DOCSLIB.ORG

Australian Constitutional Law Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

70616: Australian Constitutional Law Notes Table of Contents 1 Characterisation and Interpretation ______________________________________________________ 8 1.1 Characterising a Law – What is it? ___________________________________________________________ 8 1.2 Summary Steps of Characterisation / Problem Solving ___________________________________________ 8 1.2.1 Subject Matter Power: ‘Sufficient Connection’ Test __________________________________________________ 9 1.2.2 Purposive Powers: Proportionality Test ___________________________________________________________ 10 1.3 Incidental Power _______________________________________________________________________ 11 1.3.1 Implied v Express Incidental Power ______________________________________________________________ 12 1.4 Characterisation under Specific Heads of Power _______________________________________________ 12 1.5 Principles of Constitutional Interpretation ___________________________________________________ 12 1.6 Remedies ____________________________________________________________________________ 13 1.6.1 Remedies under s. 75(v) _______________________________________________________________________ 13 1.7 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 14 1.7.1 Granall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd (1954) ____________________________________________________ 14 1.7.2 Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1965) 114 CLR 1, __________________________________________ 14 1.7.3 In Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Commonwealth (1966) 115 CLR 418, __________________________________ 14 1.7.4 Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd (1913) ________________________ 14 1.7.5 In Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1, ________________________________________ 15 1.7.6 Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) ____________________________________________ 15 1.7.7 Australian National Airways v Commonwealth (1945) _______________________________________________ 15 2 Judicial Power ______________________________________________________________________ 16 2.1 Constitution Chapter III The Judicature ______________________________________________________ 16 2.2 Definition of Judicial Power _______________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.1 Judicial Appointment _________________________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.2 Judicial Independence ________________________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.3 Judicial Accountability ________________________________________________________________________ 17 2.2.4 Precedent and Overruling _____________________________________________________________________ 18 2.2.5 Indicators of Judicial Power ____________________________________________________________________ 18 2.2.6 Judicial Review ______________________________________________________________________________ 19 2.2.7 Incidental Judicial Power ______________________________________________________________________ 19 2.2.8 Tribunals ___________________________________________________________________________________ 19 2.2.9 Acting Judges _______________________________________________________________________________ 20 2.3 Main Ideas Summary____________________________________________________________________ 20 2.3.1 Separation of Power __________________________________________________________________________ 20 2.3.2 Persona Designata ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 2.3.3 Usurpation and interference: __________________________________________________________________ 21 2.3.4 Kable Doctrine: Institutional Integrity and State courts operating under Chapter III ________________________ 22 2.4 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 22 2.4.1 NSW v Cth (Wheats Case) (1915) HCA ____________________________________________________________ 22 2.4.2 Boilermakers Case (1956) _____________________________________________________________________ 23 2.4.3 Waterside Workers‟ Federation of Australia v JW Alexander (1918) ____________________________________ 23 2.4.4 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for immigration (1992) __________________________________________________ 24 2.4.5 Communist Party Case ________________________________________________________________________ 25 2.4.6 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth ____________________________________________________________ 25 2.4.7 Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) _____________________________________________________________________ 25 2.4.8 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal opportunity Commission (1996) ____________________________________ 27 1 | P a g e 2.4.9 Fardon v Attorney General (Qld) (2004) __________________________________________________________ 27 2.4.10 South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 ___________________________________________________________ 27 2.4.11 Lane v Morrison (2009) _______________________________________________________________________ 27 2.4.12 International Finance Trust Company Ltd v NSW Crime Commission [2009] ______________________________ 28 2.4.13 Wainhou v NSW [2011] _______________________________________________________________________ 28 2.4.14 Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259 ___________________________________________________________ 28 2.4.15 Thomas v Mowbray (HCA) (2007) _______________________________________________________________ 28 2.4.16 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 _________________________________ 29 2.4.17 WILSON V MINISTER ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (1996) ________________________ 29 2.4.18 Hilton v Wells (1985) _________________________________________________________________________ 29 2.4.19 Grollo v Palmer (1995) ________________________________________________________________________ 30 2.4.20 Momcilovic v The Queen & Ors. [2011] HCA 34 ____________________________________________________ 30 2 | P a g e 5.3.3.1 Examples of some more extreme Valid Transitional Uses ________________________________________ 18 5.3.3.2 Preparation for War ______________________________________________________________________ 18 5.3.3.3 Post War ______________________________________________________________________________ 18 5.3.4 Terrorism and internal Threats _________________________________________________________________ 19 5.3.4.1 Commentary on Thomas v Mowbray and Communist Party Case __________________________________ 19 5.4 Disciplining Defence Force Personnel _______________________________________________________ 19 5.5 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 20 5.5.1 Woman’s Employment Case (1943)______________________________________________________________ 20 5.5.2 Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) ________________________________________________________________ 20 5.5.3 Thomas v Mowbray ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 5.5.4 Farey v Burvett (1916) 21 CLR 433 ______________________________________________________________ 22 5.5.5 Andrews v Howell ____________________________________________________________________________ 23 5.5.6 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth [1951] (“Communist Party Case) __________________________ 23 6 External Affairs s 51 (xxix) : Both Subject Matter & Purposive __________________________________ 25 6.1 Summary Scope and Characterisation _______________________________________________________ 25 6.1.1 Geographic Externality ________________________________________________________________________ 25 6.1.2 International Comity _________________________________________________________________________ 26 6.1.3 International Concerns ________________________________________________________________________ 26 6.1.4 Implementation of international instruments ______________________________________________________ 26 6.1.4.1 Conformality Doctrine (Current Test) ________________________________________________________ 27 o 2 parts in the conformity doctrine: _________________________________________________________ 27 6.1.4.2 Implementation of treaty in Domestic Laws: __________________________________________________ 27 6.1.4.3 International law’s impact constitutional interpretation:_________________________________________ 28 6.2 Limitations ___________________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3 Key Cases ____________________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3.1 R v Sharkey 1949 ____________________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3.2 R v Burgess; Ex Parte Henry ____________________________________________________________________ 28 6.3.3 Richardson v Forestry Commission ______________________________________________________________ 29 6.3.4 Polyhukhovich v The Commonwealth (the War Crimes case) (1991) ____________________________________ 29 6.3.5 Horta v Cth (1994) ___________________________________________________________________________ 30 6.3.6 XYZ v Cth (2003) : (which affirmed the test in the Industrial Relations Act Case) __________________________ 30 6.3.7 Pape v Commissioner of Taxation _______________________________________________________________ 30 6.3.8 Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) ______________________________________________________________ 31 6.3.9 Teoh v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) ____________________________________________ 31 6.3.10 Commonwealth
Recommended publications
  • The Section 92 Revolution

