The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia - Corporations Power - Essay Example

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution - the Corporation Power The Australian Constitution describes the structure of the Australian government and defines the power sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. The central power is the Federal or Commonwealth government and the regional powers are the State governments of Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territories. The Australian Constitution defines the relations between the Federal and the State governments, presents fundamental guarantees in relation to religious tolerance, protection of property from Federal acquisitions, freedom of interstate trade and the power of the Federal government to enter into external treaties etc. The Australian Constitution also provides for the existence of a Federal Parliament or the representative of the Queen, the Senate and a House of Representatives, whose members are chosen by the people of the Commonwealth in proportion to their numbers in various States. The Constitution provides that the Federal Parliament will have powers to make laws in relation to peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to matters related to trade, taxation, marriage, divorce, borrowing and much more. Section 51(xx) of Constitution, which is also known as the Corporations Power, grants the Federal Parliament the right to legislate in respect to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. The extent of the activities that can be regulated is unclear, but it has been suggested that both acts of corporations related to trade and external activities are covered. This essay takes a look at this section of the Australian Constitution which has been used to bring into force The Trade Practices Act 1974, Corporations Act 2001, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeover Act 1975 as well as the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 etc. Introduction The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was framed in 1900 after the debates in the Australasian Federation Conference of 1890 and the Australasian Federal Conventions of 1891 and 1897-8. Those who attended these conferences were all sitting politicians who had been chosen by their respective colonial parliaments. The framers of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution had inherited principles of responsible government from the British Constitution and had adapted these principles to a Federation in the Australian context. The Constitution of Australia in an essence defines the structure of the Australian government, providing for a Federal government and regional or State governments consisting of the states of Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territories. The Constitution defines power sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth or the Federal government and the States, along with providing for the establishment of a Federal Parliament consisting of the representative of the Queen, the Senate and a House of Representatives. The Australian Constitution also provides fundamental guarantees in relation to religious tolerance, protection of property from Federal acquisitions, freedom of interstate trade and the power of the Federal government to enter into external treaties etc. Section 51 of the Constitution grants the Federal Parliament of Australia powers to make laws for peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth in relation to a number of matters related to trade, taxation, borrowings, post and communications, naturalization and aliens, weights and measures as well as marriage and divorce etc. Section 51(xx) of the Constitution which grants the Federal Parliament to make laws with respect to “Foreign corporations, trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth” is also known as the Corporation Power of the Federal Parliament. It is the Corporations Power which has made it possible for the Commonwealth of Australia to enact legislation such as the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth), Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 (Cth) and other Acts for the regulation of corporations in Australia. 1 2 The Corporations Power or section 51(xx) was originally designed by those who had framed the Australian Constitution to control the widespread company failures of the 1890s in order to protect the investors as well as the general public from the unrestrained risky actions of the corporations of the type which had been described in this section. Since then, however, this section of the Australian Constitution has been used to stamp the authority of the Commonwealth on corporations which may be considered to be of the type described in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. In the celebrated Tasmanian Dam case, the Hydro – Electric Commission of Tasmania was declared to be a corporation by a majority of the court and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament of Australia. This authority granted by section 51(xx) along with the “external affairs” power of the Commonwealth enshrined in section (xxix) of the Australian Constitution was used to prevent the State government of Tasmania from constructing a dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania on areas which had been listed as World Heritage Areas. Although the Commonwealth government, by virtue of section 51(xx) has the power to regulate the status, capacity and conditions of operation for corporations, the Federal government does not have the power to regulate any contracts into which these corporations may enter. The predominant or characteristic activity of a corporation is what determines whether a corporation can be regulated by the Corporation Power provisions of the Australian Constitution. The main purposes for formation and the actual activities of a company are required to be considered when determining if a company is a trading corporation or not. There have been occasions when clarification has been sought from courts in Australia to determine if certain corporations were capable of being regulated by the legislation of the Federal Parliament. The state superannuation board of Victoria has been held as a trading corporation while the St George County Council has not been considered to be falling within the definition of a trading corporation. 