Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T17:09:46.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Review in the Australian Federal System: Its Origin and Function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

B. Galligan
B. Galligan*
Affiliation:
La Trobe University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dr Galligan examines the origin of judicial review under the Australian Constitution through an catalysis of the Conventions and Conferences preceding its drafting. A political scientist, he disputes the claim that there is no basis for judicial review in the Australian federal system and argues that the intention of the founders, influenced by Inglis Clark, was to create a powerful American-style court primarily to interpret the Constitution in the resolution of federal disputes. As a case study of the founders' intentions he considers the debates and “solution” of the question of control of Australia's inland river system.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1979 , pp. 367 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McWhinney, , Federal Constitution–Making for a Multi–National World (1966) 9Google Scholar.

2 Archer, Maddox, , “The 1975 Constitutional Crisis in Australia” (1976) 14 Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 141, 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Dixon, , “Two Constitutions Compared” in Jesting Pilate (1965) 100, 101Google Scholar.

4 (1803) 1 Cr. 137.

5 Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1, 262.

6 Dixon, , “Marshall and the Australian Constitution” in Jesting Pilate 166, 174Google Scholar.

7 Lindell, , “Duty to Exercise Judicial Review” in Zines, (ed.), Commentaries on the Australian Constitution (1977) 150, 186Google Scholar. Controversy over the justiciability of aspects of the 1974 double dissolution has given the question of the proper basis and scope of judicial review an immediate practical relevance. This is discussed by Zines, , “The Double Dissolution and Joint Sitting” in Evans, (ed.), Labor and The Constitution 1972-1975 (1977) 229Google Scholar.

8 Lane, , The Australian Federal System (1972) 913Google Scholar. Geoffrey Sawer correctly points out that the Australian founders had two great models in the United States and Canadian Constitutions. Australian Federalism in the Courts (1967) 76.

9 Lane, , op. cit. 918Google Scholar.

10 Lane, , op. cit. 919Google Scholar.

11 Lindell, , op. cit. 183Google Scholar. Lindell's argument in support of judicial review is essentially the same as that of Marshall.

12 Lindell, argues that “the Commonwealth Constitution . . . derived its legal existence by reason of the exercise of the Imperial Parliament's legislative powers. . . . [and] that courts in Australia are required to perform the same duties in relation to the Constitution as they are required to perform in relation to any other kind of law in force in Australia.” Op. cit. 165Google Scholar.

13 Lane, , op. cit. 915Google Scholar.

14 Although Lindell does not address himself to this particular issue, the way he sets up his argument that the Court has a duty to exercise judicial review does explicitly assume at the beginning that the Court possesses jurisdiction. Op. cit. 150.

15 The Least Dangerous Branch (1962) 2.

16 The American Supreme Court (1960) 40.

17 Madison makes the classic argument for this position in Federalist No. 49.

18 Lane's, chapter titled “Judicial Review or Government by the High Court”, op. cit. 911Google Scholar.

19 Federalist No. 78.

20 Dixon, , “The Law and the Constitution” in Jesting Pilate 38, 51Google Scholar.

21 Bryce, , The American Commonwealth (1888)Google Scholar.

22 Federal Conference Debates (1890) 89, 91.

23 La, Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (1972) 273Google Scholar. La Nauze records that Bryce's book lay on the official table throughout the proceedings of the 1897-1898 Convention.

24 Federal Conference Debates (1890) 96,106.

25 Wise, The Making of the Australian Commonwealth 1890-1900 (1913) 74.

26 Important exceptions on whose work the author draws are Reynolds, , “A. I. Clark's American Sympathies and His Influence on Australian Federation” (1958) 32 A.L.J. 62Google Scholar; Neasey, , “Andrew Inglis Clark Senior and Australian Federation” (1969) 15:2 Australian Journal of Politics and History 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and La, Nauze, op. cit. 23-28, 75-76.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v.Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd (1920) 28 C.L.R. 129.

28 Wise, op. cit. 15.

29 Quoted La, Nauze, op. cit. 76Google Scholar.

30 Quoted Reynolds, , op. cit. 62-63Google Scholar.

31 Deakin, , The Federal Story (1944) 30Google Scholar.

32 Clark's draft bill is printed as an appendix to Reynolds, op. cit. 67.

33 La, Nauze, op. cit. 76Google Scholar.

34 Quick, Garran, , The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Common-wealth (1901) 129Google Scholar.

35 Proceedings of the Judiciary Committee printed in Federal Convention Debates (London ed. 1891) cxxvi-cxxvii.

36 Quoted La, Nauze, op. cit. 66Google Scholar.

37 Ch. 3, s. 1 of the 1891 draft bill in Federal Convention Debates (1891) 956, ands. 71 of the final Constitution.

38 British North America Act 1867, s. 99(1).

39 For detailed comparison of Clark's bill and the U.S. Constitution, see Neasey, , op. cit. 21-26Google Scholar.

40 La, Nauze, op. cit. 78Google Scholar.

41 Id. 87.

42 Federal Convention Debates (Adelaide, 1897) 17.

43 Id. 24-25.

44 Id. 25.

45 Ibid.

46 Nineteenth century British jurists had so firmly entrenched parliamentary sovereignty as a pivot of the legal system that British settlers in Australia and Australian lawyers and politicians were inclined to attribute such sovereignty to their Colonial Parliaments, even though it belonged strictly only to Westminster. See Dixon, , “The Law and the Constitution” in Jesting Pilate 38, 45, 50-51Google Scholar.

