Jump to content

Re Australian Education Union

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Citation bot (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 19 November 2020 (Add: chapter-url. Removed or converted URL. Some additions/deletions were actually parameter name changes. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from cached copy of User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox2 | via #UCB_webform_linked 3489/3968). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re Australian Education Union
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case name Re Australian Education Union & Australian Nursing Federation; Ex parte Victoria
Decided7 April 1995
Citations[1995] HCA 71, (1995) 184 CLR 188
Court membership
Judges sittingMason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ

Re Australian Education Union & Australian Nursing Federation; ex parte Victoria[1][2] is a High Court of Australia constitutional law case that involves the scope of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine in Australian constitutional law.

In the case, the High Court struck down a Commonwealth law on the grounds that it impaired the capacity of a state to function as an independent government, the first time that the Court has taken such action.[3]

Background

Under a Commonwealth law, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission can refrain from hearing a dispute if it thought it could be handled in a state body. However, Victoria argued that the law was discriminatory because Victoria had abolished its state-based system, the only state to have done so.

Furthermore, there was the question of whether Commonwealth orders that applied to state employees would prevent the state from exercising their essential functions.

Judgment

In a joint judgment, the Court accepted the tests of discrimination and structural integrity as laid down in Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth. In this case, no discrimination was found, but the court found that the law affected the structural integrity of the state.

As for discrimination, there were two issues to consider. Firstly, even though the purpose of the law was to discriminate against Victoria, that is not a factor to consider. Secondly, in its practical effect, it could apply to any state, as well as to any industrial employees.

As for the structural integrity argument, it is required that the law directs attention to aspects of a state's functions that are "critical to its capacity to function". Being able to determine minimum wages and working conditions of its employees, especially those in the higher levels of government, is critical to a state's capacity to function.

See also

References

  1. ^ Re Australian Education Union; ex parte Victoria [1995] HCA 71, (1995) 184 CLR 188 (7 April 1995), High Court.
  2. ^ A writ of prohibition is one of the prerogative writs. In this usage ex parte means 'on the application of' rather than its other use as a case heard in the absence of a party. The order to show cause is a rule nisi, and if prohibition is granted, the rule is made absolute.
  3. ^ Leslie Zines (2008). "Intergovernmental Relations". The High Court and the Constitution (5th ed.). Leichhardt, New South Wales: Federation Press. pp. 440–515. ISBN 978-1-86287-691-0. Retrieved 22 April 2013.

Readings

  • Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Re_Australian_Education_Union&oldid=989523229"