3 4 5 Australian superior courts have, therefore, a role to play in determining the extent to which the Commonwealth can regulate, or authorize the creation of corporations under section 51(xx) of the Constitution. Over a period of time, however, the court judgments associated with section 51(xx) laws have provided a certain measure of clarification about the extent of powers that the Commonwealth can exercise. New opportunities for legislation are, however, becoming constantly available to the Commonwealth Parliament and the section 51(xx) powers are slowly being used with a broader interpretation. As an example, there has been a debate in the government about widening the powers of the Commonwealth to legislate in the industrial relations arena using the section 51(xx) provision of the Constitution. Australia currently has multiple industrial relations legislations, enacted by the Commonwealth and the State governments. Those corporations which can be legislated for under section 51(xx) are covered by Commonwealth industrial relations legislation, while others which do not fit the definition of section 51(xx) are covered by State laws. The State of Victoria, however, referred its powers to the Commonwealth and this state along with the Australian Capital Territory has Commonwealth laws only. All other States have both Federal and State laws in operation and it has been considered appropriate by the government to try and move towards a single industrial relations system. Certainly, a broad interpretation of section 51(xx) and the approval of the State governments will accelerate the move towards such a system. 6 7 8 9 In this essay, an attempt has been made to examine the use of section 51(xx) powers by the Commonwealth government to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign, trading and financial corporations which have been formed within the limits of the Commonwealth and the interpretations that the courts have provided in relation to these powers. The Use of the Section 51 (xx) Powers by the Commonwealth to Enact Corporate Legislation The wording of section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution implies that there can be a certain level of confusion about what is a corporation in regard to which the Commonwealth is allowed to legislate. This ambiguity which exists in section 51(xx) has meant that the Australian Corporate Law structure is founded on a level of legal cooperation between the Commonwealth and the State governments. The constitutional principle of cooperative Federalism means that the corporate law in Australia is a State law with a number of federalising features in it. Hence, the Corporations Law is an Act of each of the States because in the High Court judgment in New South Wales v Commonwealth (1990) 169 CLR 482 where the High Court considered section 51(xx) of the constitution in the context of an attempt by the Commonwealth Government to enact a national Corporations Act, it was ruled that the Commonwealth did not have the power to legislate in regard to the incorporation of companies. The legislation in regard to the incorporation of companies was within the power of the States and not a Commonwealth power. In order to provide a Federal character to Australia’s corporate laws, negotiations had to be conducted between the Commonwealth government and the state governments which resulted in an agreement that each State will enact its own Corporations Act and that the Federal Corporations Act will apply to the Australian Capital Territory only. The agreement, however, provided for the establishment of Australian Securities Commission, (now the Australian Securities and Investments Commission), which will have a national responsibility to regulate companies. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, being part of the Federal administration will have a role to play in the regulation of corporations. ASIC, the Federal police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions are to be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of offences under the State Acts related to Corporations. Under the agreement, the Federal Court of Australia was given the power to hear matters arising out of the State Corporations Act by a process of cross-vesting legislation. Amendments that the Commonwealth government made to its Federal Corporations Act would apply automatically to each of the State Corporations Acts without there being a need for the State Parliaments to pass further amendments. In order to strengthen the hand of the Commonwealth Government, it was given enhanced voting rights in the Ministerial Council, consisting of Commonwealth and State government ministers. Hence, a fairly complex legal structure was the result of the effort to give Australia’s Corporations Law a Federal character. Several challenges to this complex structure emerged since the Commonwealth and State government agreement including Wakim, Bond v The Queen and The Queen v Hughes. In Re Wakim (1999) 31 ACSR 99; 17 ACLC 1,055, the High Court struck down the cross-vesting legislation which made it possible for the Federal Court to hear matters related to State Corporations Act. This judgement resulted in the State governments passing emergency legislation which made previous Federal Court decisions related to the State Corporations Acts to be deemed to be the decisions of the State Supreme Courts and considered to be valid. In Bond vs. The Queen the High Court judgement held that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions does not have the power to appeal against a sentence imposed for a breach of a State Corporations Act and that such appeals could only be initiated by the relevant State Department of Public Prosecution. The Queen vs. Hughes case presented further challenges to the authority of the Commonwealth to regulate corporations and prosecute against breaches of the Corporations Law. Such a complex Corporate Law structures resulted in renewed calls to the State governments to refer their powers to the Commonwealth under section 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution. Other solutions which can make the Corporate Law system less complex can include attempts to amend the Constitution. However, attempts to amend the Constitution will require a referendum and majority proposals to amend the Constitution have failed. Split systems of Corporate Law in which the State governments will have power over matters related to incorporation of companies while the Commonwealth having jurisdiction over fundraising and takeovers has also been proposed as a solution and such a system exists in the United States of America. 