Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:15:29.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Slaying the Ghost of Henry VIII: A Reconsideration of the Limits upon the Delegation of Commonwealth Legislative Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Gerald Ng
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Though at times inconvenient for lawyers and their clients, the use by the Commonwealth of delegated legislation to fill lacunae in statutes is hardly remarkable, and the constitutional validity of provisions authorising that use even less a matter of controversy. Nonetheless, there may be reason to doubt whether the same can so readily be said of the inclusion in Commonwealth statutes of so-called ‘Henry VIII’ clauses – that is, statutory provisions purporting to authorise the promulgation of subordinate legislation that either amends or is inconsistent with the relevant principal statute. In particular, one might ask to what extent such provisions may, regardless of their width, be accommodated within the distribution of power contemplated by the text and structure of the Constitution.

The task of answering this question requires, as a first step, that fresh consideration be given to the limits, if any, upon Parliament’s ability to confer on other institutions some part of the legislative power of the Commonwealth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 205 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 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.)

Footnotes

Thanks are due to Alan Robertson SC and Anuja Arunothayam, as well as the referees, for their comments on previous versions of this article. All errors are the author's alone.

References

1 The common ancestor for these provisions was the notorious Statute of Proclamations 1539 (31 Henry VIII ch 8), which provided as follows:

The King for the Time being, with the Advice of his Council, or the more Part of them, may set forth Proclamations under such Penalties and Pains as to him and them shall seem necessary, which shall be observed as though they were made by Act of Parliament.

This Act was subsequently repealed during the reign of Edward VI: see A V, Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (9th ed, 1948) 50–51Google Scholar.

2 See the Hon Mr JusticeDavid, Malcolm, ‘The Limitations, if Any, on the Powers of Parliament to Delegate the Power to Legislate’ (1992) 66 Australian Law Journal 247Google Scholar.

3 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 ('Plaintiff S157’).

4 Ibid 512 [101] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).

5 Ibid 512 [102].

6 (1943) 67 CLR 58, 82 (‘Grunseit’).

7 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 476, 513 [102].

8 Denise, Meyerson, ‘Rethinking the constitutionality of delegated legislation’ (2003) 11 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 45, 46Google Scholar.

9 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1, 176 [400] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ) (‘Work Choices’)(citations omitted).

10 Ibid 181–82 [418].

11 Work Choices (2006) 229 CLR 1, 178 [407].

12 Ibid 178–80 [407]–[414].

13 Ibid 180 [414].

14 Ibid 180 [415].

15 Ibid.

16 See Morton v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402, 410 (Dixon, McTiernan, Williams Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ).

17 Work Choices (2006) 229 CRL 1,181 [416].

18 Ibid [417].

19 (1943) 67 CLR 58.

20 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

21 (1931) 46 CLR 73 ('Dignan’).

22 Ibid 101.

23 (1909) 8 CLR 626 (‘Baxter’).

24 See particularly R v Burah (1878) 3 App Cas 889.

25 (1909) 8 CLR 626 ('Baxter’), 634.

26 Ibid.

27 See on this point the observations of George, Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General (1983) 86–92Google Scholar.

28 Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73, 100.

29 Ibid 102.

30 Ibid 101–2.

31 Ibid 104.

32 Ibid.

33 (1909) 8 CLR 626, 632–33.

34 (1931) 46 CLR 73, 98. See also SirOwen, Dixon, ‘The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation’ (1957) Australian Law Journal 240, 240Google Scholar.

35 Racecourse Co-Operative Sugar Association Ltd v Attorney-General (Qld) (1979) 142 CLR 460, 481 (Gibbs J).

36 O'Reilly v State Bank of Victoria (1983) 153 CLR 1, 19 (Mason J); Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 65–66 (Brennan J).

37 Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73, 102.

38 Ibid 120.

39 Ibid 100–1 (Dixon J).

40 Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) 217 CLR 545, 570 [66] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

41 (1931) 46 CLR 73, 101.

