Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:11:42.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extra-Constitutional Notions in Australian Constitutional Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

George Winterton
George Winterton*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Australia has, mercifully, been spared from revolutionary changes of grundnorm or “rules of recognition”, with their consequential appeals to “necessity”, of the sort which have plagued courts in Pakistan, lJganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, the Seychelles and Grenada, among others. But that has not meant that arguments based upon extra-constitutional powers and prohibitions have been absent from Australian constitutional jurisprudence. Human ingenuity being what it is, commentators and even judges, undaunted by the absence of a tenable constitutional argument, have occasionally resorted to extra-constitutional notions.

This paper explores the boundary between constitutional rules and principles and extra-constitutional political notions. That boundary is, of course, indistinct because the constitution includes implied powers and prohibitions. Hence, opinions will inevitably differ as to whether a particular power or prohibition is implied in the Constitution and, thus, is constitutionally conferred or imposed, or alternatively arises (if at all) extra-constitutionally.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 223 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was originally presented as a National Report on “The Limits of Constitutional Law” at the Twelfth International Congress of Comparative Law, Sydney-Melbourne, August 1986.

References

1 For the meaning of this term, see Ely, J H, Democracy and Distrust (1980), Ch 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 381 US 479; Roe v Wade (1973) 410US113, 152-53; Grey, TC, “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” (1975) 27 Stan L Rev 703, 709-713CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Infra Part 2A.

4 Ibid.

5 Winterton, G, “The Concept of Extra-Constitutional Executive Power in Domestic Affairs” (1979) 7 Hast Const LQ 1Google Scholar.

6 Commonwealth Constitution ss I, 7, 24.

7 Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 201, 283-284 per Murphy J. See also Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Munro (1926) 38 CLR 153, 178 per Isaacs J: “the Constitution is for the advancement of representative government. “

8 A-G of Commonwealth (ex rel McKinlay) v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR I, 70-71 per Murphy J, dissenting.

9 Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986) 67 ALR 321, 336-337; Uebergang v Australian Wheat Board (1980) 145 CLR 266, 3ll-312; McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith (1979) 144 CLR 633,670; Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, 87-88.

10 Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110, 137; Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986) 67 ALR 321, 337.

11 eg A-G for Australia v R [1957) AC 288, 311 (PC) (the Boilermakers case); Winterton, G, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General (1983) 56-57Google Scholar (separation of powers).

12 Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 381 US 479, 484-486 (right of marital privacy).

13 eg Sir Dixon, Owen, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation” (1957) 31 ALJ 240Google Scholar, reprinted in Dixon, O, Jesting Pilate (1965) 203Google Scholar (parliamentary supremacy).

14 eg Kingswell v R (1985) 159 CLR 264, 280 per Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ, referring to “fundamental principle”.

15 eg Sillery v R (1981) 35 ALR 227, 230 (Gibbs CJ, Aickin J concurring) 232, 233-234 (Murphy J); Mcinnis v R (1979) 143 CLR 575, 586-589 (Murphy J, dissenting); R v Bolton; exparte Beane (1987) 70 ALR 225, 231-232 per Brennan J. See generally Pearce, DC, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (2nd ed 1981) paras 111, 113-116Google Scholar; Keir, D L and Lawson, F H, Cases in Constitutional Law (6th ed by F H Lawson and DJ Bentley 1979) 12, 16-19Google Scholar; Bennion, FAR, Statutory Interpretation (1984) 285-316Google Scholar; Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372, 405-406 per Kirby P, 413 per Mahoney J A.

16 Allan, T R S, “Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law: Democracy and Constitution alism” [1985] CLJ 111, especially 119-122Google Scholar, 124-125, 129-130, 133 ff.

17 Ibid 122, 124-125. See also TR S Allan, “The Limits of Parliamentary Sovereignty'' (1985] PL 614, 616; infra n 55.

18 Zines, L, “The State of Constitutional Interpretation” (1984) 14 FL Rev 277, 279-286Google Scholar.

19 Winterton, supra n 11, 76.

20 Ibid Ch 4.

21 eg Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 201, 270-271, 283-286 per Mason J and Murphy J respectively (Constitutions 122 prevails overs 7); 275-277 per Jacobs J (s 57, especially the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament, does not raise justiciable issues); A-G of Commonwealth (ex rel McKinlay) v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, 71-72 per Murphy J, dissenting (Constitution s 24 embodies the principle of equality of voting power).

