Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T04:35:03.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Queensland v. The Commonwealth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Vincent Robinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Note
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 375 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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 (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 100. High Court of Australia; Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

2 This representative was only a non-voting representative until 1936. From that year until 1968, this member was able to vote only on Northern Territory matters. Full voting rights came in 1968.

3 S. 5.

4 S. 4 mirrors the first paragraph of s. 7 of the Constitution which provides that “The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting … as one electorate”.

5 Note that each Act applies the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to the elections for which it provides—this means among other things universal suffrage as given under s. 39 of this Act.

6 (1975) 134 C.L.R. 201. The case will be referred to in this note as The Western Australia Case.

7 Id. 227-232.

8 Id. 243-250, especially 246-248.

9 Id. 255-260.

10 Id. 267-271.

11 Id. 272-275.

12 Id. 280-287.

13 (1977) 51 A.L.J.R. 328.

14 Id. 331.

15 (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 100. The case will be referred to in this note as The Queensland Case.

16 Note that for the purposes of s. 128 “Territory” means “any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives”. Quaere the situation had the representation legislation been held invalid.

17 The Queensland Case op. cit. 104 per Gibbs I. and 111 per Aickin J.

18 As to the effect of future Territory representation legislation changes, see the views of Gibbs and Stephen II. discussed infra p. 381.

19 Reference should also be made to Attorney-General (N.S.W.) (ex rel. McKellar) v. Commonwealth op. cit., Paterson v. O'Brien (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 295 and the note in (1978) 52 A.L.J. 169 for other elements in the challenge mounted against Territory representation.

20 See comments by Gibbs J. and Murphy J. in The Western Australia Case op. cit. 245-246, 282 respectively.

21 The Queensland Case op. cit. 107. See also The Western Australia Case op. cit. 272-273 per Jacobs J., 282-283 per Murphy J.

22 See, for example, The Western Australia Case op. cit. 245-246 per Gibbs J.

23 The Queensland Case op. cit. 111-112 per Aickin J.

24 The Western Australia Case op. cit. 270 per Mason J.

25 The Queensland Case op. cit. 101; The Western Australia Case op. cit. 227-228.

26 Barwick C.J. said in The Western Australia Case op. cit. 228, “I cannot think that the founders of the Commonwealth intended that these essential features might be swept aside as it were by a bywind” (italics added).

27 Id. 228-229.

28 The Queensland Case op. cit. 104.

29 The Western Australia Case op. cit. 256-257.

30 The Queensland Case op. cit. 112.

31 Id. 107.

32 Id. 108.

33 Ibid.

34 Id. 109.

35 The Western Australia Case op. cit. 286.

36 The Queensland Case op. cit. 101.

37 See, for example, s. 10 and certain parts of ss. 7, 22 and 24.

38 The Queensland Case op. cit. 107 (italics added).

39 The Western Australia Case op. cit. 269-270.

40 The Queensland Case op. cit. 104.

41 Ibid.

42 Id. 106.

43 Ibid.

44 The Western Australia Case op. cit. 271.

45 Id. 281, 287.

46 Id. 231.

47 Id. 285.

48 The Queensland Case op. cit. 107.

49 Id. 108.

50 (1978) 52 A.L.J. 57, 58.

51 The Queensland Case op. cit. 101. Note the cryptic reservation of Murphy J. in the Western Australia Case op. cit. 287: “These Territories may never become States. There may be constitutional and other obstacles to their attaining Statehood.”

52 Quick, and Garran, , The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Common-wealth (1901) 969.Google Scholar

53 Most of the justices who discussed the matter took Australian Agricultural Co. v. The Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia (1913) 17 C.L.R. 261 as their starting point. Also cited were: Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Ltd) (1952) 85 C.L.R. 237, 243-244; Perpetual Executors & Trustees Association of Australia Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 77 C.L.R. 493, 496; Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v. New South Wales (1953) 87 C.L.R. 49, 70; The Commonwealth v. Cigamatic Pty Ltd (1962) 108 C.L.R. 372, 389. For a contrary view on the degree of uniformity in the Court see Note, (1978) 52 A.L.J. 59. See also Springall, , “Stare Decisis as Applied by the High Court to its Previous Decisions” p. 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 The Queensland Case op. cit. 105.

55 Id. 102 per Barwick C.J.

56 The Tramways Case (No.1) (1914) 18 C.L.R. 54, 69.

57 The Queensland Case op. cit. 104.

58 Id. 106 per Stephen J.

59 Id. 106 per Stephen J. and 116 per Aickin J.

60 Ibid.

61 Id. 104 per Gibbs J.

62 Id. 102 per Barwick C.J., 108-109 per Murphy J. and 116 per Aickin J.

63 Id. 102 per Barwick C.J. and 107 per Jacobs J. Contrast the views of Aickin J. at 116.

64 Id 116 per Aickin J.

65 Ibid.

66 Id. 104 per Gibbs J., 106 per Stephen J. and 116 per Aickin J. Aickin J. thought that in the present case the earlier decision had not been acted on in the sense indicated by the authorities on stare decisis.

67 Id. 106 per Stephen J.

68 Id. 116 per Aickin J.

69 See for instance H.C. Sleigh Ltd v. South Australia (1977) 51 A.L.J.R. 377.

70 The Queensland Case op. cit. 113-114 per Aickin J.

71 Id. 106. See also the discussion by Prott, , “When Will a Superior Court Over- rule Its Own Decision?” (1978) 52 A.L.J. 304, 311.Google Scholar

72 Id. 102 (italics added).

73 Ibid.

74 Id. 108-109.

75 Id. 104.

76 Id. 105 (italics added).

77 For the views of these two justices one has to go back to H.C. Sleigh Ltd v. South Australia op. cit. The views of Mason J. appear at 383—he maintains that in constitutional cases the Court should be slow to depart from an earlier decision because of the danger of disturbing legislative and financial arrangements made in justifiable reliance on the earlier decision. The views of Jacobs J. appear at 387-38—in his view earlier decisions are to be followed unless they are wrong and unless adherence to them would lead to “social, economic and political consequences which cannot be tolerated by the nation”. On the basis of these comments these two justices appear to be in agreement with the Gibbs and Stephen JJ. view.

78 The Queensland Case op. cit. 107.

79 Id. 103-104 per Gibbs J., 106-107 per Stephen J. and 110 per Aickin J.

80 Id. 110.