Constitutional Law

Viskauskas v Niland (1983) 153 CLR 280

March 11, 2018March 11, 2018 casesummaries

Facts

Several Aboriginal Australian patrons were refused service at a bar.
They brought proceedings under both state and federal anti-discrimination legislation.
It was argued that the state law was inconsistent with the federal law, and thus invalid.

Issue

Was there an inconsistency between the state and federal laws?

Held

The court held that the state law was invalid.
They held that the Federal Government had intended for the law to “cover the field” and thus it was inconsistent with the state law.
They also held that the Federal law was validly made under the external affairs power of the Commonwealth.

Relevance/other notes

This is a helpful case in applying the “cover the field” test.
After this case, the federal government amended the Racial Discrimination Act to explicitly state that they did not intend for it to cover the field.

-- Download Viskauskas v Niland (1983) 153 CLR 280 as PDF --