Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T14:08:15.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory Federalism and the Kable Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Brendan Lim
Brendan Lim*
Affiliation:
New South Wales Bar; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Federalism permits sub-national diversity and experimentation. The Kable principle limits sub-national diversity and experimentation in relation to state courts. But this apparent tension between ‘laboratory’ federalism and the Kable principle is somewhat illusory. Kable does not always hinder experimentation, but rather enables it by securing its necessary preconditions. By preventing state legislatures and governments from conscripting state courts to implement political designs, the Kable principle prevents state legislatures and governments from using state courts as a ‘cloak’ against political accountability. This preserves the capacity of sub-national communities to compare policies across multiple jurisdictions, to express their preferences through ‘exit and voice’, and thereby to render sub-national experimentation effective on its own terms.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 519 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Gabrielle Appleby, who provoked me to develop the argument into an article and with whom I have enjoyed a productive exchange of ideas. Thanks also to the anonymous referees for several helpful suggestions.

References

1 Public Service Association and Professional Officers’ Association Amalgamated (NSW) v Director of Public Employment (2012) 250 CLR 343, 369 [61]–[62] (footnote omitted).

2 Lim, Brendan, ‘Attributes and Attribution of State Courts — Federalism and the Kable Principle’ (2012) 40 Federal Law Review 31, 33–4 ('Attributes and Attribution’).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31, 82 (Dixon J).

4 Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185. See also Lim, ‘Attributes and Attribution', above n 2, 54–5.

5 Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51, 102–3 (Gaudron J) (‘Kable’).

6 Ibid 141 (Gummow J); Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd (2006) 66 NSWLR 77, 86–9 [44]–[69] (Spigelman CJ). See also Spigelman, J J, ‘The Centrality of Jurisdictional Error’ (2010) 21 Public Law Review 77, 79Google Scholar; Lim, ‘Attributes and Attribution', above n 2, 39.

7 Bork, Robert H, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (Basic Books, 1978) 418.Google Scholar

8 Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard University Press, 1980) 76, 102.Google Scholar Ely also noted the analogy with antitrust laws: at 102–3.

9 Fiss, Owen M, The Irony of Free Speech (Harvard University Press, 1996) 16–18.Google Scholar

10 (2012) 250 CLR 343, 369 [61]–[62].

11 488 US 361, 407 (1989) (‘Mistretta’).

12 Contra the formulation of institutional integrity proposed in Steytler, Chris and Field, Iain, ‘The “Institutional Integrity” Principle: Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Headed?’ (2011) 35 University of Western Australia Law Review 227, 246–50.Google Scholar

13 See, eg, Ratnapala, Suri and Crowe, Jonathan, ‘Broadening the Reach of Chapter III: The Institutional Integrity of State Courts and the Constitutional Limits of State Legislative Power’ (2012) 36 Melbourne University Law Review 175Google Scholar; Stellios, James, ‘Reconceiving the Separation of Judicial Power’ (2011) 22 Public Law Review 113, 125–6.Google Scholar

14 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 212 [52] (French CJ and Kiefel J).

15 Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45, 76 [63] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).

16 See Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 118 (McHugh J); McLeish, Stephen, ‘The Nationalisation of the State Court System’ (2013) 24 Public Law Review 252, 255.Google Scholar

17 Lim, ‘Attributes and Attribution', above n 2.

18 Gabrielle Appleby, ‘The High Court and Kable: A Study in Federalism and Rights Protection’ (2014) 40 Monash University Law Review (forthcoming). I will refer to an earlier version of this article: Gabrielle Appleby, ‘State Law and Order Regimes and the High Court: A Study in Federalism and Rights Protection’ (Speech delivered at the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, Sydney, 23 October 2013). See also Lim, ‘Attributes and Attribution', above n 2, 51; Ratnapala and Crowe, above n 13, 200; Scott Stephenson, ‘Federalism and Rights Deliberation’ (2014) 38(2) Melbourne University Law Review (forthcoming) 38–9.

19 Appleby, above n 18, 7–8, 11.

20 McLeish, above n 16.

21 Transcript of Proceedings, The Public Service Association and Professional Officers’ Association Amalgamated of NSW v Director of Public Employment [2012] HCATrans 207 (5 September 2012) 2146–51 (S G E McLeish SC). See also Lim, ‘Attributes and Attribution', above n 2, 39.