22 R v Duncan, ex parte Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1983) 158 CLR 535, 589 per Deane J.

23 D'Emden v Pedder (1904) I CLR 91, 109-110; Le Mesurier v Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481,, 497; Grannall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 55, 77; Winterton, supra n 11, Ch 3. See generally Antieau, CJ, Constitutional Construction (1982), Ch 4Google Scholar.

24 eg R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy, ex parte Lowenstein (1938) 59 CLR 556, 588-589 per Dixon and Evatt JJ dissenting (no-one should be a judge in his own cause); Kingswell v R (1985)1 159 CLR 264, 298-303 per Deane J dissenting, and Li Chia Hsing v Rankin (1978) 141 CLR. 182, 198-200 per Murphy J (trial by jury); Sawer, G, Federation Under Strain (1977) 148Google Scholar;. Winterton, supra n 11, 127-139 (natural justice etc). See generally Antieau, C J, Adjudicating, Constitutional Issues (1985) paras 10.17, 10.19Google Scholar.

25 Stone, J, “Some Reflections on the Seminar”, in D Hambly & J Goldring (eds), Australian Lawyers and Social Change (1976) 376, 378Google Scholar. See also Antieau, supra n 24, paras 6.04 (“Policy. considerations in characterization”), 7.01 (“Judicial balancing of societal interests in constitutional cases in Australia”).

26 Discussing an aspect of this subject (State and federal immunity from the other's taxatior laws) in 1951, former Justice Roberts of the United States Supreme Court remarked that “[i]r no field of federal jurisprudence has there been greater variation or uncertainty. About om quarter of these decisions have been expressly or tacitly overruled, modified or ignored in late1. cases. Doubtless the explanation is that the Court has been called upon to exercise statesman ship in an uncharted region rather than interpretation of the text of the instrument; to imple ment policy rather than law.” ( Roberts, Owen J, The Court and the Constitution (1951, rep: I 969), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar (italics added).

27 Collector v Day (1871) 78 US (11 Wall) 113, overruled by Graves v New York, ex rel O'Keefe (1939) 306 US 466; United States v California (1936) 297 US 175; New York v United States (1946) 326 US 572; Maryland v Wirtz (1968) 392 US 183, overruled by National League of Cities v Usery (1976) 426 US 833, overruled by Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) 469 US 528.

28 Federal Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association v New South Wales Railway Traffic Employees Association (the Railway Servants case) (1906) 4 CLR 488, overruled by Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (the Engineers case) (1920) 28 CLR 129; Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (the State Banking case) (1947) 74 CLR 31; Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 192; Re Lee, ex parte Minister for Justice and A-G for Queensland (1986) 65 ALR 577. See also Winterton, supra n 11, 53, 246-247 n 2.

29 The High Court has held that the separation of powers is implied in the Commonwealth Constitution, especially its structure, but in reality has confined this to the separation of judicial power, which is virtualiy explicit in ch III of the Constitution. See Winterton, supra n II, Ch 4.

30 Supra n 15.

31 McGraw-Hinds (Australia) Pty Ltd v Smith (1979) 144 CLR 633, 670; Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986) 67 ALR 321, 339.

32 Infra Part 2A.

33 eg Ukley v Ukley (1977) VR 121, 129 (FC).

34 Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552, 565-561; China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172, 236-239; Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985) 159CLR 351, 382-384.

35 R v Kirby, ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, affirmed sub nom A-G for Australia v R (1957) AC 288.

36 Winterton, supra n 11, 61-62.

37 Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169, 213-215.

38 Allan, supra n 16.

39 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 193 per Dixon J, 258 per Fullagar J; In the Marriage of Cormick (1984) 156 CLR 170, 177.

40 Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985] I SCR 721. For the Court's order see [1985] 2 SCR 347.

41 (1979) 144 CLR 633; (1986) 67 ALR 321.

42 R v Director-General of Social Welfare for Victoria, ex parte Henry (1975) 133 CLR 369, 388 (slavery, serfdom, self-determination); Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110, 137 (travel); Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, 87-88 (travel, speech and communication); Seamen's Union of Australia v Utah Development Co (1978) 144 CLR 120, 157 (serfdom); McGraw-Hinds (Australia) Pty Ltd v Smith (1979) 144 CLR 633, 668-670 (slavery, serfdom, rule of law, freedom of movement and communication); Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237, 267 (sexual discrimination); Uebergang v Australian Wheat Board (1980) 145 CLR 266, 311-312 (freedom of speech, assembly, communication and travel); Sillery v R (1981) 35 ALR 227, 233-234 (cruel and unusual punishment) Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986) 67 ALR 321, 336-338 (freedom of speech, communication and travel).

