7/23/2019 Combet  v Commonwealth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/combetvcommonwealth 1/4

Combet v Commonwealth [2005 ] HCA 61; 224 CLR 494; 80 ALJR 247;221 ALR 621 (21 !tobe" 2005#http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/61.html?stem=0s!non!ms=0"ue#!=title$Combet%20and%20Commonwealth%20$2005&%20&

'tanding

(cHugh *: +,6 he deendants contended that neithe# plainti has standingto obtain a decla#ation conce#ning the alidit! o the pa!ments o# aninunction to #est#ain the thi#d deendant #om issuing d#awing #ights toautho#ise the pa!ment o public mone! o# the ade#tising campaign. he 3#stplainti is the 'ec#eta#! o the AC4. n British Medical Association v TheCommonwealth+57 8i9on * doubted that the ede#al Council o the ;#itish(edical Association in Aust#alia7 one o whose obects was to adance thegene#al inte#ests o the medical p#oession in Aust#alia7 had standing tochallenge ede#al legislation that imposed a o#m o ciil consc#iption within

the meaning o s 51$99iiiA& o the Constitution. His Honou# said+6 that it<ma! be doubted whethe# this bod! has7 as a co#po#ation7 a sucientmate#ial inte#est7 which would be p#eudiced b! the ope#ation o the Act7 togie it a title to maintain the suit<. 'imila#l!7 in The Real Estate Institute ofNSW v Blair +>7 atham C*7 'ta#@e * and 8i9on * we#e o the opinion that theeal Bstate nstitute o 'D had no standing to challenge legislation thatmade p#oision o# the housing o membe#s and e9-membe#s o the a#medo#ces. hei# Honou#s thought that the nstitute7 in cont#ast to its membe#s7had no mate#ial inte#est in the ope#ation o the legislation. ;! pa#it! o#easoning7 the AC4 has no mate#ial inte#est in the ope#ation o Act o 1. he'ec#eta#! o the AC4 is een u#the# #emoed #om the ope#ation o the Act.t ma! be that the decisions and dicta in British Medical Association v TheCommonwealth and The Real Estate Institute of NSW v Blair  #e"ui#e#econside#ation in the light o subse"uent deelopments in the law o<standing< in #elation to gene#al law matte#s. t is not necessa#!7 howee#7 todete#mine whethe# the 3#st plainti has standing. n m! opinion7 the secondplainti as the shadow Atto#ne!-Eene#al o the Commonwealth has sucientinte#est in the p#oceedings to gie he# standing to b#ing these p#oceedings.

 he second plainti is a membe# o the House o ep#esentaties. He# statusas a membe# is e9p#essl! #ecognised b! the Constitution+F. 'he oted o# o#against o# could hae oted o# o# against Act o 1. 'he has a special inte#estin ensu#ing that public mone!s a#e not e9pended inconsistentl! with thete#ms o Act o 1 passed b! the Ga#liament o which she is a membe#.

u#the#mo#e7 she is see@ing an inunction to #est#ain an oce# o theCommonwealth #om acting in cont#aention o the law and s F othe Constitution. He# action is b#ought unde# s >5$& o the Constitution. he#emed! o inunction aailable unde# that pa#ag#aph o s >5is one o th#ee#emedies that the pa#ag#aph ma@es aailable against oce#s o theCommonwealth. Anothe# #emed! unde# that pa#ag#aph is <p#ohibition<7 a#emed! that een unde# the gene#al law is aailable7 subect to e9e#cise o theCou#ts disc#etion7 to a st#ange# to the issue. a st#ange# can obtain a w#it op#ohibition unde# s >5$&7 it is dicult to see wh!7 subect to the Cou#tsdisc#etion7 a st#ange# cannot obtain an inunction unde# that pa#ag#aph. nman! cases to which s >5$& applies7 the distinction between a w#it op#ohibition and a w#it o inunction will be elusie.

Acco#dingl!7 the second plainti has standing to b#ing these p#oceedings.

7/23/2019 Combet  v Commonwealth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/combetvcommonwealth 2/4

Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ: [33! Standin" in federal causes: hedeendants st#ongl! contested the standing o the plaintis7 and each othem. Although Deste#n Aust#alia inte#ened7 the Atto#ne!-Eene#al o# that'tate did not $as he might hae done& issue a #at  to the plaintis7 o# eithe# othem7 to pe#mit them to b#ing the p#oceedings b! his autho#it!. o# did theAtto#ne!-Eene#al elect to b#ing the p#oceedings in the name o the 'tate. Had

this been done7 on the p#esent autho#it! o this Cou#t+26I7 the challenge tothe plaintis standing would hae disappea#ed.

