DOCSLIB.ORG

Allegation No. 25

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

·I!)> v Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry ·G.P.O. Box 5218, Sydney, N.S.W. 2001. FORMER PAPERS """ .-..... ,,, ·. :·~ . ""·· - ...· . /0§:. _... ··.' . ,, ·. 2 3 4 5 .·. R~ferre~ io '. Folio Referred to Date-.... Cleared ·. - Re$u.bmit No, ·· ALLEGATION NO . 25 / Central Railway Devel opment Enquiries in this matter commenced on Wednesday 31 July, 1986 which included familiarising ourselves with the allegation. On Friday 1 August, 1986 Mr Myers and I interviewed two Directors of a company known as Commuter Terminals Pty. Limited which was commissioned to submit a proposal to the Public Transport Authority on the redevelopment of Central Railway. The two Directors which were interviewed were Mr John Andrews, Architect and Mr Stan Edwards , Builder. Mr Andrews said that he was first approached by a Mr Warwick Colbron, Solicitor to have some drawings made for the redevelopment project. Mr Andrews had not known Colbron prior to this . Stan Edwards was asked by Andrews to determine cost and products estimates and had not known Colbron prior to this venture either . Neither men knew in what capacity Colbron was acting and both commented that he (Colbron) was a name dropper. They further stated that they knew no approaches to public figures (excl uding John Johnston MLA) to have the project accepted or promoted . No mention was made to either per son I, of any approach being mad e.,.. ... to Morgan Ryan or others and no known connection between Warwick Colbron and Abe Saffron. Unf or tuna tely time has not allowed us to interview Mr Warwick Colbron whom I believe to be a major figure in determi ning whether this allegation is worth proceeding with . I cons i der such an interview to be imperative to determine whether Mr Colbron had: ·-·~ 2 (a) ~any connection with Morgan RyanJ and; (b) acted either as an Agent or Solicitor for Abe Saffron. Documents such as files kept by Colbron ' s office re . the Central Railway Development Project and Trust Accounts showing the flow of moneys through his firm of Solicitors would be relevant evidence required should any further investigations be carried out . An attempt was also made to interview various officers of the now State Rail Authority. I rang David Hill ' s office on Tuesday 29 July re . interviewing staff at the Property Branch and himself re . this Inquiry . His Secretary informed me that Hill was overseas f or 1 month and that Mr Pat Johnson was currently acting in his position. I then spoke to a gentleman who was going to contact me again and arrange for these interviews to be made. I later found out that his name was Harley Dreghorne. I rang again on Wednesday 30 July at 10 . 00 a.m . and Mr Dreghorne on was out and I left a message . I again rang at 2.00 p.m. the same day Mr Dreghorne was again not present and I left another message . Other matters t hen became a greater priority and Mr Dreghorne finally returned ~ my call on 5 August, 1986 . He informed me that the Gener a 1 Manager of the Property Branch i s Len Freeman on telephone number He indicated to me that Mr Freeman is available for any interview regarding this matter. It has been indicated to me that the then General Manager of the Property Divis ion, Mr Fred Cl ut ton is dead and no doubt this will leave a considerable gap in any evidence necessary in regard to Mr Murphy's association. Amongst the State Rail Authority file, it is evident that on a number of occasions Mr Neville Wr an, the then Premier had made a number of approaches by way of Ministerial to the offices of the Public Transport Commission concerning the proposals put forward for the 3 developmen t of the Centr al Railway Complex however, I do not beli eve that these approaches were i n any way improper and in fact it would seem that they were done through the proper public channels . One aspect of this matter which appears quite interesting is the fact that Mr Hill at the time of his appointment to a Committee to investigate the development was an employee of t he Premier and it was at his instigation that the proposal to have Commuter Terminals Pty . Limited appointed as t he constructor of the new terminal be in fact cancelled the Public Transport Commission then undertook to subcontract t he work themselves . Stanley Edwards commented that Fred Clutton at this par t icular time was quite critical of David Hill and mentioned that David Hill had certain trips in certain trains at weekends and other facetious comments . -~···- Obviously our investigations have not resolved the background of this allegation and therefore I canno t offer any opinion as to its possible attributes. I reiterrate that Warwick Colbron;--s solicitor appears to be the trump man behind th i s allegation . 