Notes for Inconsistency PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture Notes + Cases...

Description

Re a d i n gWe e k3–Pu b l i cLa w 1 .Ac t so fPa r l i a me n t–l a ws( p u r p o s eofs1 09i nc o ns i s t e n c y ) 2 .S1 0 9d r e s c r i b e st h a ta ni n c on s i s t e n tSt a t el a wwi l lb e‘ i n v a l i dt ot h ee x t e n to f t h ei n c o n s i s t e n c y ’–i n o pe r a t i v e–i tc a nj u s t b epa r to ft h ea c tb ei n c o ns i s t e n t . 3 .3p r i nc i p a l t e s t s : a .s i mu l t a n e o u so b e d i e n c e( d i r e c t )–i mp o s s i b l et oob e yb o t hl a ws - a r i s e so nel a wc o mma n d swha t t h eo t h e rf o r b i d s , o rwh e no n el a w c o mp e l sd i s o b e d i e n c eo ft h eo t he r . Qu e e n s l a n dl e g i s l a t i o n sr e q u i r e da r e f e r e nd u mo nl i q u o rl i c e n s i n gt ob eh e l do nt h es a med a ya sSe n a t e e l e c t i o n s , wh i l et h eCt hEl e c t o r a l( Wa r t i me )Ac t 1 9 1 7( CTH) p r o h i b i t e dr e f e r e n d ao nt h es a med a y ,t h u s , t h eSt a t el a wwa sf o u nd 1 i n v a l i df ori n c o n s i s t e n c y. - Ho we v e r , i twa sp o s s i b l et oo b e yb o t hl a wsb yp a y i n gt h eh i g h e r 2 mi n i mu nwa g e . - S8o ft h eI n f e r t i l i t yT r e a t me n tAc t1 9 95( Vi c )i si n c on s i s t e n twi t hs2 2 3 n f e r t i l i t yc o u l dn o tg i v e n o ft h eS e xDi s c r i mi n a t i o nAc t1 9 84( c t h )–i f o run ma r r i e dwo ma n , i fh edo e s n ' tg i v e , i twi l lb ei nb r e a c ho fS DA;i f h eg a v eh e r , i nb r e a c ho fI TA. - Co mmon we a l t hr e g u l a t i o nswe r en o ti n t e n d e dt oc o v e rt h efie l d, i t ’ s o nl yo pe r a t i o n a li n c o n s i s t e n c y :i fl i c e n s e sg r a nt e du n de rt h eMi ni n g Ac twe r eg r a n t e do v e rap e r i me t e rar e a ,t he no . io c c u r r e d, h owe v e r 4 t he r ei sn oi n c o n s i s t e nc ybe c a u s et h es i t u a t i o nh a sn o ty e ta r i s e n.

b .c on f e r r a lofr i g h t s( di r e c t )–i n v a l i di fi ta l t e r s , i mp a i r so rd e t r a t c sf r o m f e d e r a ll a w–s a mes u b j e c tma t t e r( i n c o n s i s t e n c y )–d i ffe r e n ts u b j e c tma t t e r +l a wn o ti n t e n de dt ob ee x c l u s i v e–noi nc o n s i s t e nc y - T wol a wswi l lbei n c o n s i s t e n twi t he a c ho t he run ds1 0 9wh e naSt a t e ‘ t a k e sa wa yar i gh tc o n f e r r e d ’b yt h eCt h . St a t el a wwi l lb ei n v a l i di fi t 5 a l t e r s ,i mp a i r s , d e t r a t c sf r o mt h eo p e r a t i o no ff e d e r a ll a w.* i n t e n d e dt o b ee x c l u s i v e/e x h a u s t i v e ) . - Fo r t yFo u rHo u r sWe e kAc t1 92 5( NS W)&Co n c i l i a t i o nan d Ar b i t r a t i o nAc t1 9 0 4( Ct h ):i n c o n s i s t e n ta sS t at el a wd i mi n i s h e dt h e 6 r i g h t sc o n f e r r e do nt h ee mp l o y e rt owo r ka n dt ob ep a i d. - S t a t eFac t or i e sa n dS h o p sAc t1 9 1 2( NS W)& Con s i l i at i o na n d Ar b i t r a t i o nAc t1 9 0 4( Ct h ):r i g h t sc o n f e r r e dont hee mp l o y e r sa n dt h e p r os pe c t i v ef e ma l ewor k e r swe r ed i mi n i s h e db yt h eS t a t el a w, wo me ni s

1 R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell (1920) 28 CLR 23 2 Australian Boot Trade Employeed Federation v Whybrow (1910) 10 CLR 266. 3 McBain v Victoria (2000) 99 FCR 116. 4 Commonwealth v Western Australia (1999) HCA (‘Mining Act Case’) 5 Clyde Engineering v Cowburn (1926) 37 CLR 466. 6 Ibid.