t cannot be the case that se#ious "uestions conce#ning the meaning andope#ation o ede#al law in the Aust#alian Commonwealth7 as #ead in the lighto the ede#al Constitution7 can onl! be b#ought beo#e the *udicatu#e o##esolution b! the Commonwealth7 b! a 'tate o# e##ito#!7 b! an Atto#ne!-Eene#al o# b! a pa#t! with a 3nancial o# simila# inte#est in the issuep#esented. hat iew o the standing o indiiduals to challenge ede#al lawsand B9ecutie acts ta@es too t#aditional and me#cantile a iew o the#e"ui#ements o standing to be app#op#iate to a ede#al polit!. t inoles theunthin@ing impo#tation into the #esolution o ede#al constitutional and legal"uestions in Aust#alia o udicial autho#ities on standing7 o#iginall! deised inBngland o# pu#poses "uite die#ent #om those inoled in deciding matte#sa#ising unde# the Aust#alianConstitution and ede#al law+265. o# at least thepast 3t! !ea#s7 this Cou#t has #epeatedl! said that the p#inciple o the #ule olaw unde#lies Aust#alias constitutional te9t and its ope#ation+266. Dhilst theCommonwealth7 the 'tates7 the e##ito#ies and $b! t#adition o# statute& theAtto#ne!s-Eene#al hae standing to b#ing p#oceedings beo#e this and othe#cou#ts7 conce#ning eno#cement o the Constitution and challenges to ede#alB9ecutie action7 the! a#e not alone in eno!ing such #ights. o hold this wouldbe to unde#mine the commitment o the Constitution7 and the *udicatu#ewhich it c#eates7 to upholding the #ule o law o# all pe#sons7 whe#e the law isse#iousl! challenged.

'ometimes7 the#e will be no goe#nment willing to mount such a challenge.Howee#7 the Constitution is mo#e than a congenial a##angement betweengoe#nments. ts ultimate oundation #ests on the assent o the citiJens aselecto#s o the Commonwealth. o them is #ese#ed+26> the powe# o 3nalconcu##ence in o#mal constitutional amendments+26F. Dith this in mind7the#e is a need to #e-e9p#ess the #e"ui#ements o standing in constitutionaland #elated litigation+26,. Dhat has been said in othe# cases and othe#ci#cumstances ma! not be e"uall! applicable to p#oceedings b#ought b!plaintis such as the p#esent+2>0.

'ee@ing the #elie o an inunction7 as e9p#essl! p#oided b! s >5$& othe Constitution7 inoles an inocation o ede#al7 indeed constitutional7 u#isdiction. t would be a mista@e to g#at onto a claim o# such #elie7especiall! beo#e this Cou#t7 all o the lea#ning that was deised in #espect othe p#oision o e"uitable #elie in p#iate litigation. ecessa#il!7 in matte#s opublic law7 potentiall! the#e is an additional inte#est. his is the inte#est o thepublic gene#all! to ensu#e the compliance o oce#s o the Commonwealthwith the law7 speci3call! the law o the Constitution and ede#al enactmentsthat bind such oce#s.

t would be a se#ious misdesc#iption to suggest that the onl! inte#ests o theplaintis in these p#oceedings we#e <intellectual< o# <emotional<. o# could it

be said that the onl! inte#ests o the plaintis a#e those o being membe#s othe public7 electo#s o the Commonwealth o# ta9pa!e#s $assuming that such

7/23/2019 Combet  v Commonwealth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/combetvcommonwealth 3/4

inte#ests a#e not themseles sucient o# standing in p#oceedings o thep#esent @ind&+2>1.

The $arliamentarian%s standin": a@e the second plainti7 (s o9on7 3#st. 'heis a membe# o the ede#al Ga#liament7 in the House o ep#esentaties. 'he isthe#eo#e a pe#son with a status #epeatedl! #ecognised b!the Constitution+2>2. As a (embe# o Ga#liament7 she has a pa#ticula#inte#est in ensu#ing obedience b! the B9ecutie Eoe#nment to the#e"ui#ements p#esc#ibed b! the Constitution and b! ede#al law+2>. n m!iew7 this gies he# a special inte#est in the subect matte# o the p#esentp#oceedings+2>I. 'he is see@ing to eno#ce a public #ight. 'he is claiming7 ineect7 that on the B9ecutie Eoe#nments case and its actual o# p#ospectied#awing o unds7 the law o app#op#iations has not been obse#ed o# ma! notbe obse#ed in the utu#e unless this Cou#t g#ants #elie. 'he see@scon3#mation that such law will now be obse#ed and that an! d#awing ounds will onl! be made <unde# app#op#iation made b! law<+2>5. Kn an!basis7 this is a se#ious "uestion apt o# udicial decision. t is not #aised b! aninte#ene# o# someone with a e9atious o# pu#el! h!pothetical inte#est in the#esolution o the issue.

 he second plainti the#eo#e has a sucient special inte#est to sustain thep#oceedings that she has b#ought. can #each this conclusion without decidingwide# "uestions about the entitlement o ta9pa!e#s o# electo#s o theCommonwealth o# othe#s mo#e gene#all! to b#ing p#oceedings unde# s>5$& o the Constitution in ede#al causes.