    The Section 92 Revolution

    Encounters with Constitutional Interpretation and Legal Education (2018) James Stellios (ed) Chapter 1 The Section 92 Revolution The Hon Stephen Gageler Nothing could be more disappointing to a legal scholar than to labour over the produc- tion of a treatise on an area of law only to see that treatise almost immediately rendered redundant by a revolutionary decision of an ultimate court. Equally and oppositely, nothing could be more satisfying to a young, ambitious and energetic legal scholar than to take part in the litigation which produces a revolutionary decision of an ultimate court on a topic squarely within his or her field of expertise. Michael Coper experienced the disappointment and the satisfaction. As a junior academic at the University of New South Wales, he turned his doctoral thesis entitled The Judicial Interpretation of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution into a 400-page book, which he published in 1983 as Freedom of Interstate Trade under the Australian Constitution. Just four years later, he accepted a brief to appear with Ron Sackville as junior counsel to the Solicitor-General for New South Wales, Keith Mason QC, on behalf of the Attorney-General for New South Wales intervening in the hearing before the High Court of Cole v Whitfield.1 When Cole v Whitfield was decided in 1988, his academic thesis was largely vindicated, the complexities of the case law which he had sought to tease apart and critique were largely swept away. As the result of the publication of that single judgment, his detailed, insightful and colourfully written book was destined immediately to be remaindered.
  • Williams V Commonwealth: Commonwealth Executive Power