-

p r oh i b i t e do nwo r k i n go nc e r t a i nma c h i n e , i tde t r a c t sf r o mah uma n r i g h t sg i v e nu n d e rt h eCo mmo n we a l t hl a w7 Ra c i a lDi s c r i mi na t i o nAc t1 9 7 5( Ct h )& Qu e e n s l an dCo a s tI s l a n d s 8 De c l a r a t or yAc t1 9 8 5( Ql d)

c .c o v e rt h efie l d( i n d i r e c t )~s u b j e c t ma t t e ra p p r o a c h–i s s ueo fi nt e nt i o n ( c o mp l e t e l ye x h a u s t i v e l yo re x c l us i v e l ye x p r e s s , t hr o u g hi t sl a w, wh a ts h a l l b et hel a wg o v e r ni n gt h ep a r t i c u l a rc on d u c t o rs u b j e c t . ’ - 3s t e ps :i de n t i f yt hefie l d , o rs u b j e c tma t t e r ,t h a tt h eCt hl a wsd e a lwi t h ; a s c e r t a i nwh e t he rt h eSt a t el a wa t t e mp tt or e g u l a t eafie l dwh i c hCt h i nt e nd st oc o v e r , o v e r l a p=i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s ;i fo v e r l a p , a s c e r t a i ni ft h e Ct hi n t e n d e dt oc o v e rt h efie l d . - Co mme r c e( Me a tEx p o r t )r e g u l a t i o n s( Ct h )&Me t r o p o l i t a nan dEs p o r t 9 Ab a t t o i r sAc t1 9 3 6( S A) :fie l dofs l a u g h t e r i n gs t o c kf o re x p o r t ( . p r i v y c o u n c i l )a t( 1 9 5 5 )95CLR1 7 7 . - Ai rNa v i g a t i o nRe g u l a t i o ns1 9 4 7( Ct h)& Ai rT r an s p or tAc t1 9 6 4 ( NSW):ma t t e r so fs a f e t ,r e g u l a r i t y&e ffic i e n c y;p u bl i ct r a n s p o r t s d e ma n d s , f ac i l i t a t i o no fc o mp e t i t i o ni ni n d u s t r y ,s u i t a bi l i t yo f 1 0 a pp l i c a n t . ( St a t el awd i dn o tc o nc e r ni t s e l fwi t ha n yo fCt hl a wt o p i c s , fie l d sa r ed i s s i mi l a r ) o a dc a s t i n ga n dT e l e v i s i o nAc t1 94 2( Ct h )&En v i r o n me n t al - Br Pl a n n i n ga n dAs s e s s me n tAc t19 7 9( NS W):r e g u l a t i o no ft h eh e i g h to f 1 1 a nt e nn a e ;e x c l u d i n gl i mi t a t i o n sp l a c e do nt h a th e i g h t . - Co mmon we a l t hr e g u l a t i o nswe r en o ti n t e n d e dt oc o v e rt h efie l d, i t ’ s o nl yo pe r a t i o n a li n c o n s i s t e n c y :i fl i c e n s e sg r a nt e du n de rt h eMi ni n g Ac twe r eg r a n t e do v e rap e r i me t e rar e a ,t he no . io c c u r r e d, h owe v e r 1 2 t he r ei sn oi n c o n s i s t e nc ybe c a u s et h es i t u a t i o nh a sn o ty e ta r i s e n. - An s e t tr e f u s e dt oe mp l o yMr sWa r d l e yo nt h eb a s i so fh e rg e n d e r , s1 8 Eq u a lOp p or t u n i t yAc t1 9 7 7( Vi c )& Ai r l i n ePi l o t sAg r e e me ntCL6 B, c e r t i fi e du nd e rs2 8o ft h eCo n c i l i a t i o na n dAr b i t r at i o nAc t1 9 0 4 ( Co mmo n we a l t h )–d i ffe r e n ts ub j e c t ma t t e r ,e q u alo p por t u ni t yi s 1 3 d i ffe r e ntf r o mi n du s t r i a lr e l at i o n . - Ra c i a lDi s c r i mi na t i o nAc t1 9 7 5( Ct h )& An t i Di s c r i mi n a t i o nAc t1 9 7 7 ( NSW)–Co mmo n we a l t hi n t e n d e dt oc o v e rt h er ac i aldi s c r i mi na t i o n 1 4 fie l d, s ames u b j e c tmat t e r–i n c on s i s t e n c y . 4 .I n c o n s i s t e n tc r i mi n a ll a ws– o v e r l a p p i n gs e n t e n c i n gl a ws& p r o v i s i o n sf o rj u r yt r i a l s