10 11 It is, however, important to be able to regulate corporations because corporations, like natural persons have residual rights mean that they have the right to do anything which is not expressly forbidden in law. Fundamental freedom means that unless the parliament expressly suspends or abrogates a fundamental freedom, the corporation has a right to exercise the fundamental freedom and a court may not abrogate such a freedom. Legal process rights of Corporations are owed by the courts themselves. Hence the 51(xx) Corporation Power of the Commonwealth is going to be continuously challenged in courts if it can be challenged. States will like to maintain their powers over issues which concern them in their domains, but will refer their powers to the Commonwealth on matters which have assumed national significance and cannot be dealt with singly by a state. The powers of the Federal Parliament to legislate in order to regulate corporations within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the constitution is considered to be wide enough to regulate non-trading activities which have been embarked upon by trading corporations as was demonstrated in the Tasmanian Dam case. The proposed construction of a dam over River Gordon River in Tasmania was considered to be a non-trading activity which the Hydro – Electric Commission of Tasmania had embarked upon in order to assist with its trading activities related to the sale of electricity and hence the Commonwealth had a right to regulate this activity. Amongst some of the other issues raised as a result of the operation of section 51(xx) of he Australian Constitution is the question of the applicability of Commonwealth legislation to holding companies and those companies which are using radio, TV or email to promote their activities in the Commonwealth while having incorporated and conducting their core business overseas. No clear cut answers can be provided for these issues because those who framed the Constitution thought that it was necessary for there to be power sharing between the Commonwealth and the State governments. 12 13 14 Once a corporation is considered to be within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth has powers to enact legislation for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with regard to regulating such a corporation. Hence, the Commonwealth Parliament has enacted other legislation apart from the Corporations Act to regulate the conduct of such corporations. The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) was legislated into force to introduce Australia – wide consumer protection legislation to protect Australians from the possibly fraudulent trading practices of the trading corporations and to open up markets for competition. The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) makes it unlawful to fix prices, have exclusive dealings, conduct price discrimination, attempt to misuse the market power and generally attempt to indulge in unfair trading activities or market practices. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) was enacted to streamline investment in Australia that is consistent with the interests of the Australian community. Under the provisions of this Act, investments in substantial Australian businesses with assets in excess of $50 million require prior approval from the government as do investments by other governments. Investments in the media and telecommunications sectors also require prior approval. The Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 (Cth) amended the competitive conduct rules of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and extended their coverage to State, Territory and local government businesses and unincorporated bodies as well as extending price oversight arrangements to State and Territory business enterprises. Other Acts such as the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) and the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) also deal with financial corporations. 15 16 As has been previously discussed, the only problem with section 51(xx) Corporation Power have been related to the authority of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in regard to regulating corporations. It is appropriate to consider some court cases which have challenged the validity of legislative power of the Commonwealth Parliament. This is done in the next section. Interpretations that have been provided by the Courts in Relation to Section 51(xx) Powers of the Commonwealth Judgements that have been handed down by courts over a period of time have indicated that the term “corporation” within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the constitution has a broad meaning. This broadness of meaning permits the Commonwealth parliament to legislate with respect to a wide range of corporations which employ people. It has been widely accepted by the courts that the powers of the Commonwealth to legislate extends to all things to do with such corporations. The Tasmanian Dam Case (1983) 158 C.L.R. per Mason J. at pp. 148-153 illustrates this point along with a number of other cases including R. v Federal Court of Australia; ex p. W.A. National Football League (1979) 143 C.L.R. 190 and Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 C.L.R. 570 etc. However, the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate is not derived just from the powers arising out of section 51(xx) only but may also arise out of powers granted in other sections of the Constitution such as the defence power (s. 51(vi)), the external affairs power (s. 51(xxix)), the trade and commerce power (s. 51(i)) the post and telegraphs power (s. 51(v)), the territories power (s. 122), the power to legislate with respect to places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes (s. 52(i)), and the power of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to matters referred to the Commonwealth by any State (s. 51(xxxvii)). Hence, when regulating the airlines industry, a combination of powers has been used to enact legislation as can be seen from Re: ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED; AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION and EAST-WEST AIRLINES (OPERATIONS) LIMITED. 