    Williams V Commonwealth: Commonwealth Executive Power

    CASE NOTE WILLIAMS v COMMONWEALTH* COMMONWEALTH EXECUTIVE POWER AND AUSTRALIAN FEDERALISM SHIPRA CHORDIA, ** ANDREW LYNCH† AND GEORGE WILLIAMS‡ A majority of the High Court in Williams v Commonwealth held that the Common- wealth executive does not have a general power to enter into contracts and spend public money absent statutory authority or some other recognised source of power. This article surveys the Court’s reasoning in reaching this surprising conclusion. It also considers the wider implications of the case for federalism in Australia. In particular, it examines: (1) the potential use of s 96 grants to deliver programs that have in the past been directly funded by Commonwealth executive contracts; and (2) the question of whether statutory authority may be required for the Commonwealth executive to participate in inter- governmental agreements. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 190 II Background ............................................................................................................... 191 III Preliminary Issues .................................................................................................... 194 A Standing ........................................................................................................ 194 B Section 116 ................................................................................................... 196 C Validity of Appropriation ..........................................................................
  • Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts?

    Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts?

    Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts? Kcasey McLoughlin BA (Hons) LLB (Hons) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, the University of Newcastle January 2016 Statement of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University's Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Kcasey McLoughlin ii Acknowledgments I am most grateful to my principal supervisor, Jim Jose, for his unswerving patience, willingness to share his expertise and for the care and respect he has shown for my ideas. His belief in challenging disciplinary boundaries, and seemingly limitless generosity in mentoring others to do so has sustained me and this thesis. I am honoured to have been in receipt of his friendship, and owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for his unstinting support, assistance and encouragement. I am also grateful to my co-supervisor, Katherine Lindsay, for generously sharing her expertise in Constitutional Law and for fostering my interest in the High Court of Australia and the judges who sit on it. Her enthusiasm, very helpful advice and intellectual guidance were instrumental motivators in completing the thesis. The Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Newcastle has provided a supportive, collaborative and intellectual space to share and debate my research.
  • Wilkie V Commonwealth and Glenn Ryall Parliamentary Control of Appropriations

    Wilkie V Commonwealth and Glenn Ryall Parliamentary Control of Appropriations

    Wilkie v Commonwealth and Glenn Ryall Parliamentary Control of Appropriations In September 2017 the High Court rejected two challenges to the legality of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey in Wilkie v Commonwealth. From the Parliament’s perspective this case was significant as it canvassed important issues relating to the Parliament’s role in appropriating money, particularly for urgent expenditure. This paper will briefly outline Parliament’s role in making appropriations and then consider the significance of the case to the extent that it emphasised that it is largely the role of the Parliament (and not the courts) to exercise control over appropriations. The paper concludes with a discussion of some options to increase parliamentary oversight of the appropriation mechanism known as the Advance to the Finance Minister (the Advance). Background The proceedings challenged the lawfulness of measures taken by the Commonwealth Government ‘to direct and to fund the conduct of a [voluntary] survey of the views of Australian electors on the question of whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry’.1 These measures followed the defeat in the Senate2 of a government bill—the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016—which would have authorised the holding of a compulsory plebiscite and appropriated the funds to pay for it.3 The plaintiffs’ arguments While the challenges also raised issues such as standing and the scope of the functions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), of particular relevance to the Parliament was the plaintiffs’ challenge to the mechanism used to fund the survey— a determination made under section 10 of Appropriation Act (No.
  • First Nations and the NSW Bar