7 Colvin v Bradley Bros Pty Limited (1943) 68 CLR 151. 8 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. 9 O’Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat (1954) 92 CLR 565. 10 Airlines of NSW v NSW (No 2) (1965) 113 CLR 54. 11 Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47. 12 Commonwealth v Western Australia (1999) HCA (‘Mining Act Case’) 13 Ansett transport Industried (Operations) Pty Limited v Wardley (1980) HCA. 14 Viskauskas v Niland (1983) HCA.

-

s a n c t i o ni mp o s e da r ed i v e r s e ,s ub j e c tma t t e ro fr a c i a ld i s c r i mi na t i o ni n r e l a t i o nt ot hep r o v i s i o no fg o o dsa n ds e r vi c e s , f o l l o we db yExp ar t e Mc Le a n( 1 93 0 )4 3CLR4 7 215 - Cou r tc o ns i de r e df e d e r a la n dSt a t ec r i mi na ll a wswhi c hs e td i ffe r i n g 1 6 p e n l a t i e sf o rwi l f u ld e s t r u c t i o no fp r o p e r t y . Me n z i e sJ :s29o fCr i me s a c r–e x h a u s i v e , a l l e g e dt h a tp r o p e r t yb e l o n g i n gt oCt h…,g o v e r n st h e ma t t e rt ot hee x c l u s i o no fa n yl a wofas t a t e . ( s i mi l a rt oDi c k s o n) - Co u n t e r :RvWi n ne k e ;Exp ar t eGa l l a g h e r( 1 9 82 )1 5 2CLR2 1 1 . . S t a t el awi si n c o n s i s t e n twi t hc o mmo n we a l t hl aws ,d i ffe r e n c ei n p e n a l t i e s ,c o mmo n we a l t hl a wi mp l i e dal i g h t e rpe n al t i e s . He l d : d i ffe r e ntr o y a lc o mmi s s i o na n dfi e l d s , n oi n c o n s i s t e nc y . - Al s o ,T r a fficAc t1 9 4 9( Ql d )& De f e n c eFo r c eDi s c i p l i n eAc t1 9 8 2 1 7 ( Ct h ):d i ffe r e n tamo u n to fp e n a l t i e s . I n c o n s i s t e n c yb e t we e n c o mmon we a l t han ds t at el a ws , s t a t el a wp r o h i b i t i n gd r i v i n gun d e r i nfl u e n c ewh i l eCommo n we a l t hl a wp r o hi b i t i n gme mb e ro fd e f e n c e f o r c ed r i v i n gun d e ri n fl ue n c eo ns e r v i c el a d ns oa st ob ei n c a p ab l eo f h av i n gp r o p e rc o n t r o lo fv e h i c l e .Di ffie r e n tp e n a l t i e sf o rc o n t r a v e n t i o n , 1 8 h e l d :n o tt ob ei n t e n d e dt oc o v e rt h efie l do fNS Wl a w s . we v e r , ( s7 1 ACoft h eDr u g s , Po i s on sa n dCon t r o l l e dS u b s t a n c e s - Ho Ac t19 8 1( Vi c )& s3 02 . 4o ft h eCr i mi n alCo de1 9 9 5( Ct h ) ): p r os c r i b e dt r affic k i n gi nd r u g s . Bu tCt hh a dma ni f e s t e da ni nt e nt i o n 1 9 n oto tc o v e rt h efi e l d, s oi nd i r e c ti n c o n s i s t e n c ywasn o tf o u n d c . he c k o utt h es l i d e sf o rp a g e s !Po s s e s s i o n :s ome t h i n gi sf o u n di ny o u r a pa r t me n t , y o u rc u s h i o no ry o u rc h a i r , p r e s u mp t i o n ,y o uh a v et op r o v e 2 0 y o ua r ei n no c e n t !Th es a mep r e s u mp t i o na p p l i e dt ot r a ffic k i n g t o o ! No to n l yd i ffe r e nts e n t e n c i n gp r i n c i p l e s , b u ta l s op e n a l t i e s , d i ffe r e nt mo deo ft r i a l ? Ma j o r i t yj u d g me n t , whe t he rt h emo d eoft r i a la n d s e n t e n c i n gp r i c i pl e sa r el aw?NO! Th ewa yt r i a l sc o nd u c t e di sn e a r l y p r oc e d u r ev a r i at i o n , wed o n' t t a k ei ti n t oa c c o u n twh e t h e ro rn o th e r e i si n c o n s i s t e nc y . +o p e r a t i o n a li n c o n s i s t e n c y . Ct he x p r e s s e si n t e n t i o nt ol e av et h efi e l d 2 1 o pe nf orc on c u r r e n tS t a t el a wi nt h i sc as e . ( MOMCI LOVI C)Th el a wmu s tbes i n g l e , c o h e r e n t , wh o l et ot h o s ei ta dd r e s s e s , t h e r e c a n ' tb ea n t i no myi nl a ws , i ti sl e g a ln o n s e n c et h a tt o wl a wsa r ec o e x i s t ,be c a u s ea c h o i c emu s tb ema d e . J os e p hCh a p7 :