42 Ibid.

43 See In re Initiative and Referendum Act [1919] AC 935, 945, where it was said by Viscount Haldane on behalf of the Privy Council:

No doubt a body, with a power of legislation on the subjects entrusted to it so ample as that enjoyed by a Provincial Legislature in Canada, could, while preserving its own capacity intact, seek the assistance of subordinate agencies, as had been done when in Hodge v The Queen [(1883) 9 App Cas 117], the Legislature of Ontario was held entitled to entrust to a Board of Commissioners authority to enact regulations relating to taverns; but it does not follow that it can create and endow with its own capacity a new legislative power not created by the Act to which it owes its own existence.

44 (1992) 177 CLR 248, 265. See also Permanent Trustee v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) (2004) 220 CLR 388, 420–21 [75]–[77] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ).

45 Dingan (1931) 46 CLR 73.

46 Ibid 114.

47 Ibid 118.

48 Ibid 177.

49 Ibid 73.

50 Ibid 119.

51 Ibid 120.

52 See Leslie, Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (5th ed, 2008) 202Google Scholar.

53 (1943) 67 CLR 58.

54 Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73, 121.

55 [1919] AC 935.

56 Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73, 121.

57 Ibid.

58 (1969) 119 CLR 365 ('Giris’).

59 Ibid 367. This aspect of the dispute in Giris was more recently re-visited in WR Carpenter Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2008) 237 CLR 198, 204–205.

60 MacCormick v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 158 CLR 622, 640 (Gibbs CJ, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ).

61 Giris (1969) 119 CLR 365, 373.

62 Ibid 378.

63 Ibid 373.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid 379.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid 379–80.

68 Ibid.

69 A similar point, though perhaps made in less stark terms, may be found in the reasons of Menzies J, who first described s 99A as a law with respect to taxation and then observed that ‘at some point in a process of parliamentary abnegation … the shifting of responsibility from Parliament to the Commissioner would require consideration of the constitutionality of the delegation': Giris (1969) 119 CLR 365, 381.

70 Ibid 379.

71 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

72 (1931) 46 CLR 73, 100 (Dixon J), 125 (Evatt J).

73 (1969) 119 CLR 365, 381.

74 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

75 Ibid.

76 (2006) 229 CLR 1.

77 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

78 [1919] AC 935.

79 (1931) 46 CLR 73, 120.

80 Ibid 102 (Dixon J).

81 The Hon W M C, Gummow AC, ‘The Constitution: Ultimate foundation of Australian law?’ (2005) 79 Australian Law Journal 167, 171Google Scholar (citations omitted).

82 Ibid.

83 (1954) 90 CLR 353 ('Davison’), 369. See also Baxter (1909) 8 CLR 626, 632.

84 (1956) 94 CLR 254.

85 (1954) 90 CLR 353.

86 (1909) 8 CLR 626, 632.

87 (1931) 46 CLR 73, 117–18.

88 Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 29, 81 (Dixon J).

89 Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 114 CLR 1; Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 555.

90 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

91 (1943) 67 CLR 58.

92 (1969) 119 CLR 365.

93 Giris (1969) 119 CLR 365, 384 (Windeyer J).

94 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

95 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

96 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

97 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

98 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 476, 512 [101].

99 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

100 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

101 (2006) 229 CLR 1.

102 J W Hampton, Jr & Co v United States, 276 US 394, 409 (1928).

103 Panama Refining Co v Ryan, 293 US 388, 421 (1935); A L A Schechter Poultry Corp v United States, 295 US 495, 530 (1935).

104 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

105 Panama Refining Co v Ryan, 293 US 388 (1935); A L A Schechter Poultry Corp v United States, 295 US 495 (1935).

106 Yakus v United States, 321 US 414, 425 (1944).

107 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

108 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 476, 512 [101].

109 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

110 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

111 Ibid.

112 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

113 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 742, 854B, 893A, 926B, 942DA, 951C, 984A, 992C, 1045A.

114 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 283GA, 601QA, 655A, 669, 673, 741, 926A, 951B, 92B, 1020F, 1075A.

115 (2006) 229 CLR 1.

116 (1957) 96 CLR 245.

117 See eg, John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 542–44 [97]–[100] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

118 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

119 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 760A(a).

120 See ASIC Regulatory Guide 51.

121 (Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Beaumont J, 25 March 2006) ('Isman Ismail’).

122 Ibid [16].

123 See Dennis, Charles Pearce and Stephen, Argument, Delegated Legislation in Australia (3rd ed, 2005) 14–15Google Scholar.