    First Nations and the NSW Bar

    THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2018 barTHE JOURNAL OFnews THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2018 news THE JOURNAL OF NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2018 bar First Nations and the NSW Bar PLUS Implied terms of fact: counsel’s last resort Robert Stephen Toner (1951-2018) CONTENTS THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2018 2 EDITOR’S NOTE 4 PRESIDENT’S COLUMN 6 NEWS ABA-High Court Dinner & High Court silks bows ceremony John Shaw - 50 years at the NSW Bar EDITORIAL COMMITTEE 9 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Ingmar Taylor SC (chair) 10 OPINION Anthony Cheshire SC Intersectionality at the NSW Bar Dominic Villa Mr Dutton and the ‘lily-livered judges’ Christopher Withers Nicolas Kirby 14 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Daniel Klineberg Catherine Gleeson 26 ADDRESSES Victoria Brigden Advocacy and unthinkable challenges Caroline Dobraszczyk Talitha Fishburn The people are not instruments Juliet Curtin The Ninian Stephen Lecture Radhika Withana David Robertson 36 FEATURES Kevin Tang First Nations and the NSW Bar Alexander Edwards Memories of the Liberation of Walgett Charles Gregory Bar Association staff member: The Uluru Statement Chris Winslow Sol Bellear: Memories of the Redfern Speech ISSN 0817-0002 Native title compensation claims 56 PRACTICE Views expressed by contributors to Bar News are not necessarily A different seat in the courtroom those of the New South Wales Practising at the London Bar Bar Association. Genderfluidity and the law Contributions are welcome and Paperless trials should be addressed to the editor: Ingmar Taylor SC Implied terms of fact: counsel’s last resort Greenway Chambers 76 LEGAL HISTORY L10 99 Elizabeth Street Sydney 2000 The Doctor’s Commons DX 165 Sydney 79 PROFILES Contributions may be subject to editing prior to publication, at the 84 WHO IS A BARRISTER? discretion of the editor.
  • THE UNIVERSITY of WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW Volume 42(1) May 2017

    THE UNIVERSITY of WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW Volume 42(1) May 2017

    THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW Volume 42(1) May 2017 Articles Ministerial Advisers and the Australian Constitution Yee‐Fui Ng .............................................................................................................. 1 All-Embracing Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation & ‘Moderate Originalism’ Stephen Puttick ........................................................................................................ 30 A Proportionate Burden: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Optional Preferential Voting Eric Chan ................................................................................................................ 57 London & New Mashonaland Exploration Co Ltd v New Mashonaland Exploration Co Ltd: Is It Authority That Directors Can Compete with the Company? Dominique Le Miere ............................................................................................... 98 Claims Relating to Possession of a Ship: Wilmington Trust Company (Trustee) v The Ship “Houston” [2016] FCA 1349 Mohammud Jaamae Hafeez‐Baig and Jordan English ......................................... 128 Intimidation, Consent and the Role of Holistic Judgments in Australian Rape Law Jonathan Crowe and Lara Sveinsson..................................................................... 136 Young Offenders Act 1984 (WA), Section 126 Special Orders: Extra Punitive Sentencing Legislation for Juveniles’ Craig Astill and William Yoo .......................................................................... 155 From Down
  • Download This PDF File