'imila#l!7 it is unnecessa#! o# me to conside# the second plaintis alte#natiea#gument that she eno!ed the identical standing as (# ;#own in Brown vWest as <'hadow Atto#ne!-Eene#al<7 that is the Kpposition #ep#esentatie on

legal aai#s. he deendants a#gued that in Brown v West it was not (#;#owns status as a Ga#liamenta#ian o# <'hadow (iniste#<7 as such7 but hispe#sonal inte#est in the e9istence7 o# absence7 o a supposed additional postalallowance7 that ao#ded him standing in that case. he onl! #eason (# ;#owneno!ed that pu#po#ted entitlement was because he was a (embe# oGa#liament. Howee# that ma! be7 the wo#ds o Eibbs * in the  AA& Case #emainas t#ue toda! as when the! we#e w#itten: <+Dhatee# ma! be the position inthe 4nited 'tates7 whe#e the#e is a complete sepa#ation o the e9ecutie #omthe legislatie powe#7 would7 in Aust#alia7 thin@ it somewhat isiona#! tosuppose that the citiJens o a 'tate could con3dentl! #el! upon theCommonwealth to p#otect them against unconstitutional action o# which theCommonwealth itsel was #esponsible<+2>6. he b#oade# a#guments o the

second plainti ma! one da! be upheld in a p#oceeding such as the p#esent.o# p#esent pu#poses7 in #elation to the meaning and eect o a law onapp#op#iations7 it is sucient to accept the second plaintis inte#est as a(embe# o the Ga#liament to whom the contested App#op#iations ;ill7 the G;'and budget pape#s we#e p#esented o# app#oal and enactment and whosee@s to @eep the B9ecutie Eoe#nment within the law. his was a specialinte#est.

Standin" of the union o'cial: his conclusion disposes o the deendantsobections to standing and usticiabilit! o these p#oceedings. one o theplaintis has standing those "uestions7 as p#esented7 eapo#ate. Howee#7 am not coninced that the 3#st plainti7 (# Combet 7 lac@ed standing o his

own to initiate the p#oceedings. Assimilating him $as the deendantsaccepted& to the AC47 his inte#est in challenging the ade#tising campaign7unded #om the public pu#se7 was clea#l! #elated to the #ole that the AC4

7/23/2019 Combet  v Commonwealth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/combetvcommonwealth 4/4

was pla!ing in the political and indust#ial debate conce#ning the p#oposedamendments to ede#al wo#@place #elations laws. his was the subect o theade#tising7 the pa!ment o# which was in "uestion.

 he 3#st plaintis inte#est in the p#oceedings is not epheme#al7 pu#el!intellectual o# emotional. he 3#st plainti7 and the o#ganisation he#ep#esents7 hae a #eal and substantial inte#est to cu#tail a pu#po#ted #elianceon an app#op#iation o public mone! o# the B9ecutie Eoe#nmentsade#tising campaign. He7 and the AC47 hae a di#ect inte#est to attempt top#eent the d#awing o such mone! #om the #easu#! without lawul app#oalo a pa#liamenta#! app#op#iation o# that pu#pose. 'uch an inte#est7 whilst#aising public law conside#ations7 p#obabl! inoles in this case the @ind ome#cantile and economic <special inte#ests< oten gien weight in decisions onstanding in p#iate litigation. n the une"ual battle between ade#tisingp#iatel! unded b! the AC4 and its suppo#te#s and ade#tising unded b!the B9ecutie Eoe#nment #om the Consolidated eenue und7 the winne# isnot ha#d to p#edict. As with the second plainti7 it is unnecessa#! to conside#whethe# the 3#st plaintis status as a ta9pa!e#7 o# an electo#7 would alone besucient to sustain his standing in the p#oceedings.

(cHugh *7 #el!ing on British Medical Association v TheCommonwealth+2>> and The Real Estate Institute of NSW v Blair +2>F7 holdsthat the 3#st plainti li@e the AC4 does not hae standing. Howee#7 thesecases we#e decided mo#e than 3t! !ea#s ago7 beo#e this Cou#t elabo#ated itsiews on the #e"ui#ements o standing in public inte#est litigation. he citeddecisions hae been oe#ta@en b! subse"uent deelopments o legaldoct#ine+2>,. he#eo#e7 o# the o#egoing #easons and based on the cu##entlaw $as stated in (nus and simila# cases&7 it is li@el! that the AC47 as#ep#esented b! the 3#st plainti7 has standing in this matte#.

Conclusion) a decision is re*uired: t ollows that the second plainti had thelegal standing necessa#! to b#ing the p#oceedings. he 3#st plainti ma! alsohae had such standing but it is not necessa#! o# me to #each a 3nalconclusion on that "uestion. he second plaintis standing disposes o thatissue. he deendants contentions to the cont#a#!7 and the #elated suggestionthat7 in conse"uence7 the issues p#esented b! the plaintis we#e non-

 usticiable7 ail.