43 Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986) 67 ALR 321, 336, 338; Uebergang v Australian Wheat Board (1980) 145 CLR 266, 311-312; McGraw-Hinds (Australia) Pty Ltd v Smith (1979) 144 CLR 633, 668-670.

44 McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith (1979) 144 CLR 633, 668.

45 Ansetc Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, 88.

46 Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110, 137; Ansett quoted p 229.

47 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, 88. Cf Q Walker, G de, “Dicey's Dubious Dogma of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Recent Fray with Freedom of Religion” (1985) 59 AU 276, 283Google Scholar who suggests that the entrenched provisions of State constitutions arguably “embody a clearly implied premise that the legislature is to be constituted in accordance with the principles of democratic representation and majority rule”, and that these principles imply some freedom of speech, press, and association.

48 eg Victoria v Commonwealth (the Second Uniform Tax case) (1957) 99 CLR 575, 614 per Dixon CJ; Gazzo v Comptroller of Stamps (Victoria) (1981) 149 CLR 227, 240 per Gibbs CJ; Zines, I., The High Court and the Constitution (2nd Edn 1987) 36-39Google Scholar.

49 Sillery v R (1981) 35 ALR 227, 234.

50 Dixon, supra n 13, 242 (Jesting Pilate, 206).

51 Ibid passim.

52 Murphy J noted that the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution “had the benefit” of these two declarations, as well as the Federalist Papers and the work of J S Mill: Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 201, 283-284.

53 Dias, R W M, “Legal Politics: Norms Behind the Grundnorm” (1968] CLJ 233, 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Supra, text at nn 15-17, 24-25.

55 Allan, supran 16, 138. Accord ibid, 140. (But see Allan, supra n 17, 620-623, 624-627, 628-629, where he goes much further, arguing that British judges could refuse to apply legislation which contravened fundamental community standards of political morality, including principles of democracy, justice and fairness.)

56 Cf Justice Deane's cryptic allusion to an “arguable” implied constitutional prohibition based upon “the underlying equality of the people of the Commonwealth under the law of the Constitution”: Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 192,247. An American observer has commended Justice Murphy for “legitimately and wisely ... [honouring] the public policy of his community”: Antieau, supra n 24, para 6.08. See generally Bickovskii, P, “No Deliberate Innovators: Mr Justice Murphy and the Australian Constitution” (1977) 8 FL Rev 460, 470-479Google Scholar; Coper, M, Encounters with the Australian Constitution (1987) Ch 8Google Scholar.

57 Chia Gee v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649, 653; Re Cusack (1985) 60 ALJR 302, 303-304 (Wilson J).

58 Cobb & Co Ltd v Kropp (1965] Qd R 285, 298 (Gibbs J), 301 (Hart J); Re Cusack (1985) 60 ALJR 302, 303-304 (Wilson J).

59 W S Holdsworth, A History of English Law (I938) x, 526-531; (1952) xiii, 169. For views favouring “fundamental law”, see J W Gough, Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History(reved 1971), 140,166, 179-186, 192(Otis), l93-194(LordCamdenC J), 194-195(Earl of Chatham), 198 (Sharpe), 201 (Burke), and for rejection of the doctrine see ibid 119 (Filmer), 138 (Milton), 152 (Tyrrell), I 71 (Halifax), 202 (Lord Kenyon L C).

60 Dr Bonham's Case (1610) 8 Co Rep 113b, I!Sa; 77 ER 638, 652 (Coke CJ); Day v Savadge (1614) Hob 85, 87, 80 ER 235,237 (Hobart CJ); Thomas v Sorrell (1673) Vaughan 330, 336-337; 124 ER 1098, 1102 (Vaughan C J); City of London v Wood (1701) 12 Mod 669, 687-688; 88 ER 1592, 1602 (Holt CJ); Lord Camden in 1766 and 1775, denying Parliament's power to tax (Americans) without their consent: TC Hansard (ed), The Parliamentary History of England (1813, repr 1966) xvi, 168, 169, 177-178; ibid xviii 164; R v Love (1651) 5 St Tr 43,172 (Keble L P: legislation “not consonant to ... Scripture, or to right reason ... is not the law of England”). For references to debates regarding Dr Bonham's case, see Winterton, G “The British Grundnorm: Parliamentary Supremacy Re-examined” (1976) 92 LQR 591, 593-594Google Scholar; Winterton, G, “Parliamentary Supremacy and the Judiciary” (1981) 97 LQR 265, 273Google Scholar n 82.