    Download This PDF File

    GRIFFITH JOURNAL OF LAW & HUMAN DIGNITY GRIFFITH JOURNAL OF LAW & HUMAN DIGNITY Editor-in-Chief Leanne Mahly Executive Editors Vanessa Antal Mark Batakin Jacklin Molla Lisa Neubert Editors Gian Chung Ana-Catarina De Sousa Elizabeth Danaher Rebecca Durbin Jessica Farrell Charlotte Fitzgerald Danyon Jacobs Dillon Mahly Consulting Executive Editor Dr Allan Ardill Volume 6 Issue 2 2018 Published in February 2019, Gold Coast, Australia by the Griffith Journal of Law& Human Dignity ISSN: 2203-3114 CONTENTS THE HON MICHAEL BEYOND MARRIAGE EQUALITY & SKIN CURLING 1 KIRBY AC CMG SUZANNE BELTON, A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FRAMEWORK SUPPORTING LAW REFORM ON 25 FELICITY GERRY QC & TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF VIRGINIA STULZ AUSTRALIA PETER KURTI WHY DIGNITY IS A POOR REASON TO LEGALISE ASSISTED SUICIDE 54 JULIAN MCKINLAY KING WEST PAPUA EXPOSED: AN ABANDONED NON-SELF-GOVERNING OR 70 WITH ANDREW JOHNSON TRUST TERRITORY JOY TWEMLOW MADE BY THEM, FOLLOWED BY US: CHALLENGING THE PERCEPTION OF 107 LAW THROUGH THE DECONSTRUCTION OF JURISPRUDENTIAL ASSUMPTIONS BEYOND MARRIAGE EQUALITY & SKIN CURLING* THE HON MICHAEL KIRBY AC CMG** December 2017 marked the culmination of a tedious process which lead to the enactment by the Australian federal Parliament of long overdue amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). However, the anomalous approach in the form of a public postal vote that was employed in deciding whether a minority of citizens should be afforded equal civil rights to other citizens highlighted and exacerbated the vulnerability experienced by the very subjects it sought to redress. Nonetheless, in reminiscing about the significant changes that I have witnessed in my lifetime regarding alleviation of the uniquely hostile discrimination against LGBTIQ citizens is doubtless a step in the right direction and can make us optimistic about times to come, but also impatient to complete these changes in the hope that similar discrimination and injustices circumvented in times to come — and for generations to come.
  • Williams V Commonwealth: Much Ado About Nothing

    Williams V Commonwealth: Much Ado About Nothing

    WILLIAMS V COMMONWEALTH: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING * ANDREW HEMMING In Williams v Commonwealth,1 Heydon J’s dissenting judgment is to be preferred to those of the majority and, in any event, the Commonwealth’s response contained in s 32B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) does provide the necessary statutory umbrella to validate expenditure to the myriad of programs listed in Schedule 1AA . This is no different to the notion of a General Contracts Act proposed by Sir Owen Dixon to the 1929 Royal Commission on the Constitution of the Commonwealth. It will also be contended that critics of the Commonwealth’s solution to Williams are wedded to an anachronistic view of the Constitution. The High Court has, since 1920, consistently given a broad interpretation to the heads of power contained in s 51 of the Constitution, supplemented by a carte blanche interpretation of the grants power under s 96. Section 32B is the next logical step in an efficient distribution of Commonwealth funds whose sole constitutional ‘sin’ appears to be that of by-passing the States. Just as the Senate is no longer the States’ House, so too the States are no longer the bulwark against a rampant Commonwealth. The programs listed in Schedule 1AA of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) benefit all Australians, and there is no valid reason why such expenditure should be channeled through the States. I INTRODUCTION Let me be that I am and seek not to alter me.2 In Williams v Commonwealth,3 a majority (6:1) of the High Court held that a funding agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Scripture Union of Queensland (SUQ), for the provision of chaplaincy services at a State school in Queensland, was invalid.
  • Crown and Sword: Executive Power and the Use of Force by The

    Crown and Sword: Executive Power and the Use of Force by The

    CROWN AND SWORD EXECUTIVE POWER AND THE USE OF FORCE BY THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE CROWN AND SWORD EXECUTIVE POWER AND THE USE OF FORCE BY THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE CAMERON MOORE Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Creator: Moore, Cameron, author. Title: Crown and sword : executive power and the use of force by the Australian Defence Force / Cameron Moore. ISBN: 9781760461553 (paperback) 9781760461560 (ebook) Subjects: Australia. Department of Defence. Executive power--Australia. Internal security--Australia. Australia--Armed Forces. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover photographs by Søren Niedziella flic.kr/p/ ahroZv and Kurtis Garbutt flic.kr/p/9krqeu. This edition © 2017 ANU Press Contents Prefatory Notes . vii List of Maps . ix Introduction . 1 1 . What is Executive Power? . 7 2 . The Australian Defence Force within the Executive . 79 3 . Martial Law . 129 4 . Internal Security . 165 5 . War . 205 6 . External Security . 253 Conclusion: What are the Limits? . 307 Bibliography . 313 Prefatory Notes Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the tremendous and unflagging support of my family and friends, my supervisors and my colleagues in the writing of this book. It has been a long journey and I offer my profound thanks.
  • 'Executive Power' Issue of the UWA Law Review