15 Viskauskas v Niland (1983) 153 CLR 280 at 293. 16 R v Loewenthal; Ex pate Blacklock (1974) 131 CLR 338. 17 McWaters v Day (1989) CLR 289. 18 < https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=67534>. 19 Momcilovic v R (2011) 245 CLR 1. 20 Important paragraphs: French (110), Gummow (206-209, 220-224, 242-227), Crennan and Kiefel (615-657), Hayne (292-359). 21 Gummow J at 121, 122.

A.Fe d e r a ls y s t e ms :I n c on s i s t e nc i e sbe t we e nc e n t r a la n dr e g i on a lPa r l i a me n t s( Au s Co ns t i t u t i o n)Se c t i o n1 0 9o fCt hCo n s t i t ut i o n;Wh e nal a wo fas t at ei s i n c o n s i s t e n twi t hal a wo ft h eCt h, t h el at t e rs ha l lpr e v a i l , a n dt h ef o r ma ls h a l l , t o t h ee x t e n to ft h ei n c o n s i s t e n c y , b ei n v al i d B.Wh a ti sal a wf o rt h ep u r p o s e so fs1 0 9i n c o n s i s t e n c y ? i . Na t u r a l l yAc t so fPa r l i a me n t=l a ws i i . Exp a r t eMc Le a n( 1 9 30 )4 3CLR4 72Di x o nJ :( 4 8 4 )i nc on s i s t e n c ya r i s e s b e t we e nt h eCt hSt a t u t ewh i c he mp o we r st hea r b i t r a t i o nofa na wa r d, a n d t h er e l e v a n tp r o v i s i o n s , r a t h e rt h a nb e t we e nt hea wa r di t s e l fa n dt h eS t a t e 2 2 l a w. i i i . Ct hl e g i s l a t i o na d mi no r d e r sa r en o tt r e a t e dasl a wsf o rs1 9 0p u r p o s e s , wo n to v e r r i deS t a t el a ws . i v . Ai r l i n e so fNS W vNS W( No1 )( 1 96 4 )1 1 3CLR1=a dmi nd i r e c t i o n s=a i r n a v i g a t i o no r d e r s , i n f o r ma t i o n&no t i c e st op i l o t sd i dn o ta mo u n tt o‘ l aws o ft h eCt h ’ v . Fe l t o nvMu l i g a n( 1 9 7 1 )1 2 4CLR3 6 7Wa l s hJ :( 4 1 2 )p r o b l e mr e s o l v e db y t r e a t i n gt heCt hl a wasp a r a mou n ta se x l u d i n g . S t a t ej u r i s d i c t i o no ft he Co u r two ul bee x e r c i s e d. v i . Doe sn o tr e s o l v ec o n fli c t sb e t we e nl awsoft h eT e r r i t o r i e sa n dt h o s eo ft h e Ct h. v i i . S1 2 2=s o u r c eo fp a r a mou n t c yo fCt hl a wswi t hr e s pe c t st ot h e T e r r i t o r i e s ,a l t h o u g ht h eAus t r a l i a nCa p i t a lT e r r i t o r ya ndt heNo r t he r n T e r r i t o r ye n j o ys e l f g o v e r n i n gs t a t u s , t h eCt hma yd i s p l ac eT e r r i t o r yl a ws 2 3 t h r o u g ht h a th e a do fp o we r . C.Wh a td o e si n v a l i dme a nf oet h eo p e r a t i o no ft h eSt a t el a w? i . Hi g hCo u r tf o u n di n c o n s i s t e n c ya n df e d e r a ll e g i s l a t i o nr e g u l a t i n g 2 4 e mp l o y me ntf o rr e t u r n e dmi l i t a r ype r s o n n e l . i i . I n v a l i df o rwh o l eSt a t eAc t( p r i v a t e&p u b l i ce mp l o yme n tSe c t or ) i i i . I n v a l i d=i no p e r a t i v e i v . St a t el a w’ si n c o ns i s t e n c yma y‘ r e vi v e ’d u et ot h er e p e a lofCt hl a w;St a t e Pa r l i a me n ti sn o tr e q u i r e dt or e s t o r ei ft hei n c o ns i s t e n c yi sr e mo v e dor 2 5 mo d i fie d . D.Wh e nd o e sa ni n c o n s i s t e n c ya r i s e ? i . Th eCt ho rSt a t eLa wi sf o u n dt ob ei n v a l i do ru l t r av i r e st h e r ewo n tb et e s t f o ri n c o n s i s t e n c y . i i . 3p r i nc i p a l t e s t s( l o o ka b o v e ) 22 Jemena Asset Management v Coinvest (2011) 244 CLR 508, 516-517. 23 Lockhart in Attorney-General (NT) v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (1989) 90 ALR 59 at 75. 24 Wenn v Attorney-General for Victoria (1948) 77 CLR 84. 25 Carter v Egg abd Egg Pulp Marketing Board (Vic) (1942) 66 CLR 557, Butler v Attorney-General (Vic) (1961) 106 CLR 268.