47 Federal Convention Debates (Adelaide, 1897) 432, 448-453.

48 La, Nauze, op. cit. 130-131Google Scholar. It became s. 71 of the Constitution.

49 Quoted from the Hobart Mercury (29 July 1897) in Scott, Bennett, The Making of the Commonwealth (1971) 166Google Scholar.

50 La, Nauze, Op. cit. 173, 220-221Google Scholar, 248-249. Also Higgins' speech Federal Convention Debates (Adelaide,1897) 988.

51 See for example Federal Convention Debates (Adelaide, 1897) 969-973, 981. Also Federal Convention Debates (London ed., 1891) cxlii-cxlviii, for Inglis Clark's defence of a local court that was final.

52 Federal Convention Debates (Adelaide, 1897) 987. See also Barton's subsequent statement that “if Australia is to be the maker of its own Constitution, it is fairly competent to be the interpreter of its own Constitution”. Federal Convention Debates (1898) Vol. 2, 2330.

53 Federal Convention Debates (Adelaide, 1897) 940.

54 Id. 935.

55 Id. 935-936.

56 Id. 942.

57 Id. 947. The amendment became s. 72(ii) of the Constitution.

58 Id. 944-941.

59 Id. 938-939.

60 Id. 947-949.

61 Id. 953.

62 Id. 950.

63 Id. 952-953.

64 Id. 962.

65 Id. 957.

66 Id. 953.

67 La, Nauze, op. cit. 170-176Google Scholar.

68 Federal Convention Debates (1898) Vol. 1, 269.

69 Id. 270.

70 Id. 272.

71 Id. 356.

72 Id. 286.

73 Id. 283.

74 Id. 279.

75 Id. 344.

76 Id. 275.

77 Id. 601-602.

78 La, Nauze, op. cit. 211Google Scholar.

79 Quick, Garran, , op. cit. 138Google Scholar. so Constitution s. 51(i) .

80 Constitutions s. 51(i).

81 Federal Convention Debates (1898) Vol. 1, 66.

82 Id. 84.

83 Quick, Garran, , op. cit. 194-196Google Scholar.

84 Federal Convention Debates (1898) Vol. 1, 388. See also Barton's speeches, id. 409, 594.

85 Id. 113

86 Id. 442.

87 Id. 614, 562-564.

88 Id. 426.

89 Id. 510.

90 Id. 573.

91 Dixon, , “The Law and the Constitution” in Jesting Pilate 38, 44Google Scholar.

92 Diamond, , “The Federalist's View of Federalism” in Benson, (ed.), Essays in Federalism (1961) 21Google Scholar.

93 For example, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835) (New York: Vintage Books, 1945)' i, 162-165. De Tocqueville calls this “a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as a great discovery in modem political science”162.

94 Reply to the Landholder, 19 March 1788, in Farrand (ed.), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (rev. ed. 1937) iii, 292.

95 Madison to Jefferson, 17th March 1787, The Papers of James Madison (1975) ix, 318; and Jefferson to Madison, 20 June 1787, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (1955) xi, 480-481. The American historian Charles Warren credits Jefferson with being the first to suggest judicial review: The Making of the Constitution (1928) 168.

96 Farrand, op. cit. 21. For strong speeches in favour of a national veto power, see Madison id. i, 164-165, 447 and ii, 27-28.

97 Gouverneur Morris, in Farrand, , op. cit. ii, 28Google Scholar.

98 The strongest case for judicial review was made by Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.

99 Switzerland is an exception. There a law can be submitted to popular refer-endum to determine its constitutionality on both legislative and popular initiative. Sawer, , Modern Federalism (new ed. 1976) 20Google Scholar.

1 Wheare, , Modern Constitutions (2nd ed. 1966) 101Google Scholar.

2 British North America Act 1867, ss. 55, 56, 90. See also Saywell, , The Office of the Lieutenant-Governor (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 British North America Act 1867,s.101. Also Mac, Kinnon, “The Establishment of the SupremeCourt of Canada”, in Lederman, (ed.), The Courts and the Canadian Constitution (1964)Google Scholar; and Laskin, , “The Role and Functions of Final Appellate Courts: The Supreme Court of Canada” (1975) 52 Canadian Bar Review 469Google Scholar.

4 Mallory, , “Constraints on Courts as Agencies of Constitutional Change: The Canadian Case” [1977] Public Law 406, 409Google Scholar.

5 Weiler, , In the Last Resort: A Critical Study of the Supreme Court of Canada (1974) 165Google Scholar.

6 Id. 175.

7 Id. 164.

8 Id. 177.

9 Parl Deb. 1902, Vol. 8, 10967.