17 The important consideration in determining if a corporation is of the type described in section 51(xx) of the constitution is whether a substantial component of the activities of a corporation are associated with trading or finance. In Fencott vs. Muller, 1983 a majority of the judges held that a shelf corporation which was not involved in any activities ought to be regulated in accordance with the purposes for which it was created, although three of the seven judges dissented and stated that in the absence of any activity, a shelf corporation is not a corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the Constitution. A corporation which has a substantial part of its activities associated with “financial activities” can, therefore, be considered to be a financial corporation or a trading and financial corporation if it is involved in both activities. A corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx) can then expect to have a wide variety of its activities regulated including those related to conditions of employment and industrial relations, the business functions and activities of constitutional corporations and to their business relationships. Section 51(xx), therefore, also extends to persons by and through whom these corporations carry out their functions and activities (AWU v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 3). Even a trade union which is involved in influencing trading, supply of services or goods to purchasers may be considered to be a corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the Constitution. Thus in Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v The Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1549, the Maritime Union of Australia was found to be contravening section 60 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) by coercing its customers. Although the Maritime Union of Australia is a union of workers working for Australian businesses catering to the requirements of international shipping visiting Australian ports, it was deemed appropriate to consider this union to be a corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the Constitution to which the Fair Trading Provisions of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) are applicable. Hence, it appears that regardless of the intent of incorporation, any participation in trading or financial activities or attempts to influence such activities can result in Commonwealth laws becoming applicable within the meaning of sec 51(xx). The important consideration is whether the activities are likely to sufficiently influence the commercial and trading interests of the Australian community. 18 19 In the case of Quickenden v Commissioner OConnor of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 303, it has been ruled by the court that section 51(xx) permits the Commonwealth to enact regulation to control the business functions, activities or relationships of constitutional corporations. Broad legislation is possible to control the nature of employment relationships of individuals with a corporation, even though the individuals may not be a member of the union which is a party to an award. 20 Hence, even though the Australian Corporate Law system is based on complex power sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States, which is likely to move towards a more Federal system because of the requirements of the age, section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution enables the Commonwealth to constructively interfere in the workings of a broad range of commercial groups and corporations in order to protect the wider interests of the Australian community. 21 Conclusion The original framers of the Australian Constitution had intended that the section 51(xx) powers of the Commonwealth Parliament provided in the Constitution were to be used for a broad range of commercial interventions and regulations in the interest of the Australian community, with elements of power sharing between the Commonwealth and the States. Successive Australian lawmakers have been able to use this section of the Constitution to do just this by constructing a complex legal structure based on cooperative Federalism which seems to permit the Commonwealth to legislate about just almost anything worth legislating. Annotated Bibliography 1. *Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “USING THE ‘CORPORATIONS POWER’ TO MAKE COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LAWS”. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Review. MARCH 2005. NUMBER 121. June 24, 2005. From: http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/review/r121.pdf This paper takes a look at attempts to use the Corporations Power presented in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution in the Industrial Relations arena to try and create an efficient and competitive labour market for the employers as well as employees. This source is important because it presents the latest thinking related to the use of the Corporations Power. The source was located through a web search and the thinking is fresh because it is very recent. 2. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. “Competition Policy Reform Act 1995”. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/comact/9/4560/top.htm This is a presentation of the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 (Cth) which is an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament that has been enacted under powers granted by section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. 3. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. “Corporations Act 2001”. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3448/top.htm This is a presentation of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which is an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament and was enacted under powers granted by section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. 4. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. “Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975”. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. 1975. June 24, 2005. http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/536/top.htm This is a presentation of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth), which is an Act of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament which was enacted by the Parliament under powers granted by section 51(xx) of the Constitution. 5. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. “Trade Practices Act 1974”. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. 1974. June 24, 2005. http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/115/top.htm This is a presentation of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth), which is an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament and was enacted under powers granted by section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. 6. CCH Australia Limited. “Australian Corporations and Securities Legislation” CCH Australia Limited. 2004. This is a complete and comprehensive listing of the Corporations laws of Australia, including the regulations which have been made under various Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament enacted under powers granted by section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. 7. Commonwealth of Australia. “Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980”. Commonwealth of Australia. 1980. June 24, 2005. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/41B5091D9F925298CA256F89001CE106/$file/AusWineBrandyCorp1980_WD02.pdf This is a compilation of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 (Cth) which is an Act that gives life to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation which is a corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx). 8. *De Costa, Alex. “The Corporations Law and Cooperative Federalism after the Queen vs. Hughes”. Sydney Law Review. Vol. 22:451. 2000. June 25, 2005. http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~slr/v22/n3/decosta.pdf This is a discussion of the Queen vs. Hughes case which provided the most substantial challenge to the Federal Structure of Australia’s Corporate Law. This is an important discussion paper on the Corporation Power of the Australian Constitution and it is important because it discusses some of the most relevant court cases related to the Corporation Power of the Constitution. Federal Court of Australia judgements were searched for any later cases as was the Sydney Law Review for any later articles, but no other important case or article was found. 9. *Federal Court of Australia. “Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v The Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1549”. Federal Court of Australia. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/judgments/worddocs/federal/2001/november/2001FCA1549.doc This is the judgement of the Federal Court of Australia in a case against Australian Maritime Union and its agents who were violating sections 60 and 75(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). This is an important court judgement which was found after searching for all court judgements related to the Corporation Power on the Federal Court of Australia website. This case is important because it illustrates rather unique aspects of the applicability of the Corporations Power. Later cases judgements have not presented anything which has gone against this judgement. 10. *Federal Court of Australia. “AWU v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 3”. Federal Court of Australia. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/3.rtf This is the text of the judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in relation to Workplace Agreements which BHP, a corporation within the meaning of section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution had entered into with Australian Workers Union. This case judgement was found after searching for all Federal Court judgements related to Corporation Power on the Federal Court of Australia website. This case is important because it illustrates the combined use of Federal and State powers to enact legislation. No later judgements were found which went contrary to the thinking in this court judgement. 11. Federal Court of Australia. “Quickenden v Commissioner OConnor of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 303”. Federal Court of Australia. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/judgments/worddocs/federal/2001/march/2001FCA303.doc This is the judgement of a case that was presented to the Federal Court of Australia, concerning the powers of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to trading or financial corporations under section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. 12. Federal Court of Australia. “Re: ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED; AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION and EAST-WEST AIRLINES (OPERATIONS) LIMITED And: PETER FREDERICK MORRIS (who is sued in his capacity as Minister of State for Aviation); EAST-WEST AIRLINES (OPERATIONS) LIMITED; THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA; RAE MARTIN TAYLOR; THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND; AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION and ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED Nos. VG61; VG65; VG94; VG101; VG195 and VG 204 of 1986 Administrative Law”. Federal Court of Australia. 