'Ihe Hen Mr 1:-i I< Hran r;t:; level 20 Aetna Life TcMer Cnr Elizabeth and Batliurst StreetB SW~ ?.SW 2000 Dear Mr Wran, As you 1r.ay Le dWar~ t.Le: l?c;l.l:lL:.r,~:i~t arf Ccr.; ;.:i.:.. :,:i.cr:. :.."'f Inquiry ~cit.ablish~ I-UJ:tii.w.nt lu ti.,2 Pa:di.:.. ;a.:.iH.i..~i::i Cc.1.r...i:;::..i.0~1 of Inquiry h.:'t 19b6 haa ccm:1¥;nc.:OO i :c.s t..c.sk o( i nquir.i ng ir.tu a.no advising the Farli~t whctl,Er u.Iiy con..:iuct cf tl':e J.<..i:ou r.2.l·le Ll.onel .Keu:..h ~:,ui.-ph:}I .r.a::. tJtXn bu..... l" : a .; t..> u1:1ccr1t, in it~ q.,inion, to proved mi.nl.A!l':iaviou.r witlu;1 tl11:: ITl<:!.. :ming of .::;e::cuc.m 72 of t.he 0..""IlStitut1on. 1'.rr S Charles (..C , &,lii(.,:i: Counsel. .:lGSisting the C.tr.r.ri.ssion, l:as inforJla;u mt: tlldt. h~ v,oul,i Le assibt-.r:<l by havin~ a discussion wi c.h you in .c~lation to 6Cl1~ u::.T.A::.\.-ts of tl1e Ccr..nd ssion ' s lu(uiry. l1,1.;u:irJi119l_y , l cihould b6: glad if you woul~ contact t,u: a.i..u-ltu Ofi '1.:oelE:phone nunber ( 02) 232 4922 to arrange a suitable t.ini& for an appoint.ment.' t.c, l:.:ie rr.aae. Yours faithfully Sir George Lush .Presiding Muibe.r 21 July 1906 ALLEl3ATIOO NO 25 Particulars of Allegation The Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy , in or about January 1980, and whilst a Justice of the High Court of Australia, agreed with furgan Ryan that he, the Judge, would make, or cause to be :nade, representations on behalf of interests associated with one Abraham Gilbert Saffron to persons in a position to influence the award of a contract to remodel the Central Railway Station in Sydney for the purpose of assisting those interests to obtain the contract. Further, the JUdge subsequently :nade such representations, and informed Ryan that he had done so, and that the representations were likely to be successful. At the relevant time, Saffron was, and was known by the Judge to be, a person of ill- repute. It will be contended that this a:mduct by the Judge amounted to misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution in the follCMing respect - 2 a) entering into an agreement to intervene to influence the award of ~.J?~lic contract to a particular tenderer, and actually intervening to achieve that purpose; further, or in the alternative --····---- ··--,.,.------~ ___. ...._.... .. lb) ___ entering_ into an. agreement to intervene ..to _influence the award_of_a _publi~ oontract_to a tenderer associated _with a --~E.~~----..?-~--- -~!1-repute, _ and ·- actually__ intervening to . _achiey~_ t:E.at _e~se~-- 'As such it constituted conduct contrary to accepted standards of judicial behaviour. i l l MEETI NG WITH SUPERINTENDENT KEN DREW, CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE COMMISSIONER At 2.30 on 16th of July, 1986 I met with Superintendent Drew at the 20th Floor of the Police Headquarters Building in College Street, Sydney. Also present were Patricia Sharp, Sergeant R Clarke of the Licensing Squad and Detective Sergeant R Lynch of L the Brt3king Squad. I briefly outlined our function and said that we were seeking the co-operation of the NSW Pol ice in relation to a number of allegations that had been made in relation to His Honour Mr Justice Murphy. We discussed briefly various provisions of our act. As an opening gambit I suggest that the NSW Police Force must have collected a considerable body of intelligence on Abraham Saffron over the years. I asked whether any link between Saffron and His Honour had been uncovered at any time by the NSW Pol ice. Superintendent Drew said that apart from what Ja mes McCartney Anderson had told Sergeant Warren Molloy (as to which see later) no link between Saffron and His Honour had come to light. That was confirmed by Detective Sergeant Clarke who from the early 1980 's has been the Officer in Charge of the general licensing in the Kings Cross region; and by Detective Sergeant Lynch, who has been responsible for investigating the activities of Todor ('the Torch') Maximovich over the last few years. Sergeant Clarke said that Warren Molloy had a far more detailed knowledge of Saffron's operations because of his posit ion as Special Licensing Sergeant in the Kings Cross reg ion up until the time of the Bi 11 Allen affair.
Recommended publications
  • Official Committee Hansard