61 Holdsworth, supra n 59 x, 530-531; Gough supra n 59, 195, 202 ff.

62 Maitland, F W, The Constitutional History of England (1908) 254-255Google Scholar, 298, 301.

63 eg R Wade, H W, Constitutional Fundamentals (1980) 26, 39Google Scholar. But see Winterton, “Parliamentary Supremacy and the Judiciary”, supra n 60, 272-273.

64 Cf Wade, supra n 63, 39.

65 Dugan v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1978) 142 CLR 583, 611 per Murphy J dissenting.

66 But see infra, text at nn 78-85.

67 Grey, T C, “Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought” (1978) 30 Stan L Rev 843,865CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff esp. 881-882; Bailyn, B, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), 175Google Scholar ff. But see also Goldstein, L F, “Popular Sovereignty, the Origins of Judicial Review, and the Revival of Unwritten Law” (1986) 48 J of Politics 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 eg Grey, supra n 2, 709-713, 715-717; infra n 69.

69 Applied by Goldberg J concurring, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 381 US 479, 488 ff. I For debate on the meaning of the Ninth Amendment see, eg Berger, R, “The Ninth Amendment” (1980) 66 Corn L Rev 1Google Scholar; Ely, supra n I, 33-40; Caplan, R L, “The History and Meaning1 of the Ninth Amendment” (1983) 69 Va L Rev 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Massey, CR, “Federalism and Fundamental I Rights: The Ninth Amendment” (1987) 38 Hast L J 305Google Scholar.

70 Kauper, PG, “The Higher Law and the Rights of Man in a Revolutionary Society”, in America's Continuing Revolution (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,1 1975), 43, 52, 60-61Google Scholar.

71 Antieau, supra n 24, para 10.17.

72 Chabot v School Commissioners of Lamorandiere (1957) 12 DLR (2d) 796, 807 per Casey1 J (Que QB, App), discussed by Scott, FR, “Case and Comment” (1958) 36 Can Bar Rev 248, 250-251Google Scholar; infra, n 77.

73 McGee v A-G [1974] IR 284, esp 310, 317-319 per Walsh J; Murray v A-G [1985] ILRM 542, 548 (HC). See generally Clarke, D M, “The Role of Natural Law in Irish Constitutional Law” (1982) 17 Irish Jurist 187Google Scholar. Note that the Irish Constitution explicitly recognizes the family as “a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superio1, to all positive law.” (Art 41.1.1). Italics added.

74 Lassalle v A-G (1971) 18 WIR 379, 395 per Phillips J A (T & TCA): “The fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution do not owe their existence to it. They an previously existing rights, for the most part derived from the common law ... “.

75 Supra, text at nn 15, 24.

76 Preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 (UK).

77 Switzman v Elbling (1957] SCR 285, 328 per Abbott J (freedom of speech); Saumur v Cit): of Quebec [1953] 2 SCR 299,330 per Rand J (freedom of speech), but see contra 384 per Cartright and Fauteux JJ dissenting; R v Hess (No 2) [1949] 4 DLR 199, 206, 208-209 per O'Hallorar, JA (BCCA) (integrity of judicial power). But note that Casey Jin Chabot (supra n 72) did nrn allude to the preamble to the Constitution Act in holding (obiter) that the right of"inviolabilit: of conscience”, including the right to control the religious education of one's children, foun, its source in natural law and, therefore, because these rights “find their existence in the ver nature of man, ... they cannot be taken away and they must prevail should they conflict wit. the provisions of positive law.” (12 DLR (2d), 807). Italics added.

78 See Lord Hailsham's three works, Elective Dictatorship (Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC, 1976); The Dilemma of Democracy (1978), Ch xx; Hamlyn Revisited: The British Legal System Today (1983), 25-32.

79 Caldwell, J L, “Judicial Sovereignty - A New View” [19841] NZLJ 357Google Scholar; Joseph, P, “Literal Compulsion and Fundamental Rights” [1987] NZLJ 102Google Scholar; Sir Cooke, Robin, “Practicalities of a Bill of Rights” (1986) 2 Aust Bar Rev 189, 201Google Scholar.

