Constitutional Law Assignment: The Engineers' Case Analysis

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) case, commonly known as the Engineers' Case, and its profound impact on Australian Constitutional Law. The essay explores the case's significance in establishing the literalist mode of constitutional interpretation and its implications for the balance of power between the Commonwealth and state governments. It discusses the historical importance of the case, the principles it established, and the different methods of constitutional interpretation. The essay also examines the departure from the Engineers' Case principle over time due to its potential to undermine the federal structure, the limitations of the principle, and the various restrictions imposed on it. Finally, it argues that the Engineers' Case could be revisited to address the initial misinterpretation of the Constitution as a manifestation of federal nature, and the essay highlights the ongoing relevance of the case within the context of Australian constitutional jurisprudence.

Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Introduction
The case of Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide
Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 (Engineers’ Case) is considered among the most
significant cases in relation to interpretation of the Constitution1. The Engineers’ case is regarded
as an extremely persuasive case and the judgment provided in this case is embedded in the
present day Federal structure of the Government. The Engineers’ case institutes the literalist
mode in relation to the interpretation of the Constitution in the nation of Australia. The
application of the literalist mode in the Engineers’ case loosened and removed the federal
equilibrium regarding the state governments and the Commonwealth government towards a more
centralist structure. The judgment that was provided in the aforementioned case was never
questioned or doubted because the principle forwarded in the case is well ingrained and does not
require any other scrutiny.
It can be said that the aforementioned case does not require to be visited for two prime
causes. On the first instance, it may be said that the principle that is provided in the case has lost
the importance overtime as the perilous prospective of the principle has been highlighted by the
High Court. Hence, the application of the principle made in the strict sense is absent. In the
second instance, the restrictions are present to guarantee that the principle provided in the
aforementioned case does not challenge or destabilize the Constitution. On the contrary, the
aforementioned case may be looked into again, in order to address the mistake made by the
judges in relation to the interpretation of the Constitution as a manifestation of federal nature.
1Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide
Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129

2CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Historical Importance of the Case
The aforementioned case is considered as a vital case in relation to the construal of the
Constitution of the nation of Australia. The principle as provided in the Engineers’ case supports
the precise and extensive analysis of the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. Such powers
are susceptible only to the provided restrictions that is found in the Constitution. The principle
provided in the Engineers’ case institutes that the Constitution shall be analyzed as a ruling of the
Imperial Parliament and is construed as per the conventional doctrines of the interpretation of
statutes. The aforementioned case institutes three fundamental principles. The first principle
states that section 51 of the Constitution is explained in the broadest exact and precise meaning.
The second principle mentions that the aforementioned case institutes the fact that it is not
allowable to go through a passage regarding section 51 founded on the ground that any essential
feature or rudimentary significance of the Constitution is destabilized and undermined by giving
the passage the complete verbatim effect. The third principle is that the Court shall not be able to
identify any oblique restrictions on the power and authority of the Commonwealth.
In other cases, two principles of the Engineers’ case have been rejected by the High
Court. In the case of R v Barger (1908) 6 CLR 41 [69], the principle of reticent powers and
commands of the state is disallowed2. The principle of reserved authorities necessitated that the
Commonwealth shall not be able to implement its legislative authority in a manner that may
obstruct or impede the remaining or the reticent authorities of the state. In the R v Barger case,
the High Court also disallowed the principal of oblique immunities of the government. The
principle of oblique immunities prohibits the Commonwealth and the states from levying, upon
the representatives and mechanisms of both the states and the Commonwealth, encumbrances
2 R v Barger (1908) 6 CLR 41

3CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
that restraint, regulate or hinder with the unrestricted application and implementation of
executive or legislative authority unless specifically approved by the Constitution. Immunities
that are alternatively implied is merely defined as a principle that forbids neither the states nor
the Commonwealth from governing each other. Inevitably, the principle of the Engineers’ case
diminishes the deterring prospective of the Constitution and moves the Constitution in the
direction of the model of sovereignty.
Different Methods of Interpretation
There are researchers who all have analyzed different methods of interpretation in
relation to the High Court of Australia. In the book named Constitutional Fate, Bobbitt identified
certain modes in relation to constitutional understanding and application, specifically six
methods. These six modes were structural method, ethical method, doctrinal method, textual
method, historical method and prudential method. Bobbitt resisted and stated that the judges
based on their discretion favor certain methods of understanding and comprehending over others.
It is determined by their discrete flair and various constitutional purposes regarding any
particular case. In the nation of Australia the four conventional approaches are arguments that
are based on precedent, textual arguments, implications from constitutional texts and historical
arguments.
In the Work Choices Case3, distinct explanatory approaches in relation to the Constitution
have been considered. In the case of SGH Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation4, it has been stated
that it shall be considered as a serious mistake if the provisions provided in the Constitution is
3 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1
4 SGH Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) HCA 18

4CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
construed according to the expectations, intentions and purposes of the makers and creators of
the Constitution in the time period of the 1900s.
Even in cases where the prime of stringent legalism has been made applicable by the
judges. They clearly selected the understandings and comprehensions that were policy and
strategy determined and, in certain situations they have selected interpretations that are
moderately theatrical in nature. A series of cases, which ranges from R v Kirby; Ex parte
Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (Boilermakers’ case) [1956] HCA 105; (1956) 94 CLR
254 to Parton v Milk Board (Vic) [1949] HCA 676, have demonstrated the aforementioned
situations. Originalism is considered to be an overseas uproot that is ignited by the specific
experience and involvement of the nations of the United States in relation to constitutional
institution and establishment. Such establishments of the United States can be related uneasily
and unpleasantly with the evolutionary constitutional ritual and practice that the nation of
Australia, in other frameworks and perspectives, conceitedly declares to share with the various
other nations of the Commonwealth. Variations in relation to modernism and reformism, on the
contrary, are concerning and distressing by their deficiency regarding levels and standards in
relation to which the appropriate function of any particular judge can be calculated.
The Departure of principle of the Engineers’ case
The Engineers’ case should not be looked into or adhered because the principle has met
its departure. The principle of the Engineers’ case has gnarled as the days have passed which
encourages that stringent application and presentation of the principle shall not exist. The High
Court comprehends the perilous prospective of the principle. Inevitably the aptitude to challenge
5 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (Boilermakers’ case) [1956] HCA 10
6 Parton v Milk Board (Vic) [1949] HCA 67

5CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
and destabilize the Constitution any further, is concentrated. When the principle of the
Engineers’ case is strictly applied, it permits the legislation of the Commonwealth to grasp
practically any subject material.
The perilous prospective of the principle is illustrated in the case of Bank of New South
Wales v Commonwealth HCA 7 (1948) 76 CLR 1 (Bank Nationalization Case)7. It may be stated
that it is not easy to accept the idea that the validity of the legislative authority exists until a
contravention arises regarding any direct prevention in relation to the Constitution. In relation to
the laws of taxation, it has been mentioned that if the validity of the authority of the Parliament
of the Commonwealth regarding taxes and its imposition cannot be questioned, then such
authority or power shall be unchecked and the Parliament may impose taxes upon any kind of
goods, services, acts or inactions. Such authority of the Parliament may entirely challenge and
destabilize the federal structure of the Constitution. The High Court recognizes the principle of
the Engineers’ case and is very much conscious regarding the perilous implications and
prospective forwarded by the case.
Limitations of the Principle of the Engineers’ case
Afterwards, the judges and the courts have departed from the principle of the Engineers’
case because of the perilous prospective of the principle forwarded by the aforementioned case.
The departure of the principle of the Engineers’ case is due to the oblique restrictions on the
Commonwealth. The oblique restrictions of the Commonwealth and the departure of the
Engineers’ case principle has been discussed and stated in the case of Melbourne Corporation v
Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 318. The idea of oblique restriction may be said to function in
two separate manners regarding the restriction on the Commonwealth. In the first manner,
7 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth HCA 7 (1948) 76 CLR 1
8 Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31

6CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
discernment is proscribed in relation to special encumbrances that are levied on the states. The
second manner institutes the prevention in relation to the laws of universal application and
presentation, functioning to abolish or restrain the unrelenting presence of the states or their
ability to operate as proper governments. In the Melbourne Corporation case as mentioned
above, in order to protect the edifice and the rudimentary morals and standards of the
Constitution, the judges and the courts have moved away from the principle as provided in the
Engineers’ case. If the principle as provided in the Engineers’ case would have been firmly
applied, then it would have resulted in the institution of the validity of the Banking Act (Cth) of
the year 1945. The principle of the Engineers’ case should not be adhered to any further, because
the possibly perilous notion that is created in the case, is concentrated only to a meagre legal
intention. The direct approach or the literalist way of understanding is presently utilized by the
judges where they feel that such interpretation is necessary as per the circumstances of a
particular case or situation.
On many occasions the principle forwarded in the Melbourne Corporation case have been
criticized and it has been stated that the principle provided in the aforementioned case is
unsuccessful and unproductive. However, substitute restrictions to the principle of the Engineers’
case do exist. The rule of law is a postulation that emphasizes the Constitution of the nation of
Australia and possibly restricts the power and authority of the Commonwealth, and this idea has
been accepted by the High Court. The application of such substitute restriction has been
mentioned and discussed in the case of Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR
4769.
9 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476

7CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The time period after the Engineers’ case familiarizes the restrictions that are based on
the idea of proportionality. In the case of Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1
[Tasmania Dam case), the ‘appropriate and adapted test’ is forwarded10. It has been mentioned
that there shall be a sensible and rational correspondence between the nominated resolution or
purpose and the resources that the law personifies or exemplifies in order to accomplish or
acquire it. The High Court differentiates regarding the powers and authorities of purposive nature
and the power of non-purposive nature. Such distinction is made by the High Court in order to
scrutinize and examine the degree of rational and sensible proportionality.
Several restrictions are present that confine, constrain and make the principle provided in
the Engineers’ case answerable to the Constitution. The Engineers’ case should not be looked
into any further because there are manifold restrictions that constrain the principle provided in
the Engineers’ case from functioning in any kind of manner that may be illegal, unauthorized or
even unconstitutional.
The Engineers’ case can be visited again and the Reasons for it
The Engineers’ case may be looked into again to address the mistake made by the judges
when they refused to interpret the Constitution of the nation of Australia as a federal
manifestation. Consequentially if the Engineers’ case is looked into again then it shall avert the
disruption of the federal personality of the Constitution of the nation of Australia. The High
Court made a decision to construe the Constitution of the Australian nation as a law of the
Imperial Parliament. It is very evident that the literalist way of understanding and explanation is
defective and blemished when stringent presentation and application is made in relation to the
meanings and connotations of the words in the conventional usual sense. The literalist manner
10 Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1

8CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
guarantees that one shall observe and follow the ordinary connotation of the words even when
the outcome is problematic or misguided or implausible. The stringent application of the literalist
system exhibits that the Constitution is construed with determined ignorance and obliviousness
or else despicable or problematic conclusions are probable and likely and no efforts and steps are
taken to avoid them. Where the literalism is utilized to construe the Constitution of the nation as
a whole as an imperial statute, in such situation the federal foundation and edifice of the
Constitution is completely ignored and disregarded.
It may be stated that the Engineers’ case should be looked into again to make sure and
guarantee that the Constitution is construed as a Federal manifestation. When the Constitution of
the nation is construed in the nature of federal manifestation, then the context in relation to the
Constitution, that is, the federal foundation and edifice of the same, shall be considered.
Conclusion
Hence, the statement made by Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court of the
nation of Australia, in relation to the Engineers’ case and the interpretation of the Constitution
has withstood the test of time to a certain extent, though not completely. The Engineers’ case is
regarded as an extremely important case in relation to the constitutional interpretation in the
nation of Australia. Usually, the principle forwarded in the Engineers’ case is intended,
organized and utilized where the judges deems it necessary. There has been a departure from the
idea and principle as provided in the Engineers’ case because the restrictions provided in the rule
of law, the notion as provided in the Melbourne Corporation case and the test of correspondence,
have played and active and dynamic role. One may say that the principle as provided in the
Engineers’ case should be looked into again in order to construe and upheld the federal feature of
the Constitution. However, it may be argued that the any analysis that may be done in relation to

9CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
the case is presently inappropriate. The challenges faced in this case regarding the interpretation
of the Constitution should have been discussed and resolved long back.