DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Reform a State Without the Means of Some Change Is Penaltty Or Instalment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Reform a State Without the Means of Some Change Is Penaltty Or Instalment [1986] Reform 21 count such other matters as may be consid­ they would have a reasonable chance to ar­ ered rrelevant. There is no positive require­ range a suitable method of payment. ment Ifor the court to allow time to pay. Even if reqiuested to do so, the court need not allow Those critical of the legislation say that de­ the offfender time if it is satisfied that the de- faulters are treated as criminals and are fendaint has sufficient means to pay or there sometimes placed in maximum security pris­ are, iin the opinion of the court, ‘special ons. Usually the amounts owed were small — reasoms for not allowing any time for pay­ less than $200 — but it costs the taxpayer $85 ment’.. But the court must state those reasons. a day to keep a defaulter in gaol. The Victorian Court also retains a discretion whethier to order the defendant to pay costs. According to the Minister for Corrective Ser­ vices, Mr Akister, community service orders, Prisom is only one of a number of alternatives although an excellent form of punishment, whichi a Victorian court can choose once de­ were not suitable for short term sentences be­ fault (occurs for one month; but a defaulter cause of the time needed to organise training. canno)t be imprisoned if they satisfy the court that tlhey do not have the capacity to pay the constitutional reform A state without the means of some change is penaltty or instalment. Other alternatives without the means of its conservation. open 1 to the court are: Edmund Burke, Reflections on the ® distress; Revolution in France (1790) © community service order; o vary the instalment order; corrigenda. The limited resources of the © adjourn the matter for up to six Australian Law Reform Commission enforce months. reliance on the press for the basic informa­ tion contained in articles for Reform. Dr Cheryl Saunders of Melbourne University Even where the court orders distress and no has been good enough to point out the goods; can be found the court may choose be- following errors which occurred as a result of tweem imprisonment and community service. this method of collecting information in the article on constitutional reform in the Octo­ The Mew South Wales amendments offer far ber 1985 issue of Reform: less c:hoice than the Victorian Act. On de­ fault, the court may issue a warrant to com­ • The proposal for an Australian Con­ mit thie defendant to prison or may give the stitutional Convention Council which offencder another chance to pay or vary the was attributed to the Victorian terms of payment and cancel the warrant. Attorney-General Mr Kennan was in The Mew South Wales legislation is con­ fact moved by the Victorian Deputy spicuous in the lack of alternatives to pay­ Premier Mr Fordham and seconded ment <or imprisonment. by the then Opposition Shadow Attorney-General Mr Brown although The Mew South Wales amendments, unlike Mr Kennan spoke to the motion. the Viictorian Act, rule out any appeal against an imiprisonment order for failure to comply • The Convention in fact passed the with p3ayment of a fine. motion in favour of providing a right for a majority of States to initiate re­ The Mew South Wales Attorney-General, Mr ferenda. Terry Sheahan, has supported the legislation saying that imprisonment would be retained addenda. Dr Saunders also provided the as thee ultimate sanction for defaulters but following information: [1986] Reform 28 © The Australian Constitutional Con­ lawyers, academics, businessmen, trade vention Council has had its first meet­ unionists, media figures (to assist in publicis­ ing and the Victorian Premier Mr Cain ing constitutional reform) and others. The has been elected Chairman. The Aust­ commission is to report by June, 1988. (Age, 3 ralian Government was represented at December, 1985). the meeting although its attitude to the Council has still not been finally deter­ The other development is that the Common­ mined. wealth Parliament has passed the Australia © The Convention passed a resolution Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) that the Commonwealth should, with­ Bill which are necessary to implement the in 12 months of the conclusion of a agreement between the Federal Government, plenary session of the Convention, the State Governments, the British Govern­ make a statement to the Parliament ment and the Queen to sever the residual con­ concerning its response to the propo­ stitutional links between Australia and Brit­ sals passed by the Convention. ain. The Bill was passed by the Senate on 2 © The proposal for fixed term Parlia­ December, 1985 having passed the House of ments can be traced back to the work Representatives the previous week. (Age, 3 of the Convention. The idea was ap­ December, 1985). proved at the 1983 Plenary session of the Constitutional Convention and commercial disputes centre was first taken up by Victoria in 1984. Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites. It’s not in my power to decide such a great dispute between you. There have been two further developments in Vergil, Eclogues, iii, 108 the area of constitutional reform. On 25th September 1985 the New South Federal Cabinet has approved the nomina­ Wales Attorney-General Mr Terry Sheehan tion by the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, of announced plans to establish a Commercial six people to form the commission to draw Disputes Centre in Sydney (Australian Finan­ up a revised Constitution. They are former cial Review, 26 September, 1985). The New Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, former Vic­ South Wales Government is to fund the torian Premier Sir Rupert Hamer, Sir centre which is intended to provide parties to Maurice Byers, a former Commonwealth commercial disputes with a method of resolv­ Solicitor-General, now at the Sydney Bar, ing those disputes which is faster and cheaper Professor Leslie Zines, Dean of the Law Fac­ than commercial litigation. It is hoped that ulty of the Australian National University, the Centre will serve as a forum not only for Professor Enid Campbell of the Law Faculty the domestic business sector but for the entire at Monash University and Mr Justice John Asia-Pacific region. The Victorian Govern­ Toohey of the Federal Court. The possibility ment has similar hopes for the Australian of appointing Malcolm Fraser was excluded Centre for International Commercial Arbi­ when Mr Fraser was appointed to the Com­ tration located in Melbourne which was offi­ monwealth Committee on South Africa. Mr cially opened by the Victorian Attorney- Whitlam’s term as Ambassador to the United General Mr Kennan in August. Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation is due to expire during 1986. The New South Wales Government has ap­ The Chairman will be Sir Maurice Byers, a pointed a committee of experts to review the former part-time member of the ALRC. needs to be catered for by the new Centre. The committee is chaired by the Chief Justice Mr Bowen proposes that the Commission be Sir Laurence Street and also has Justices assisted by a wider group of about 36 people, Rogers and Smart as members. Mr Michael split into about 6 committees and including Ahrens a partner of the law firm Baker and.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Devil's Triangle
    THE DEVIL’S TRIANGLE Civil liberties and the relationship between the law, the media and the parliament Bob Debus Attorney General of New South Wales 2000-2007 Sir Frank Kitto Lecture, University of New England, November 23rd 2012. This Lecture commemorates the great figure in Australian legal history Justice Sir Frank Kitto, who served on The High Court of Australia from 1950 to 1970 and was thereupon elected Chancellor of this University. As long ago as 1998 Justice Michael Kirby used this lecture to describe not only Sir Frank’s contribution to the law but his high integrity, demonstrated for instance, in the unequivocal judgment in which he joined the majority in Communist the seminal decision to strike down the Menzies Government’s Party Dissolution Act 1950. It was the beginning of the Cold War but Kitto was immune to the politics of the situation: “…it may have been thought (although never said in those more graceful days) that Justice Kitto was a ‘capital C conservative’. His skills were in the black letter law… He had just succeeded in a substantial brief for the banks in striking down the nationalisation scheme of the former Labor Government. Yet in less than a year, he performed his function as a judge of our highest court, in accordance with his understanding of the law and the Constitution precisely and only as his learning and 1 conscience dictated.” In the period 1976 to 1982 he was inaugural Chairman of The Australian Press Council. I venture to believe that he may have grudgingly approved the national defamation law finally achieved by the Commonwealth and State Attorneys General in 2005 after years of difficult negotiation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Governor-General
    Chapter Eight The Role of the Governor-General Sir David Smith, KCVO, AO My brief is to speak about the role of the Governor-General, as we know that office today. I shall speak about the history of the office, about the duties of the office, and about current proposals to alter the Australian Constitution by changing its provisions relating to the office. Foremost among the reasons given for constitutional change is the claim that the republic will give us an Australian Head of State. This claim is as mischievous as it is dishonest. Its success is dependent on the notorious ignorance of the vast majority of Australians about their Constitution. 1 The truth is that Australia has two Heads of State. The Queen is our symbolic Head of State, the Governor-General is our constitutional Head of State, and we have had Australians in the office of Governor-General since Lord Casey's appointment in 1965. The claim that the Governor-General is our constitutional Head of State is not some bizarre theory dreamed up for the purposes of the current debate, for it has been so since the beginning of federation, and there is much supporting evidence, both anecdotal and legal. A Canadian Governor-General, Lord Dufferin, described a Governor-General as a constitutional Head of State in a speech given in 1873. 2 Even Paul Keating referred to the Governor-General as our Head of State in the very speech in which he announced in Parliament on 7 June, 1995 his Government's proposals for the republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Victorian Bar News
