Editing Bill of attainder (section)

===Australia===
The [[Constitution of Australia]] contains no specific provision permitting the [[Parliament of Australia|Commonwealth Parliament]] to pass bills of attainder. The [[High Court of Australia]] has ruled that federal bills of attainder are unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for any body to wield judicial power other than a Chapter III court{{mdash}}that is, a body exercising power derived from Chapter III of the Constitution, the chapter providing for judicial power.<ref name="Wheat case">{{cite AustLII|HCA|17|1915|link=New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915)|litigants=New South Wales v Commonwealth |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1915/17.pdf (1915) 20 CLR 54] |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref name="Communist case">{{cite AustLII|HCA|5|1951|litigants=[[Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth]] |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1951/5.pdf (1951) 83 CLR 1] |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref name="Boilermakers">{{cite AustLII|HCA|10|1956|litigants=[[R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia]] |parallelcite=(1956) 94 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 254 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> One of the core aspects of judicial power is the ability to make binding and authoritative decisions on questions of law, that is, issues relating to life, liberty or property.<ref name="Huddart">{{cite AustLII|HCA|36|1909|litigants=[[Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead]] |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1909/36.pdf (1909)&nbsp;8&nbsp;CLR&nbsp;330] |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref name="Polyukhovich">{{cite AustLII|HCA|32|1991|litigants=[[Polyukhovich v Commonwealth]] (War Crimes Act case) |parallelcite=(1991) 172 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 501 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The wielding of judicial power by the legislative or executive branch includes the direct wielding of power and the indirect wielding of judicial power.<ref name="Lim">{{cite AustLII|HCA|64|1992|litigants=[[Chu Kheng Lim v Minister of Immigration]] |parallelcite=(1992) 176 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 1 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

The [[State constitution (Australia)|state constitutions in Australia]] contain few limitations on government power. Bills of attainder are considered permissible because there is no entrenched separation of powers at the state level.<ref>''Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister of Industrial Relations'' (1986) 7 [[NSW Law Reports|NSWLR]] 372, [[Supreme Court of New South Wales|Court of Appeal]] (NSW, Australia).</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|VicRp|46|1994|litigants=City of Collingwood v Victoria [No2] |parallelcite=[1994] 1 [[Victorian Reports|VR]] 652 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> However, [[section 77 of the Constitution of Australia]] permits state courts to be invested with Commonwealth jurisdiction, and any state law that renders a state court unable to function as a Chapter III court is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|24|1996|litigants=[[Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)]] |parallelcite=(1996) 189 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 51 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The states cannot structure their legal systems to prevent them from being subject to the Australian Constitution.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|1|2010|litigants=[[Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW]] |parallelcite=(2010) 239 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 531 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

An important distinction is that laws seeking to direct judicial power (e.g. must make orders)<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|49|2009|litigants=International Finance Trust Company Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (Criminal Assets Recovery case) |parallelcite=(2009) 240 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 319 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> are unconstitutional, but laws that concern mandatory sentencing,<ref>{{cite AustLII|NTSC|120|1997|litigants=Wynbyne v Marshall |parallelcite=(1997) 99 {{abbr|A Crim R|Australian Criminal Reports}} 1 |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref>''R v Moffatt'' [1998] 2 [[Victorian Reports|VR]] 229, [[Supreme Court of Victoria|Court of Appeal]] (Vic, Australia).</ref> rules of evidence,<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|9|1998|litigants=Nicholas v The Queen |parallelcite=(1998) 193 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 173 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> non-punitive imprisonment,<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|46|1998|litigants=Fardon v Attorney-General (QLD) |parallelcite=(2004) 223 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 575 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> or tests,<ref>
{{cite AustLII|HCA|7|2013|litigants=Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(2013) 252 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 38 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> are constitutional.

State parliaments are, however, free to prohibit parole boards from granting parole to specific prisoners. For instance, sections 74AA and 74AB of the Corrections Act 1986 in [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]] significantly restrict the ability of the parole board to grant parole to [[Julian Knight (murderer)|Julian Knight]] or [[Craig Minogue]]. These have been upheld by the High Court of Australia and are distinguished from bills of attainder since the original sentence (life imprisonment) stands; the only change is the administration of parole.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|29|2017|litigants=Julian Knight v The State of Victoria|courtname=auto}}</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|31|2019|litigants=Craig William John Minogue v The State of Victoria|courtname=auto}}</ref>