22 Australian Research Council, ‘Summary of Successful Discovery Proposals for Funding Commencing in 2014 by State and Organisation’ (November 2013), 354 <http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP14/DP14_Listing_by_State_and_Org.pdf>.

23 Campbell, Enid, ‘Constitutional Protection of State Courts and Judges’ (1997) 23 Monash University Law Review 397, 421Google Scholar, quoted in Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 212–13 [52] (French CJ and Kiefel J). See also Appleby, above n 18, 16.

24 Traux v Corrigan, 257 US 312, 344 (1921).

25 New State Ice Co v Liebmann, 285 US 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis J).

26 See especially Breton, Albert, Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance (Cambridge University Press, 1996)Google Scholar, discussed in Cliff Walsh, ‘Competitive Federalism — Wasteful or Welfare Enhancing?’ in Productivity Commission, Productive Reform in a Federal System: Roundtable Proceedings (2006). See also Walsh, Cliff, ‘The Economics of Federalism and Federal Reform’ (2008) 31 University of New South Wales Law Journal 553, 561–4.Google Scholar

27 South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 96 [246] (‘Totani’). See also Public Service Association and Professional Officers’ Association Amalgamated (NSW) v Director of Public Employment (2012) 250 CLR 343, 369 [61].

28 See, eg, Crommelin, Michael, ‘Federalism’ in Finn, P D, Essays on Law and Government: Principles and Values (Law Book, 1995) 168Google Scholar; McConnell, Michael W, ‘Federalism: Evaluating the Founders’ Design’ (1987) 54 University of Chicago Law Review 1484, 1493–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Cover, Robert M, ‘The Uses of Jurisdictional Redundancy: Interest, Ideology and Innovation’ (1981) 22 William and Mary Law Review 639, 678.Google Scholar See also, eg, McConnell, above n 28, 1498–500; Saunders, Cheryl, ‘Foreword’ (2008) 31 UNSW Law Journal 387, 389.Google Scholar

30 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 46 [68] (French CJ).

31 Gregory v Ashcroft, 501 US 452, 458 (1991).

32 A recommendation for a national naval and military force ‘was one of the strongest arguments ever submitted in favour of political federation of the Australian colonies', leading Parkes to say in 1891 that ‘for the defence of Australasia to be economical, to be efficient, to be equal to the emergency that may arise at any time, it must be of a federal character': Quick, John and Garran, Robert Randolph, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (LexisNexis, first published 1901, 2002 ed) 563.Google Scholar

33 See McConnell, above n 28, 1495.

34 Ibid 1500.

35 Nicholas Cowdery and Bret Walker, ‘Commentaries on Gabrielle Appleby, “State Law and Order Regimes and the High Court: A Study in Federalism and Rights Protection“’ (Speech delivered at the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, Sydney, 23 October 2013). See also Stephenson, above n 18, 39.

36 See Hirschmann, Albert O, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Harvard University Press, 1970).Google Scholar See also Gerken, Heather, ‘Exit, Voice and Disloyalty’ (2013) 62 Duke Law Journal 1349Google Scholar; Gerken, Heather K, ‘Federalism All the Way Down’ (2010) 124 Harvard Law Review 4.Google Scholar

37 Gregory v Ashcroft, 501 US 452, 458 (1991).

38 Gerken argues that voting can be a form of ‘exit’ rather than ‘voice': Gerken, ‘Exit, Voice and Disloyalty', above n 36, 1360. The precise typology does not matter for my purposes.

39 Australian Constitution s 92; Cunliffe v Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272; AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160.

40 See, eg, Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 304 ALR 266; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1.

41 Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162; Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1.

42 See especially, Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 304 ALR 266, 273–4 [20]–[26] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ), 299–300 [158]–[159] (Keane J).

43 Walsh, ‘The Economics of Federalism', above n 26, 562.

44 Gerken, Heather K, ‘Legislatures in Dialogue with One Another’ in Bauman, Richard W and Kahana, Tsvi (eds), The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State (Cambridge University Press, 2006) 547, 550 (emphasis in original).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Fuller, Lon L, The Morality of Law (Yale University Press, rev ed, 1969) 38–9, 49–51.Google Scholar

46 Bingham, Tom, The Rule of Law (Penguin Books, 2011 ed) 37–9.Google Scholar

47 RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (2001) 113 FCR 185, 197 [52] (Wilcox, Branson and Lindgren JJ).

48 Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, 304 (O'Connor J).