    ISSUE 153 WINTER 2013 VICTORIAN The Formidable Sir Hayden Starke By JD Merralls BAR Legal Aid in NEWS Chronic Decline Punch Drunk The Paris Bar The Law of Drugs in Sport A Study in Contradictions QC or not QC? IBAC A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing? 153 The 2013 Victorian Bar Dinner All the Highlights and Photos BAR MEMBERS... SAVE THOUSANDS ON ANY NEW CAR Save time and money by buying your next new car Should you have a trade-in or require nance and through your own personal buyer’s advocate. insurance, your consultant will be able to ensure that Members can now enjoy the eet-buying power of MBA the entire process can be completed simply, with Car Assist. Vehicles are purchased at signicant savings maximum savings of your time and money. over the retail prices, whilst avoiding all the hassles and To ensure you’re getting the absolute best price for your upsells of the dealership sales process. We also arrange new vehicle, your personal consultant will include a all of the paperwork and keep you updated on the number of dierent dealerships (including your local) in progress of your vehicle’s preparation or production. the tender process, with each competing for your Your new car is even delivered to your home or work business. with a full tank of fuel. So how does it work? MBA Car Assist purchases new Are you looking to buy a new luxury vehicle from BMW, vehicles every week, which gives them access to eet Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Mini, Lexus, Jaguar, Land Rover or pricing.
    [Show full text]
  • Murray Gleeson the Smiler
    BOOK REVIEWS Murray Gleeson The Smiler By Michael Pelly | The Federation Press | 2014 On 27 May 2014 the Hon James Spigelman AC QC delivered the following speech at the launch of Michael Pelly’s book Murray Gleeson The Smiler before a full house in Queens Square. in Kabuki theatre. Anyone who has professional trajectory is a chronology experienced that genre will know that the of the luminaries of the Sydney Bar: Japanese audience will wait breathlessly Garfield Barwick, Jack Cassidy, Jack for, say, the middle of Act 2 when the Smythe, Nigel Bowen, Bill Deane, Tony lead actor performs The Look. It is a great Mason, Maurice Byers, Laurence Street, tribute to that nation’s cultural unity that Michael Kirby, Michael McHugh, Roddy every member of the audience knows it is Meagher, Tom Hughes, Bob Ellicott, coming. If executed perfectly, The Look Mary Gaudron, Bill Gummow, Dyson will draw shouts of encouragement from Heydon, Dennis Mahoney, David Hunt, the audience – such as ‘matte imashita’ Ken Handley, Roger Gyles, Peter Young, – ‘We have been waiting!’ – by way of Graham Hill, Terry Cole, Bob Stitt, applause. Murray was always content with David Jackson. Each person on this list a shudder. features in the book as an actor; some as a commentator. To the ‘stare’ anecdotes in the book, I will add one. As chief justice, Murray sat as This extraordinary range of talent deserves a trial judge in murder trials – something emphasis. For it was out of this ruck that I never dared to do. As I recall the story, Murray Gleeson rose to pre-eminence as the first such occasion was in Taree, a an advocate, as a leader of the profession I am constrained by the subject matter triumphal return to his home district.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Parliamentary Disqualification Provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution*
    Who May Sit? An Examination of the Parliamentary Disqualification Provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution* John Kalokerinos THE PLACE OF SECTION 44 IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY The right to choose political representatives is a fundamental right of the citizens of a democratic polity. Section 441 of the Commonwealth Constitution sets out the disqualification provisions for persons seeking to sit in the Senate or the House of Representatives in order to ensure that Australia’s parliamentarians have an undivided loyalty to Australia and to the Parliament. Using the 1890s Convention Debates, decisions of the Court of Disputed Returns, government reports, and academic commentary, this paper explores the purposes and justification for s 44, and its operation in the contemporary Australian context, to argue that reform is necessary. The paper reviews the latest developments in this dynamic area of the law, examining the most recent litigation, including the Hill2 decision. Particular consideration is given to Sykes v Cleary,3 where the High Court held that three of the candidates for election to the seat of Wills were ineligible, raising the question whether this rate of disqualification is extraordinary or simply demonstrative of the pressing need for reform of s 44. * This is an edited version of an Honours Thesis submitted for the Research Unit, Faculty of Law, the Australian National University, June 2000. 1 The full text of ss 44 and 45 is set out in the Appendix below. 2 Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648. 3 Sykes v Cleary (1992) 176 CLR 77. I conclude that the existing disqualifications are deficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Profit Under the Crown
    RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2017–18 14 JUNE 2018 Office of profit under the Crown Professor Anne Twomey, University of Sydney Law School Executive summary • Section 44(iv) of the Constitution provides that a person is incapable of being chosen as a Member of Parliament if he or she holds an ‘office of profit under the Crown’. This is also a ground for disqualification from office for existing members and senators under section 45. There has been considerable uncertainty about what is meant by holding an office of profit under the Crown. • First the person must hold an ‘office’. This is a position to which duties attach of a work-like nature. It is usually, but not always the case, that the office continues to exist independently of the person who holds it. However, a person on the ‘unattached’ list of the public service still holds an office. • Second, it must be an ‘office of profit’. This means that some form of ‘profit’ or remuneration must attach to the office, regardless of whether or not that profit is transferred to the office- holder. Reimbursement of actual expenses does not amount to ‘profit’, but a public servant who is on leave without pay or an office-holder who declines to accept a salary or allowances still holds an office of profit. The source of the profit does not matter. Even if it comes from fees paid by members of the public or other private sources, as long as the profit is attached to the office, that is sufficient. • Third, the office of profit must be ‘under the Crown’.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel Griffith Society Proceedings Vol 2
    Proceedings of the Second Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Two The Windsor Hotel, Melbourne; 30 July - 1 August 1993 Copyright 1993 by The Samuel Griffith Society. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Foreword (P4) John Stone Foreword Dinner Address (P5) The Hon. Jeff Kennett, MLA; Premier of Victoria The Crown and the States Introductory Remarks (P14) John Stone Introductory Chapter One (P15) Dr Frank Knopfelmacher The Crown in a Culturally Diverse Australia Chapter Two (P18) John Hirst The Republic and our British Heritage Chapter Three (P23) Jack Waterford Australia's Aborigines and Australian Civilization: Cultural Relativism in the 21st Century Chapter Four (P34) The Hon. Bill Hassell Mabo and Federalism: The Prospect of an Indigenous People's Treaty Chapter Five (P47) The Hon. Peter Connolly, CBE, QC Should Courts Determine Social Policy? Chapter Six (P58) S E K Hulme, AM, QC The High Court in Mabo Chapter Seven (P79) Professor Wolfgang Kasper Making Federalism Flourish Chapter Eight (P84) The Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE The Threat to Federalism Chapter Nine (P88) Dr Colin Howard Australia's Diminishing Sovereignty Chapter Ten (P94) The Hon. Peter Durack, QC What is to be Done? Chapter Eleven (P99) John Paul The 1944 Referendum Appendix I (P113) Contributors Appendix II (P116) The Society's Statement of Purposes Published 1993 by The Samuel Griffith Society P O Box 178, East Melbourne Victoria 3002 Printed by: McPherson's Printing Pty Ltd 5 Dunlop Rd, Mulgrave, Vic 3170 National Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Proceedings of The Samuel Griffith Society Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Two ISBN 0 646 15439 7 Foreword John Stone Copyright 1993 by The Samuel Griffith Society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Advocates Sir Maurice Byers Lecture
    Legal Change — The Role of Advocates Sir Maurice Byers Lecture Chief Justice Robert French AC 22 June 2016, Sydney Introduction I learned from Maurice Byers a great advocate's perspective on the High Court — 'they're just chaps Bob, just chaps' — or so he told me, as we prepared for the hearing in Koowarta v Bjelke-Peterson1 in 1982. As a description of the gender of the Court it was accurate. I learned from him in Fencott v Muller2 in 1983 that one line of dismissive humour could do more for a wide view of the corporations power than an hour of earnest argument. In 1986 on my appointment to the Federal Court he sent me a note expressing confidence that I would eventually be appointed to the High Court. Perhaps he was encouraging me to stay on for the long haul and was relying upon the proposition, a little like the one about monkeys typing Shakespeare, that given enough time almost anything has a finite probability of happening. Six years later, in 1993, I barely found the strength, when he appeared before me for the plaintiff in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth,3 on remitter from the High Court in all respects save for the constitutional question, to resist his siren song invitation to have a go at the constitutional question anyway. Our encounters were brief, but each a delight in its own way. I have been invited to present many lectures named after significant legal personalities. None has given me greater pleasure than the invitation to present this the 16th Lecture in the series established by the New South Wales Bar Association to honour his memory.