80 L v M [1979] 2 NZLR 519, 527 per Cooke J dissenting.

81 New Zealand Drivers' Association v New Zealand Road Carriers [1982] I NZLR 374, 390 per Cooke, McMullin and Ongley JJ.

82 Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board [1984] I NZLR 394, 398; Fraser v State Services Commission [1984] I NZLR 116, 121.

83 Lord Denning, Misuse of Power (Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC, 1980), 11, reprinted(1981) 55 ALJ 720, 723.

84 Ibid 12, 55 ALJ, 723.

85 Allan, supra n 17, 623 n 34. Accord ibid 620-623, 624-627, 628-629; J Jaconelli, Comment [1985] PL 629, 630-631. CfSir Jennings, Ivor: “We should be grateful for Coke's dictum that if the occasion arose, a judge would do what a judge should do”: The Law and the Constitution (5th ed, 1959), 160Google Scholar, quoted by Allan, supra, 622 n 28.

86 As Justice Iredell remarked in 1798: “The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say [if it had power to declare a statute against natural justice void] would be, that the Legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice.”: Calder v Bull (1798) 3 US (3 Dall) 386, 399 per Iredell J, concurring.

87 Bowers v Hardwick (1986) 92 L Ed 2d 140, 148.

88 Ibid.

89 S Lee, Comment [1985) PL 632, 633. See generally ibid 633-635.

90 For Murphy J, supra n 42; for Cooke J, supra n 82.

91 eg Cooke J, supra, text at nn 80-81; Wade, supra n 63, 68 (“... the judges have almost given us a constitution, establishing a kind of entrenched provision to the effect that even Parliament cannot deprive them of their proper function.”); Walker, supra n 47, 281, 282 (endorsing Wade).

92 (1610) 8 Co Rep 113b, 118a; 77 ER 638, 652.

93 Day v Savadge (1614) and City of London v Wood (1701), supra n 60.

94 Cf R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy, ex parte Lowenstein (1938) 59 CLR 556, 588-589 per Dixon and Evatt JJ, dissenting.

95 R v Hess (No 2) [1949) 4 DLR 199, 206, 208-209 per O'Halloran J A (BCCA); Jaconelli, supra n 85, 631. Cf the BLF case (supra n 15), especially per Street CJ, where, however, the New South Wales Court of Appeal unanimously held the State legislation valid.

96 eg the War Damage Act 1965 (UK), reversing the effect of Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965) AC 75 (HL); AL Goodhart, “The Burmah Oil Case and the War Damage Act 1965” (1966) 82 LQR 97; J W Bridge, “Retrospective Legislation and the Rule of Law in Britain” (1967) 35 UMKC L Rev 132. For examples from other countries, see S Shetreet, 'Judicial Independence: New Conceptual Dimensions and Contemporary Challenges”, in Judical Independence: The Contemporary Debate (S Shetreet and J Deschenes eds, 1985), 590, ',09-610, 621.

97 On 3 March 1986.

98 This power was terminated by the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth and UK) s 1.

99 The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (UK) s 2, made inapplicable to State legislation by1 the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth and UK) s 3.

100 By the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) s 3, adopting the Statute of West-minster 1931 (UK) s 2, with effect from 3 September 1939.

101 Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552, 565, 567. Accord China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172, 236-239 per Murphy J, dissenting; Kirmani v Captain, Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985) 159 CLR 351, 382-384.

102 Dicey, AV, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed, 1959), 1 68-69Google Scholar n I. See further Winterton, “The British Grundnorm”, supra n 60, 600-604.

103 Cf Sir Maurice Byers' more limited view that bys 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution the British Parliament abdicated its power to amend that Constitution : “Convention, Associated with the Commonwealth Constitution” (1982) 56 ALJ 316, 318 (letter); “Curren Constitutional Problems”, in Current Constitutional Problems in Australia (1982), 51, 55.

104 Contra (as to United Kingdom legislation applying in Australia by paramount force - at least until 1939), Quick, J and Garran, RR, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901, repr 1976), 994Google Scholar; G Craven, Secession: the Ultimate States Right (1986), 162-163. cf the discussion of the relationship between ss 2 and 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (UK) by Isaacs and Rich JJ in Mccawley v R (1918) 26 CLR 9, 50-51, discussed in Booker, K and Winterton, G, “The Act of Settlement and the Employment of Aliens” (1981) 12 F L Rev 212, 228-229Google Scholar.