    Official Committee Hansard

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Official Committee Hansard JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE Reference: Australia’s trade and investment relations with Central Europe TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2003 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint com- mittee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representa- tives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard To search the parliamentary database, go to: http://search.aph.gov.au JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Trade Subcommittee Tuesday, 18 February 2003 Members: Senator Ferguson (Chair), Mr Brereton (Deputy Chair), Senators Bartlett, Bolkus, Cook, Eggleston, Chris Evans, Harradine, Hutchins, Johnston, Sandy Macdonald, O’Brien, Payne and Stott Despoja and Mr Baird, Mr Baldwin, Mr Beazley, Mr Bevis, Mr Brereton, Mr Byrne, Mr Edwards, Mr Laurie Ferguson, Mrs Gash, Mr Hawker, Mr Jull, Mr Lindsay, Mrs Moylan, Mr Nairn, Mr Price, Mr Prosser, Mr Scott, Mr Snowdon, Mr Somlyay and Mr Cameron Thomson Subcommittee members: Mr Baird (Chair), Senator Cook (Deputy Chair), Senators Eggleston, Ferguson (ex officio) and O’Brien and Mr Brereton (ex officio), Mr Hawker, Mr Jull, Mrs Moylan, Mr Nairn, Mr Prosser, Mr Scott, Mr Somlyay and Mr Cameron Thompson Senators and members in attendance: Senator O’Brien
  • Fourteen Studies in Qorporate Crime Or Corporate Harm. STAINS on a WHITE COLLAR Mmmmik Ikim

    Fourteen Studies in Qorporate Crime Or Corporate Harm. STAINS on a WHITE COLLAR Mmmmik Ikim

    Chris Masters Fourteen studies in qorporate crime or corporate harm. STAINS ON A WHITE COLLAR mmmmik IKiM [Fmj^iBBou UiB^BB^ to Edited by Peter Grabosky and Adam Sutton Foreword by Chris Masters THE FEDERATION PRESS Published in Sydney by The Federation Press 101A Johnston Street Annandale. NSW. 2038 In association with Bow Press Pty Ltd 208 Victoria Road Drummoyne. NSW. 2047 National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Stains on a white collar: fourteen studies in corporate crime or corporate harm. Bibliography. ISBN 1 86287 009 8. 1. Commercial crimes — Australia — Case studies. 2. Corporations — Australia — Corrupt practices — Case studies. 3. White collar crimes — Australia — Case studies. I. Grabosky, Peter N. (Peter Nils), 1945- . II. Sutton, Adam Crosbie. 364.1'68'0994 Copyright ® this collection The Australian Institute of Criminology This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Cover designed by Hand Graphics Text designed by Steven Dunbar Typeset in 10 pt Century Old Style by Midland Typesetters, Maryborough Printed in Australia by Griffin Press Production by Vantage Graphics, Sydney CONTENTS FOREWORD ix CHRIS MASTERS INTRODUCTION xi 1 THE BOTTOM OF THE HARBOUR TAX EVASION
  • The Racial Discrimination Act: a 40 Year Perspective Inaugural Kep Enderby Lecture

    The Racial Discrimination Act: a 40 Year Perspective Inaugural Kep Enderby Lecture

    The Racial Discrimination Act: A 40 Year Perspective Inaugural Kep Enderby Lecture Chief Justice Robert French AC 22 October 2015, Sydney Introduction Keppel Earl Enderby QC, who died on 8 January 2015 at the age of 88, was a dedicated servant of the Australian people. He was a libertarian and a law reformer. In 1975, as Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, he introduced into the Parliament the Bill that became the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ('RDA'). This evening we celebrate the 40th anniversary of that Act and Kep Enderby's life of service in the presence of his widow, Dorothy Enderby and his son, Keir. He was born in Dubbo in 1926. He was educated at the Dubbo High School. He served with the RAAF as a trainee pilot in 1944 and 1945 and gained a law degree from Sydney University in 1950. He went to the United Kingdom for a few years where he married and had two children. He returned to New South Wales and took up practice at the Bar there in 1955. In 1962, he was appointed as a lecturer in law at the Australian National University. In Canberra he met his second wife, Dorothy, a university librarian. He recommenced practicing law in Canberra in 1966 and became an active member of the Australian Labor Party. He was appointed Queens Counsel in 1973. Kep Enderby was elected to the House of Representatives representing the Australian Capital Territory from 1970 to 1974 and the new seat of Canberra from 1974 to 1975. He held a number of ministerial portfolios during the time of the Whitlam Government.
  • Who's That with Abrahams