A.I mp l i e di n t e n t i ont oe x c l u d e/a l l o w B.Ex p r e s si n t e n t i o nt oe x c l u de–We n nvAt t o r n e yGe n e r a l C.Exp r e s si nt e nt i o nt oa l l o w Ov e r s e a ss a me s e xma r r i a g ewo ul dno tb er e c o g n i s e di nAu s t r a l i a . Wa sn o ti n c o n s i s t e n t , b e c a u s ec on c ur r e n ta ndc o e x i s t . I nc o ns i s t e ntj udg me nt . Co mmo nwe a l t hl e g i s l a t i o n, wa si nt e nde dt oc o v e rt hefie l d, pa r t i c ul a l r ys a me s e x ma r r i a g e .Commo n we a l t hh a sp o we rt oa l l o ws a me s e xma r r i a g e .





Hume v Palmer (1926) 38 CLR 441: H breached NSW Navigation Act for sea traffic offence. Argued should be charged under Cth Nav Act and regulations as events occurred in course of interstate trading journey. o HC: laws inconsistent as “rules prescribed…for present purposes substantially identical, but the penalties imposed for their contravention differ…”

Di c ks onvTh eQu e e n[ 20 1 0 ]HCA3 0 . Vi c t or i a nCr i me sAcu n d e rwh i c hh eh a sb e e nc h a r g e dwa si n c on s i s t e n twi t h p r o v i s i o n so ft h eCr i mi n a lCod e( Ct h )c o nc e r n i n gt h e f to fCo mmo n we a l t h p r o p e r t ya n dc o ns p i r a c yun d e rf e d e r a ll a w. Byop e r a t i o nofs1 0 9 ,t h eVi c t o r a i n Cr i me sAc t p r o v i s i onwa st he r e f o r ei n v a l i dt ot h ee x t e n to ft h ei nc n s i s t e n c y . ht t p : / / www. h c o u r t . g o v . a u / a s s e t s / pu b l i c a t i o n s / j u d g me n t s u mma r i e s / 20 1 0 / h c a 3 0 2 0 1 00 92 2. p d f

Co mmo n we a l t hl a wh a sd e s i gn e d l yl e f ta r e ao fl i b e r t ywh i c ht h es t a t el a wc l o s e so ff: kn oc kd o wnt h ec o ns pi r a c y , noo nea c t u a l l yd i da n y t hi n g , n o ts e r i o u s ....