for Invalidity under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Luke Beck
Luke Beck*
Affiliation:
UNSW, Sydney. School of Law, Western Sydney University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution limits the ability of the Commonwealth to legislate in respect of religion. It provides: ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.’ The limited case law on s 116 holds that the word ‘for’ means ‘for the purpose of’ such that improper legislative purpose is the test for invalidity rather than a consideration of whether an impugned law has the effect of doing one of the things prohibited by s 116. This article argues that the ‘for the purpose of’ interpretation is misconceived and therefore that the improper purpose test is wrong.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 505 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1912) 15 CLR 366 (‘Krygger’).

2 ‘No Religious Test—Cadet's Objection’, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW), 8 August 1912, 9.

3 Krygger (1912) 15 CLR 366, 367–8.

4 Indeed, during argument in response to Krygger's counsel explaining that Krygger claimed to spend most of his spare time engaged in Bible study, Griffith CJ quipped ‘Have less sleep!’ drawing laughter from the public gallery: ‘Compulsory Military Training. Religious Objections. Cadet's Appeal Dismissed’, Riverine Herald (Echuca, Vic and Moama, NSW) 16 October 1912, 2.

5 Krygger (1912) 15 CLR 366, 369.

6 Ibid 372–3.

7 (1943) 67 CLR 116 (‘Jehovah's Witnesses Case’).

8 Ibid 132.

9 Ibid 156.

10 United States Constitution amend I.

11 Jehovah's Witnesses Case (1943) 67 CLR 116, 127.

12 Ibid 131.

13 Ibid 154.

14 Ibid 155.

15 (1981) 146 CLR 559 (‘DOGS Case’).

16 Ibid 579.

17 Ibid 583 (emphasis in original).

18 Ibid 579 (emphasis in original).

19 Ibid 598.

20 Ibid 609.

21 Ibid 653.

22 Ibid 615–6 (emphasis in original) citing Lamshed v Lake (1958) 99 CLR 132, 141.

23 Ibid 622.

24 Ibid citing Lamshed v Lake (1958) 99 CLR 132, 141.

25 Ibid.

26 (1997) 190 CLR 1 (‘Stolen Generations Case’).

27 Constitution s 122: ‘The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.’

28 Stolen Generations Case (1997) 190 CLR 1, 14.

29 Ibid 42–4.

30 Ibid 60.

31 Ibid 142.

32 Ibid 40.

33 Ibid 60–1.

34 Ibid 86.

35 Ibid 133–4

36 Ibid 160–1.

37 Ibid 40.

38 Ibid 86, quoting Jehovah's Witnesses Case (1943) 67 CLR 116, 132 (Latham CJ).

39 Ibid 86.

40 Ibid 124.

41 Ibid 132 (citations omitted).

42 Ibid 133.

43 Ibid 160.

44 Ibid 60–1.

45 Lane, P H, Lane's Commentary on the Australian Constitution (LBC Information Services, 2nd ed, 1997) 801.Google Scholar See also Beck, Luke, ‘Higgins’ Argument for Section 116 of the Constitution’ (2013) 41 Federal Law Review 393, 414–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jehovah's Witnesses Case (1943) 67 CLR 116, 122–3 (Latham CJ).

46 Cumbrae-Stewart, F D, ‘Section 116 of the Constitution’ (1946) 20 Australian Law Journal 207, 208.Google Scholar

47 Gleeson, Murray, ‘The Meaning of Legislation: Context, Purpose and Respect for Fundamental Rights’ (2009) 20 Public Law Review 26, 32.Google Scholar

48 Reproduced in Williams, John M, The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History (Melbourne University Press, 2005) 80–93.Google Scholar

49 Reproduced in Williams, John M, The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History (Melbourne University Press, 2005) 65–79.Google Scholar

50 See ibid.

51 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 8 February 1898, 658 (Henry Bournes Higgins).

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid 664.

54 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 2 March 1898, 1734.

55 Ibid 1769.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid (emphasis added).

59 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 8 February 1898, 658 (emphasis added).

60 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 2 March 1898, 1779.

61 Official Report of the National Australasian Convention Debates, Melbourne, 16 March 1898, 2440.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid 2523–44.