105 China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172, 236-237 per Murphy J, dissenting.

106 eg Zines, supra n 48, 244 n I; LJM Cooray, Conventions, the Australian Constitution and the Future (1979), 98; Bickovskii, supra n 56, 469.

107 Cooray, supra n 106, 98-100; For critical factors, 98-99. Cf Lumb, RD, “Fundamental Law and the Processes of Constitutional Change in Australia” (1978) 9 FL Rev 148, 154-155Google Scholar, 157-158 (although, notwithstanding s 128, the British Parliament could have amended the Commonwealth Constitution in 1901, it lost that power sometime before 1950). But see contra Craven, supra n 104, 138-140.

108 The Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) s 4, repealed for Australia by the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth and UK) s 12.

109 The Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) s 9(2), repealed for Australia by the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth and UK) s 12.

110 Passed at the request and with the consent of the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Governments: Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985, passed by all the States; Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985 (Cth).

111 Supra n 107. Cf Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985) 159 CLR 351, 441-442 per Deane J.

112 Murphy J referred to Commonwealth v Kreglinger & Fernau Ltd (1926) 37 CLR 393,412 per Isaacs J.

113 Quoting de Smith, SA, Constitutional and Administrative Law (3rd ed by H Street, B de Smith and R Brazier, 1977), 68Google Scholar.

114 China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172, 237 per Murphy J, dissenting.

115 Cf Allan, supra n 17, 619: “Legal validity cannot be divorced from political reality”.

116 eg Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985) 159 CLR 351, 371 (Gibbs CJ), 381-382 (Mason J), 385 (Murphy J), 441 (Deane J); Zines, supra n 48, 263-264.

117 Winterton, supra n 11, 23-24, 40, 51.

118 Supra, text at nn 24-25.

119 For a more modest claim, based upon s 4 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) (interpreting it as a “manner and form” provision), which does not enter extra-constitutional territory, see Winterton, “The British Grundnorm”, supra n 60, 602-603. But see Manuel v A-G [1983) Ch 77 (CA).

120 eg Cooray, supra n 106, 93-100; Finnis, J M, “Revolutions and Continuity of Law”, in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (2nd ser, AWB Simpson ed, 1973), 44, 52Google Scholar ff.

121 eg Gratwick v Johnson (1945) 70 CLR I, 11-12 (Latham CJ), 20 (Dixon J), discussing the maxim salus populi suprema lex. For a rare argument based upon the principle of"necessity”, see the unpublished paper by Peter Johnston noted in G Winterton, “Can the Commonwealth Parliament Enact 'Manner and Form' Legislation?” (1980) 11 FL Rev 167, 170.

122 Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985] I SCR 721; A-G of the Republic v Mustafa Ibrahim[1964] Cyprus LR 195, discussed in Re Manitoba Language Rights, supra 761-763, 766.

123 State v Dosso PLO 1958 SC 533; Begum Nusrat Bhutto v Chief of Army Staff PLO 1977 SC 657 (but see Asma Jilani v Government of Punjab PLO 1972 SC 139, overruling State v Dosso, supra); Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons, ex parte Matovu (1966] EA 514 (Uganda HC); Ramniklal Valabjhi v Controller of Taxes (Seychelles CA, 11 August 1981, unrep noted in (1981) 7 CLB 1249); Nigerian Union of Journalists v A-G of Nigeria [1986] LRC (Const) I (Nigeria CA); Mitchell v DPP (1985] LRC (Const) 127 (Grenada HC), affirmed [1986] LR.C (Const) 35 (CA), and see also Mitchell v DPP [1986] AC 73 (PC). There is a vast literature on this subject. eg L Wolf-Phillips, Constitutional Legitimacy: A Study of the Doctrine of Necessity (nd c 1980); Stavsky, MM, “The Doctrine of State Necessity in Pakistan” (1983) 16 Corn Int' LJ 341Google Scholar; Hassan, Farooq, “A Juridical Critique of Successful Treason: A Jurisprudential Analysis of the Constitutionality of a Coup d'Etat in the Common Law” (1984) 20 Stan J Int' L 191Google Scholar; Nwabueze, B O, Constitutionalism in the Emergent States (1973) Chs VIIGoogle Scholar and VIII; Nwabueze, B O, Judicialism in Commonwealth Africa (1977) Ch VIIGoogle Scholar.

124 Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank (1791), in 19 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (J Boyd ed, 1974), 276.