49 Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427, 437 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

50 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131 (Lord Hoffmann) (‘Simms’).

51 Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562, 577 [20] (Gleeson CJ).

52 Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131 (Lord Hoffmann). See further Lim, Brendan, ‘The Normativity of the Principle of Legality’ (2013) 37 Melbourne University Law Review 373.Google Scholar

53 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 302 ALR 363, 452 [313] (Gageler and Keane JJ).

54 Ely, above n 8, 130–1.

55 See Lim, ‘The Normativity of the Principle of Legality', above n 52, 21.

56 (1995) 184 CLR 348 (‘Grollo’).

57 Ibid 392. See also Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181.

58 488 US 361, 407 (1989).

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 (1995) 184 CLR 348, 366 (Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ). See also at 377 (McHugh J); 392 (Gummow J) (‘Wilson’).

64 (1996) 189 CLR 1, 9 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ).

65 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 228 [105] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).

66 (2014) 311 ALR 332, 343 [49] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) (‘Pollentine’). See also Kuczborksi v Queensland [2014] HCA 46 (14 November 2014) [105] (Hayne J) (‘Kuczborksi’).

67 (2004) 223 CLR 575, 617 [101] (‘Fardon’).

68 Pollentine (2014) 311 ALR 332, 341–2 [42] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

69 Fardon (2004) 223 CLR 575, 618 [104] (Gummow J).

70 A-G (Qld) v Lawrence (2013) 306 ALR 281.

71 Cf Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469, 476 [14] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ): ‘Paraphrases of the statutory language, whether found in parliamentary or other extrinsic materials or in cases decided under the Act or under different legislation, are apt to mislead if attention strays from the statutory text'.

72 Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 295 ALR 638, 687 [183] (Gageler J). See also Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 212 [52] (French CJ and Kiefel J).

73 Brennan v Comcare (1994) 50 FCR 555, 572 (Gummow J), quoted in Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246, 256 [16] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

74 (2014) 307 ALR 174 (‘Emmerson’).

75 (2014) 311 ALR 332.

76 [2014] HCA 46 (14 November 2014).

77 Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) s 5.

78 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 122. See also at 134 (Gummow J).

79 (2004) 223 CLR 575.

80 Ibid 617 [100] (Gummow J). See also Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 82 [204] (Hayne J), 158 [429] (Crennan and Bell JJ), 171 [475] (Kiefel J).

81 See Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173, 197 [37] (Brennan CJ).

82 See International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319, 360 [77] (Gummow and Bell JJ); Emmerson (2014) 307 ALR 174, 189–90 [57]–[58] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

83 Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) s 14, later amended by Serious and Organised Crime (Control) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2012 (SA) s 6.

84 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 89 [226].

85 Ibid 85 [217].

86 Ibid 52 [82].

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid 172–3 [480].

89 Ibid 66 [142].

90 Ibid 160 [436].

91 Kuczborksi v Queensland [2014] HCA 46 at [224] (Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ) (‘Kuczborksi’).

92 Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2003 (NT) s 94(1).

93 Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT) s 36A.

94 DPP (NT) v Emmerson (2013) 33 NTLR 1, 47 [131].

95 Ibid 34 [92].

96 Emmerson (2014) 307 ALR 174, 191 [65] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

97 Ibid 190 [61]. See also Magaming v The Queen (2013) 302 ALR 461; Fraser Henleins Pty Ltd v Cody (1945) 70 CLR 100.

98 Transcript of Proceedings, Pollentine v Bleijie [2014] HCATrans 124 (17 June 2014) 43–7 (S P Donaghue QC).

99 Ibid 3568–76 (S P Donaghue QC).

100 Pollentine (2014) 311 ALR 332, 343 [47] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

101 [2014] HCA 46 (14 November 2014).

102 Transcript of Proceedings, Kuczborski v Queensland [2014] HCATrans 187 (2 September 2014) 3139–43 (M P Grant QC).

103 Ibid 3143–84 (M P Grant QC).

104 Kuczborski [2014] HCA 46 (14 November 2014) at [229]–[230] (Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ).

105 Grollo (1995) 184 CLR 348, 392.

106 (2004) 223 CLR 575, 586 [2], citing R v Moffatt [1998] 2 VR 229, 260 (Charles JA).

107 Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131 (Lord Hoffmann).