Egan v Willis is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The Court found that legislative chambers in Australia have an implied power to compel their members to produce papers to the house, together with an implied power to counter obstruction where it occurs. In particular, the

New South Wales Legislative Council The New South Wales Legislative Council, often referred to as the upper house, is one of the two chambers of the Parliament of New South Wales, parliament of the Australian state of New South Wales. Along with the New South Wales Legislative As ...

had the power to compel Michael Egan to produce certain documents to the chamber, and when he refused to do so; the forced removal of him from the chamber by the

Usher of the Black Rod The usher of the Black Rod is an official in the parliaments of several countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. The title is often shortened to Black Rod, and in some countries, formally known as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod or Lady Usher ...

did not constitute a trespass.

Facts

The legislative council chamber of NSW b

In 1995 the NSW Legislative Council passed a resolution that there be tabled in the house, documents relating to various activities of the Government. In 1996 a further resolution was passed stating that it would be a sufficient compliance 'for the Minister to table the documents required by delivering them to the Clerk of the House'. Six days later the NSW Cabinet decided that they would decline to comply with the resolution. Bob Carr in 2009

Michael Egan, a Member of the Legislative Council, had in his possession at least four documents capable of falling within the 1996 resolution. He asserted that the Legislative Council was unable to compel compliance with their resolution. He was ejected from the chamber for refusing compliance, and in response sued in

trespass Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person (see below), trespass to chattels, and trespass to land. Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery ...

. The central question of the appeal was whether there was any justification for the trespass constituted by his removal from the chamber; a question which presented an issue as to the powers of the Legislative Council with respect to its 1996 resolutions.

Decision

The Court found that 'If a member will not produce documents sought by the House there may be some limits to the steps it may take in response', and that '... one of the steps that the House may undoubtedly take is to resolve that the member be suspended for a limited time from the service of the House, and that is what happened here.'

Significance

The case is notable for having established that the powers and proceedings of Australia's legislative chambers are

justiciable Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a par ...

issues for the courts. Politically the case is notable as a significant embarrassment at the time for the Carr Government. Law professor Gerard Carney described the 'constitutional significance' of the case as 'profound', as it serves to 'judicially confirm the fundamental role of each House of Parliament to scrutinize the activities of the Executive Branch'.

References

{{Reflist High Court of Australia cases