64 See Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 7 February 1898, 657.

65 Beck, above n 45, 394–6.

66 Official Report of the National Australasian Convention Debates, Melbourne, 17 March 1898, 2474.

67 See, eg, Quick, John and Garran, Robert Randolph, The Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Angus & Robertson, 1901) 952Google Scholar; Pannam, Clifford L, ‘Travelling Section 116 with a US Road Map’ (1963) 4 Melbourne University Law Review 41, 53Google Scholar; La Nauze, J A, The Making of the Australian Constitution (Melbourne University Press, 1972) 229Google Scholar; McLeish, Stephen, ‘Making Sense of Religion and the Constitution: A Fresh Start for Section 116’ (1992) 18 Monash University Law Review 207, 219Google Scholar; Puls, Joshua, ‘The Wall of Separation: Section 116, the First Amendment and Constitutional Religious Guarantees’ (1998) 26 Federal Law Review 139, 140CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, Carolyn, Legal Protection of Religious Freedom in Australia (Federation Press, 2012) 70.Google Scholar

68 Beck, above n 45, 410–5.

69 Ibid 414–5.

70 Official Report of the National Australasian Convention Debates, Melbourne 2 March 1898, 1769.

71 (1981) 146 CLR 559, 612.

72 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 60.

73 (1981) 146 CLR 559, 603.

74 Ibid 653.

75 Ibid 612.

76 Ibid 577.

77 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 123.

78 Simpson, Amelia, ‘The (Limited) Significance of the Individual in Section 117 State Residence Discrimination’ (2008) 32 Melbourne University Law Review 639, 642.Google Scholar

79 (1989) 168 CLR 461.

80 Williams, George and Hume, David, Human Rights Under the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2013) 277.Google Scholar

81 JT International SA v Commonwealth (2012) 250 CLR 1, 33 [41] quoting Clunies-Ross v Commonwealth (1984) 155 CLR 193, 201–2 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ); French CJ also cited Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480, 509 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ); Minister for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261, 276 (Latham CJ); Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1, 20–1 (Knox CJ and Starke J).

82 (2012) 248 CLR 156.

83 Ibid 223 [110].

84 (1981) 146 CLR 559, 577.

85 (1988) 165 CLR 360.

86 (1981) 146 CLR 559, 581 (emphasis added).

87 Ibid 610–11.

88 Ibid 604.

89 Ibid 604 (emphasis added).

90 Ibid 615–16 (emphasis added).

91 Ibid 617–18.

92 Ibid 616.

93 Ibid 656 (emphasis added).

94 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 132.

95 Ibid 133.

96 In his judgment, Toohey J at 86 rejects this approach, commenting:

It may well be that an effect of the Ordinance was to impair, even prohibit the spiritual beliefs and practices of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, though this is something that could only be demonstrated by evidence. But I am unable to discern in the language of the Ordinance such a purpose.

97 Twomey, Anne, ‘A Revised Proposal for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition’ (2014) 36 Sydney Law Review 381, 404Google Scholar (emphasis altered) citing Stenhouse v Coleman (1944) 69 CLR 457, 471 (Dixon J); Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501, 592 (Brennan J); Richardson v Forestry Commission (1988) 164 CLR 261, 326 (Dawson J); Cunliffe v Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272, 323 (Brennan J).

98 See also APLA Limited v Legal Services Commissioner (2005) 224 CLR 322, 394 [178]: ‘It is true that, at one level of analysis, an object or purpose of all legislation is that it operate according to its terms.’

99 For example, a law increasing maximum penalties for criminal offences may be intended to reduce crime through a deterrent effect but may not actually result in a lower crime rate.

100 (2013) 252 CLR 530 (‘Unions NSW’).

101 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520.

102 (2004) 220 CLR 1.

103 Unions NSW (2013) 252 CLR 530, 557–8 [52]–[56].

104 (2013) 249 CLR 92 (‘Monis’).

105 Unions NSW (2013) 252 CLR 530, 557 [50].

106 Monis (2013) 249 CLR 92, 178 [236].

107 Ibid 133 [73].

108 Ibid 139 [95].

109 Ibid 164 [184].

110 Ibid 214 [348]. See also at 205 [318].

111 Ibid 205 [318].

112 [2016] NSWCA 157 (5 July 2016).

113 Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2015] NSWSC 136 (3 March 2015) [25].

114 Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2016] NSWCA 157 (5 July 2016) [133], [281].

115 Ibid [101]–[102], [135], [265].

116 Cumbrae-Stewart, above n 46, 211–12. See also Stolen Generations Case (1997) 190 CLR 1, 161 per Gummow J: ‘It may be that a particular law is disclosed as having a purpose prohibited by s 116 only upon consideration of extraneous matters indicating a concealed means or circuitous device to attain that end, and that it is permissible to apply s 116 in that fashion. But these can only be matters for another day.’