    Who's That with Abrahams

    barTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSWnews BAR ASSOCIATION | SUMMER 2008/09 Who’s that with Abrahams KC? Rediscovering Rhetoric Justice Richard O’Connor rediscovered Bullfry in Shanghai | CONTENTS | 2 President’s column 6 Editor’s note 7 Letters to the editor 8 Opinion Access to court information The costs circus 12 Recent developments 24 Features 75 Legal history The Hon Justice Foster The criminal jurisdiction of the Federal The Kyeema air disaster The Hon Justice Macfarlan Court NSW Law Almanacs online The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina The Hon Justice Ward Saving St James Church 40 Addresses His Honour Judge Michael King SC Justice Richard Edward O’Connor Rediscovering Rhetoric 104 Personalia The current state of the profession His Honour Judge Storkey VC 106 Obituaries Refl ections on the Federal Court 90 Crossword by Rapunzel Matthew Bracks 55 Practice 91 Retirements 107 Book reviews The Keble Advocacy Course 95 Appointments 113 Muse Before the duty judge in Equity Chief Justice French Calderbank offers The Hon Justice Nye Perram Bullfry in Shanghai Appearing in the Commercial List The Hon Justice Jagot 115 Bar sports barTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSWnews BAR ASSOCIATION | SUMMER 2008-09 Bar News Editorial Committee Cover the New South Wales Bar Andrew Bell SC (editor) Leonard Abrahams KC and Clark Gable. Association. Keith Chapple SC Photo: Courtesy of Anthony Abrahams. Contributions are welcome and Gregory Nell SC should be addressed to the editor, Design and production Arthur Moses SC Andrew Bell SC Jeremy Stoljar SC Weavers Design Group Eleventh Floor Chris O’Donnell www.weavers.com.au Wentworth Chambers Duncan Graham Carol Webster Advertising 180 Phillip Street, Richard Beasley To advertise in Bar News visit Sydney 2000.
  • The Essay Prepared by Historian Professor Paul Ashton

    The Essay Prepared by Historian Professor Paul Ashton

    1987: The Year of New Directions RELEASE OF 1987 NSW CABINET PAPERS Release of 1987 NSW Cabinet Papers 2 Table of Contents 1987: The Year of New Directions ......................................................................................................... 3 Dual Occupancy and the Quarter-acre Block ...................................................................................... 4 The Sydney Harbour Tunnel ................................................................................................................ 5 The Bicentenary .................................................................................................................................. 6 Sydney City Council Bill ....................................................................................................................... 6 The University of Western Sydney ...................................................................................................... 7 Casino Tenders .................................................................................................................................... 8 Chelmsford Private Hospital ............................................................................................................... 9 Workers’ Compensation ................................................................................................................... 10 Establishment of the Judicial Commission ........................................................................................ 10 1987 NSW Cabinet ...............................................................................................................................
  • The High Court and the Parliament Partners in Law-Making Or Hostile Combatants?*

    The High Court and the Parliament Partners in Law-Making Or Hostile Combatants?*

    The High Court and the Parliament Partners in law-making or hostile combatants?* Michael Coper The question of when a human life begins poses definitional and philosophical puzzles that are as familiar as they are unanswerable. It might surprise you to know that the question of when the High Court of Australia came into existence raises some similar puzzles,1 though they are by contrast generally unfamiliar and not quite so difficult to answer. Interestingly, the High Court tangled with this issue in its very first case, a case called Hannah v Dalgarno,2 argued—by Wise3 on one side and Sly4 on the other—on 6 and 10 November 1903, and decided the next day on a date that now positively reverberates with constitutional significance, 11 November.5 * This paper was presented as a lecture in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House on 19 September 2003. I am indebted to my colleagues Fiona Wheeler and John Seymour for their comments on an earlier draft. 1 See Tony Blackshield and Francesca Dominello, ‘Constitutional basis of Court’ in Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, South Melbourne, Vic., Oxford University Press, 2001 (hereafter ‘The Oxford Companion’): 136. 2 (1903) 1 CLR 1; Francesca Dominello, ‘Hannah v Dalgarno’ in The Oxford Companion: 316. 3 Bernhard Ringrose Wise (1858–1916) was the Attorney-General for NSW and had been a framer of the Australian Constitution. 4 Richard Sly (1849–1929) was one of three lawyer brothers (including George, a founder of the firm of Sly and Russell), who all had doctorates in law.
  • Reflections on the Murphy Trials

