“The Decision In The Engineers Case Overturned The Doctrine Of Reserved Powers and Paved The Way To An Increasingly Centralized Australian Polity”



“The Decision In The Engineers Case Overturned The Doctrine Of Reserved Powers and Paved The Way To An Increasingly Centralized Australian Polity”

Introduction

The constitution of a country is its supreme and absolute law which contains fundamental rules to facilitate and regularize its institutions and the country itself. It defines the country's political structure, states the power and limitations of its entities. Australia is structured upon a State Constitution and a separate Federal Constitution. The constitution makers had a central idea while drafting the first constitution that the states would retain their existing powers, while the federal or commonwealth would be free to exercise implicitly limited powers within clearly defined areas. According to Kruger vs. Commonwealth (1997), this serves to protect each citizen and their individual as well as group rights by way of the parliament and responsible government. However, interpretation of the constitution is done by the people and so the understanding and perception varies accordingly.

The content in this essay is set to deal with the doctrine of reserved powers, its importance and what it actually meant. The case of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers vs. Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920), commonly known as the 'Engineers case' was a milestone decision by the Australian High Court in 1920, because it overturned the earlier doctrine of reserved powers, giving a contemporary foothold to federalism in Australia.

Discussion

Doctrine Of Reserved Powers

Powers of the commonwealth were implicit but meant to be submissive to those of the states unless unmistakably exempted. Original drafters of the Australian Constitution envisioned a federal polity in control of broad areas like trade, external affairs, communications and defence. As quoted in a Melbourne Law Review, “The Commonwealth was, in other words, a creature of the Constitution, and its powers were strictly enumerated and limited.”

The doctrine of reserved powers was therefore integrated into the constitution, to uphold the rule that powers which were not expressly and plainly granted to the federal constituency over the states would be for the states to use as and when they so wished.

The decision in R vs. Barger (1908) further clarified that, "When it was intended to allow the Parliament to regulate the domestic affairs of the States, the power was conferred by express words… We are thus led to the conclusion that the power of taxation … was intended to be something entirely distinct from a power to directly regulate the domestic affairs of the States, which was denied to the Parliament"

However, in cases and judgments later on, earlier cases pertaining to the doctrine of reserved powers were looked upon with censure due to there being no clearly written provisions for the grant of powers to the commonwealth being dependent upon reserved powers of the state. However, as proven in R vs. Barger (1908), the intention of the original drafters of the constitution who were present during Bargers' proceeding, was clearly implied but upon the natural and ...