1986. June 24, 2005. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep2456.html?query=corporations+power This is the judgement of a case which was presented before the Federal Court of Australia which amongst other matters challenges the powers of the Commonwealth to apply controls, especially economic regulatory controls, over interstate aviation when aviation has not been mentioned in the Australian Constitution. 13. Federal Court of Australia. “Re: ROBERT STERLING and: TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION (1981) 51 FLR 1 No. G23 of 1980 Trade Practices - Constitutional Law”. Federal Court of Australia. 1981. June 24, 2005. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep380.html This is the judgment of a case which was heard by the Federal Court of Australia in relation to violations of sections of the Trade Practices Act (Cth) which was enacted under powers granted to the Commonwealth Parliament under section 51 (xx) of the Constitution. 14. Ford, W.J. “Using the Corporations Power to Regulate Australian Industrial Relations” The University of Western Australia. 2000. June 24, 2005. http://www.bca.com.au/upload/1711BillFordcorppower171100.pdf This paper discusses the use of the Corporations Power, section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution for enacting Federal regulations related to the Australian Industrial Relations. 15. *High Court of Australia. “THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v. TASMANIA. THE TASMANIAN DAM CASE [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1 (1 July 1983)” High Court of Australia. 1983. June 25, 2005. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/21.html?query=corporation+power This is the judgment of the Tasmanian Dam Case in which the Commonwealth was able to exercise its Corporation Power and External Affairs Power to block the construction of a Dam on the Gordon River. This case judgement was found after searching for all Federal Court judgements related to the Corporation Power on the Federal Court of Australia website. The case is important because it discusses concepts related to “corporation”, “non – trading activities of corporation” and the use of Federal Powers to block the exercise of State Powers in the interest of the Commonwealth. No later court cases were found which went contrary to the judgment and decisions rendered in this case. 16. Kirk, Jeremy. “Rights, Review and Reasons for Restraint”. Sydney Law Review. Vol. 23:19. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~slr/v23/n1/kirk.pdf This paper discusses the use of judicial review for enforcing constitutional rights and the reasons for judicial restraint when approaching these constitutional rights. 17. Malcolm, Jeremy. “Do Corporations Have Rights?” Murdoch University. 1994. June 24, 2005. http://www.terminus.net.au/thesis/chap5.html#C2 This dissertation discusses corporations and the meaning of corporations within the context of the law and the Constitution. 18. McGrath, Frank Roland. “THE INTENTIONS OF THE FRAMERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATES AT THE AUSTRALASIAN FEDERATION CONFERENCE OF 1890, AND THE AUSTRALASIAN FEDERAL CONVENTIONS OF 1891 AND 1897-8. University of Sydney. 2004. June 24, 2005. http://adt.library.usyd.edu.au/adt/public_html/adt-NU/uploads/approved/adt-NU20020917.111505/public/02whole.pdf This dissertation takes a look at the motives of those who framed the Australian Constitution and considers their intentions in including various sections of the Australian Constitution. 19. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. “REGINA v FRAWLEY [2005] NSWCCA 66”. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. 2005. June 24, 2005. http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/judgments/worddocs/nsw/2005/february/2005NSWCCA66.rtf This is a judgement in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in a case which challenges the right of the Commonwealth Parliament to create criminal liability under state law. 20. *Ramsey, Ian. “THE UNRAVELLING OF AUSTRALIA’S FEDERAL CORPORATE LAW”. CORPORATE LAW ELECTRONIC BULLETIN. Bulletin No 31, March 2000”. Faculty of Law, The University of Melbourne. March 2000. June 25, 2005. http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/bulletins/archive/Bulletin0031.htm The comments by Professor Ian Ramsey discuss Australia’s Federal structure of corporate law and how challenges in courts had caused much concern about the complex legislative arrangements related to Australian Corporate Law and power sharing between the Commonwealth and the States. This important comment by one of Australia’s leading academic of law was found after searching through The University of Melbourne’s Corporate Law resources. It is important because it presents a discussion of some very relevant cases which influenced the thinking related to the Corporations Power of the Australian Constitution. The comments present a summery of the situation and a comprehensive legal analysis. Later court cases do not present anything very radically different from the analysis which has been presented here. 21. Sawer, Geoffrey. “The Australian Constitution” Australian Government Publishing Service. 1998. This book takes a look at the history of the Australian Constitution and discusses the balance of power between the Commonwealth and the States as well as the structure of the Federal government in Australia. 22. The State of Queensland. “Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2001. The State of Queensland. 2001. June 24, 2005. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/50PDF/2001/CorpComPwrsB01Exp.pdf This is a bill which attempts to present certain enhancements to Federal regulation of corporations in Australia and the sharing of such regulation with the States of the Commonwealth. 23. Veermesch, R. B. and K. E. Lindgren. “Business Law of Australia”. Butterworths. 1987. This text presents a broad overview of the business laws of Australia and includes a discussion of the Corporations Powers of section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. Read More