    Reflections on the Murphy Trials

    REFLECTIONS ON THE MURPHY TRIALS NICHOLAS COWDERY AM QC∗ I INTRODUCTION It is a great privilege to have been asked to contribute to this special edition of the Journal containing essays in honour of the Honourable Ian Callinan AC QC.1 In this instance I shall concentrate on but one matter in his extensive practice at the Bar, but a significant matter that went for some time, had a variety of manifestations and encompassed a multitude of interests and conflicts: that is, his role as the prosecutor of the late Justice Lionel Murphy of the High Court of Australia. It is also a great burden to assume. Where to begin? What ‘spin’ (if any) to put on this chapter of Australia’s legal history in the space available? How much of the lengthy and at times legally technical proceedings themselves should be included? How to show enough of the play of the unique Callinan attributes? How to keep myself out of it, matters of significance having now faded from the ageing memory (even assisted by the few scraps of paper that survive) and because throughout the proceedings against Murphy at all levels I was Ian’s principal junior. It was a rare (for the time) pairing of Queensland and NSW counsel – the ‘dingo fence’ for lawyers was still in place at the Tweed in those days. At the time of his retirement from the High Court last year Ian described the case as ‘agonising’ – for himself, the court and Murphy – ‘It was a very unhappy time for everybody’ he said and so it was.
  • Ken Cowley's Judgment

    Ken Cowley's Judgment

    Ken Cowley’s judgment day PUBLISHED: 31 MAY 2014 00:09:41 | UPDATED: 01 JUN 2014 10:58:06 SHARE LINKS:email Ken Cowley ... ‘Rupert doesn’t have many people around him that tell him the things he doesn’t want to hear. From day one I was not frightened to tell him what he should do and shouldn’t do.’ Photo: Louie Douvis ANNE HYLAND Ken Cowley, once one of the most powerful men in Australia, is reflecting on life, death and his career. Seated in his office in Milsons Point on Sydney’s lower north shore, decked out in R.M. Williams attire down to its world famous boots, Cowley is a man content with his own achievements and aware increasingly of his own mortality. On at least half a dozen occasions, he reflects on when he will go to God. He has relinquished almost all of his work duties, except as chairman of the aforementioned bush outfitter, which has been a labour of love for the past two decades. His wife of 55 years, Maureen, has urged him to sell the business, that he owns, and last year he offloaded a 50 per cent stake in R.M. Williams to the private equity arm of global luxury goods group LVMH. “I’m very comfortable knowing there’s a good safe home for it if I climb the stairway to heaven,” Cowley says. Soon he will relinquish the remainder and spend more time with his wife. “That’s her up there,” he says, pointing to a glamorous framed photo of Maureen.
  • Judges and Retirement Ages

    Judges and Retirement Ages

    JUDGES AND RETIREMENT AGES ALYSIA B LACKHAM* All Commonwealth, state and territory judges in Australia are subject to mandatory retirement ages. While the 1977 referendum, which introduced judicial retirement ages for the Australian federal judiciary, commanded broad public support, this article argues that the aims of judicial retirement ages are no longer valid in a modern society. Judicial retirement ages may be causing undue expense to the public purse and depriving the judiciary of skilled adjudicators. They are also contrary to contemporary notions of age equality. Therefore, demographic change warrants a reconsideration of s 72 of the Constitution and other statutes setting judicial retirement ages. This article sets out three alternatives to the current system of judicial retirement ages. It concludes that the best option is to remove age-based limitations on judicial tenure. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 739 II Judicial Retirement Ages in Australia ................................................................... 740 A Federal Judiciary .......................................................................................... 740 B Australian States and Territories ............................................................... 745 III Criticism of Judicial Retirement Ages ................................................................... 752 A Critiques of Arguments in Favour of Retirement Ages ........................
  • Bob Hawke, Philo-Semite