    'Executive Power' Issue of the UWA Law Review

    THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW Volume 43(2) March 2018 EXECUTIVE POWER ISSUE Introduction Dr Murray Wesson ............................................................................................................. 1 Executive Power in Australia - Nurtured and Bound in Anxiety The Hon Robert French AC ............................................................................................ 16 The Strange Death of Prerogative in England Thomas Poole .................................................................................................................... 42 Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action: Australia and the United Kingdom Amanda Sapienza .............................................................................................................. 67 Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution and an 'Historical Constitutional Approach': An Excursus on Justice Gageler's Reasoning in the M68 Case Peter Gerangelos ............................................................................................................. 103 Nationhood and Section 61 of the Constitution Dr Peta Stephenson ........................................................................................................ 149 Finding the Streams' True Sources: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication and Executive Power Joshua Forrester, Lorraine Finlay and Augusto Zimmerman .................................. 188 A Comment on How the Implied Freedom of Political Communication Restricts Non-Statutory Executive Power
  • The High Court on Constitutional Law: the 2017 Statistics

    The High Court on Constitutional Law: the 2017 Statistics

    1134 UNSW Law Journal Volume 41(4) THE HIGH COURT ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE 2017 STATISTICS ANDREW LYNCH* AND GEORGE WILLIAMS** This article presents data on the High Court’s decision-making in 2017, examining institutional and individual levels of unanimity, concurrence and dissent. It does so in the context of the elevation of a new Chief Justice to lead the Court and the appointment of a new member to the bench at the commencement of the year. Recent public statements on the Court’s decision-making practices by the new Chief Justice and others inform discussion of the statistics. This article is the latest instalment in a series of annual studies conducted by the authors since 2003. I INTRODUCTION This article reports the way in which the High Court as an institution and its individual judges decided the matters that came before them in 2017. The year was a significant one in the Court’s history as it entered a new era under a new Chief Justice. Susan Kiefel is only the 13th incumbent of that office and the first woman to be sworn in as the leader of the High Court of Australia. The year was notable in other respects. Justice James Edelman began his service on the High Court. At age 43, he is the youngest person appointed to its bench since 1930 and the fourth youngest ever. Accordingly, 2017 may be the first year of a judicial career on the Court that will continue until Justice Edelman reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70 years in 2043.
  • The Intentions of the Framers of the Australian Constitution Regarding

    The Intentions of the Framers of the Australian Constitution Regarding

    THE INTENTIONS OF THE FRAMERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION REGARDING RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH EXECUTIVE TO THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE __________________________________________________ Karena Viglianti-Northway University of Technology Sydney Faculty of Law 8 April 2020 ‘the colonial upper houses were an important influence on the design of the Australian Senate … and have assisted the maintenance of a culture of strong bicameralism which has supported a major and growing role for the Senate. It is too often overlooked in Australia that the institutions of national government devised in the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s were not built from scratch but were powerfully shaped by the traditions of Australian colonial constitutionalism, within which strong elective upper houses were a prominent feature.’ Bruce Stone, ‘Bicameralism and Democracy: the Transformation of Australian State Upper Houses’ (Pt 2) (2002) 37 Political Science 267, 268 ii ABSTRACT This thesis aims to uncover the extent to which the framers of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia conceived of the Commonwealth Executive as politically accountable to the Australian Senate. It explores how, through key financial controls, the political accountability of the Commonwealth Executive to the Senate was incorporated into the Constitution by the framers, not just in pursuit of federal concerns but also in pursuit of broader aims of accountability sourced in the role and benefits of upper chambers in bicameral parliamentary systems. This reflected the form of strong bicameralism with which the framers were most familiar through their own experience of constitutional practice in Australia’s colonial parliaments. The thesis also considers the continuing relevance of the aims of dual accountability from Australian constitutional history to the High Court’s interpretation of the need to protect a line of accountability to upper chambers in Australia.