    [Show full text]
  • '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
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan William Haddrick LLB Jamescook, LLM Qldut, Graddiplegprac ANU
    The Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth: The Relationship between the Prerogatives of the Crown and the Executive Power of the Commonwealth Ryan William Haddrick LLB JamesCook, LLM QldUT, GradDipLegPrac ANU A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2017 T.C. Beirne School of Law i ii ABSTRACT The orthodox view is that the prerogatives of the Crown are textually incorporated, or sourced, in the language of s 61 of the Australian Constitution. This work challenges that assumption by examining the text, structure and history of ss 2, 61 and 64 of the Constitution. In particular, the inclusion of the words “under the Crown” and “shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth” in the preamble and s 64 respectively are, it is argued, textual indicators (and devices) that the prerogative is textually recognised or affirmed by those provisions, and ought to be seen as emanating from the Crown, and recognised by common law – and not as emanating from s 61 of the Constitution. Having argued that the executive power of the Commonwealth (that is, s 61) is not the textual source, or recognition, of the prerogatives of the Crown, this dissertation then posits a theory as to how s 61 should be construed. True to its Montesquieuian heritage, it is argued that the executive power of the Commonwealth ought to be understood in a functionalist sense. The evidence considered to support these propositions is the text, structure and history of the constitutional provisions. In particular, this dissertation examines the historical concept of the prerogatives of the Crown; the way that body of constitutional doctrine became part of the Australian constitutional landscape; and how the prerogative was understood to operate in pre-Federation Imperial and colonial case law.
    [Show full text]
  • An Australian Head of State: an Historical and Contemporary Perspective
    An Australian Head of State: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective An Australian Head of State: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective 1 Sir David Smith Today’s lecture on the topic of ‘An Australian Head of State: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective’ follows the lecture given earlier this year by Senator Baden Teague on the topic of ‘An Australian Head of State: The Contemporary Debate’.2 In his lecture Senator Teague spoke of the Queen as our head of state and argued for her replacement by an Australian head of state. In his replies to questions after the lecture he spoke of the Governor-General as our head of state. The switch from Queen to Governor-General was entirely automatic and unselfconscious. Senator Teague is not alone in his ambivalence. After Mr Bill Hayden’s speech to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians earlier this year, the Australian published an edited version under the heading ‘The Governor-General has made one of the most controversial speeches ever delivered by an Australian head of State’.3 The next day’s editorial in the same newspaper said that ‘it is perfectly appropriate at this stage of our constitutional development that the head of State address important issues of social policy’.4 These media references to the Governor-General as head of state are not just a recent phenomenon: for example, the 1 I am indebted to the Dean of the Faculty of Law, the Australian National University, for his great courtesy in extending to me the hospitality of the Law School to enable me to carry out the research for this lecture and other writings.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Maurice Byers Kt CBE QC 10 November 1917 – 17 January 1999 President of the New South Wales Bar Association, November 1965 – November 1967
    Stop Press No. 58, February 1999 Sir Maurice Byers Kt CBE QC 10 November 1917 – 17 January 1999 President of the New South Wales Bar Association, November 1965 – November 1967 On the 17 January 1999 the New South Wales Bar lost one of its most senior members and one of its most devout and articulate supporters. He was also one of the finest lawyers ever to practise in this country. After attending St Aloysius College, Sir Maurice took his law degree at the University of Sydney and was admitted to the Bar on the 26th May 1944. He practiced initially from University Chambers at 167 Phillip Street. In 1957 he moved to the 10th floor of the then newly built Wentworth Chambers where he joined, amongst others, John Kerr QC and Gough Whitlam. His practice as a junior and later as a Silk was primarily in the fields of equity, taxation, company and constitutional law and he appeared frequently before the Privy Council. He took Silk in 1960 and continued his extensive practice at the private bar until he was appointed Solicitor General for the Commonwealth in 1973 which office he held for 10 years. He was President of the Bar in the years 1966 and 1967. In his long career at the Bar both as Commonwealth Solicitor-General and in private practice there was virtually no constitutional law case of any moment in which he was not involved. He had as much to do as anyone who lived in the twentieth century with the exploration of the Constitution. His arguments were disarming, innovative and succinct.
    [Show full text]