    Bob Hawke, Philo-Semite

    CHAPTER 15 u Bob Hawke, Philo-Semite My first visit to Israel transformed my interest in that country into fascination. The dry, dusty landscape dotted with ancient olive trees evoked all the memories of those biblical stories which had enthralled me as a child. Isi first came across Bob Hawke, leader of the Australian Trade Union Council, during the lead-up to the 1974 countrywide elections. The relationship, nurtured by both men, proved precious to the Jewish community when Hawke first became president of the Australian Labor Party (1973–1991), then opposition leader (February 1983–March 1983), and finally during Hawke’s long tenure as prime minister (1983 until 1991).1 The truth is that Robert (Bob) J. Hawke had bonded with Jewish Australians and the State of Israel even before he and Isi became close. As a labor leader, he collaborated with Jewish business leaders in search of revenues that would allow his council to expand and improve the consumer power of union members. The relationship with Isi strengthened and deepened these ties. Hawke’s openhanded support for the Jewish community, Israel, and Soviet Jewry, beginning in the 1970s, invites the question: Why, when so much of Labor abandoned Israel, did Hawke remain steadfast – even when it did him no good politically? It is likely that part of the answer relates to his character. Sympathetic Listening Few know Hawke as well as Blanche d’Alpuget, who not only wrote his biography but became his lover and, in 1995, his wife. As she tells it, the charismatic Hawke was brought up to believe that it was his destiny to lead.
  • The Constitutional Conventions and Constitutional Change: Making Sense of Multiple Intentions

    The Constitutional Conventions and Constitutional Change: Making Sense of Multiple Intentions

    Harry Hobbs and Andrew Trotter* THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: MAKING SENSE OF MULTIPLE INTENTIONS ABSTRACT The delegates to the 1890s Constitutional Conventions were well aware that the amendment mechanism is the ‘most important part of a Cons­ titution’, for on it ‘depends the question as to whether the state shall develop with peaceful continuity or shall suffer alternations of stagnation, retrogression, and revolution’.1 However, with only 8 of 44 proposed amendments passed in the 116 years since Federation, many commen­ tators have questioned whether the compromises struck by the delegates are working as intended, and others have offered proposals to amend the amending provision. This paper adds to this literature by examining in detail the evolution of s 128 of the Constitution — both during the drafting and beyond. This analysis illustrates that s 128 is caught between three competing ideologies: representative and respons ible government, popular democracy, and federalism. Understanding these multiple intentions and the delicate compromises struck by the delegates reveals the origins of s 128, facilitates a broader understanding of colonial politics and federation history, and is relevant to understanding the history of referenda as well as considerations for the section’s reform. I INTRODUCTION ver the last several years, three major issues confronting Australia’s public law framework and a fourth significant issue concerning Australia’s commitment Oto liberalism and equality have been debated, but at an institutional level progress in all four has been blocked. The constitutionality of federal grants to local government remains unresolved, momentum for Indigenous recognition in the Constitution ebbs and flows, and the prospects for marriage equality and an * Harry Hobbs is a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law, Lionel Murphy postgraduate scholar, and recipient of the Sir Anthony Mason PhD Award in Public Law.
  • The Court System • Chapter III Guarantees • Appointment And

    The Court System • Chapter III Guarantees • Appointment And

    Australian National Anthem The Court System • Chapter III guarantees • Appointment and removal- Lionel Murphy J • Definition of judicial power • Court administrative arrangements • Comparisons of court systems • Sustainable Justice The judiciary change the law • Changing the basis of common law of land ownership- terra nullius to native title • The common law being used to imply freedom of speech in political matters • S. 116: Freedom of and non establishment of religion • S. 51(xx): The Corporations power- A small power in Huddart Parker v Moorehead, over ruled in Concrete Pipes Case and now the Industrial Relations (Work cover) Case changes the Federal/State balance • S. 51(xxiv): The external affairs power • Mabo (no. 2) Why have Courts? • Courts have no power: they only authorise the use of State power to enforce civil obligations or impose criminal penalties • Conflict threatens power and wealth • The purpose of Courts is to make the exercise of power consistent and just so that conflict can be avoided and is resolved in a fair and just way • Consistent = Rule of Law : Independent = Fair and Just • The alternative is tyranny- eg USSR/ Third Reich – the less consistency and independence the more tyranny is necessary to maintain order Independence • Chapter III Guarantees: – Security of income – Security of tenure – Separation of judicial power • The Lionel Murphy story – Attorney-General for Whitlam government – Stellar legislative career – Appointed direct to High Court – Likely Chief Justice • “What about my little mate?” • Address