No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
‘State courts’ can be understood in at least two ways. Their ‘attributes’ are the characteristics that define them as ‘courts’. Their ‘attribution’ is the extent to which they are regarded as emanations of a ‘state’ in its constitutional conception as a constituent unit of the federation. The principle first articulated in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 ensures the institutional integrity of state courts by protecting from legislative impairment their defining characteristics as ‘courts’. It therefore understands state courts almost exclusively by their ‘attributes’. This article examines the significance to the Kable principle of also understanding state courts by their ‘attribution‘. There are different conceptions of the proper attribution of state courts, coincident with different visions of how to accommodate simultaneous constitutional commitments to autonomous states and integrated courts. Those conceptions influence the content and application of the Kable principle in ways that are insufficiently appreciated. This insight permits a new perspective on the Kable principle as a doctrine of federalism, and its recent applications in International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319; Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; and Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181. It also prompts an analysis of a contemporaneous evolution in the constitutional policy of the Commonwealth, whose Attorney-General typically intervened in Kable cases in support of the states, until recently seeking to extend to them certain Chapter III limitations.
I profited from opportunities to present earlier versions of this work, first in a public seminar for the Centre for International and Public Law (CIPL) at the Australian National University on 19 November 2010, and again to colleagues in the doctoral program at Yale Law School on 4 November 2011. I thank Professor Kim Rubenstein for the invitation to develop my work in the CIPL forum; those who attended my presentations, for the stimulating discussions; and the anonymous referee, and editors, for several helpful suggestions.
1 Transcript of Proceedings, Kable v DPP (NSW) (High Court of Australia, S114/1995, Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ, 7 December 1995) <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/1995/430.html>.
2 Transcript of Proceedings, Fardon v A–G (Qld) [2004] HCATrans 039 (2 March 2004) 3318–21.
3 (1996) 189 CLR 51 ('Kable’).
4 This includes state Supreme Courts: Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51; lower state courts: South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1 ('Totani’); and territory courts: North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146 ('Bradley’), 163 [27]–[29] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ). The article focuses on state courts. Much of what is said can apply with appropriate modification to the territory context, although different considerations also arise.
5 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51.
6 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 ('Kirk’).
7 Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45 ('Forge’).
8 International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319 ('International Finance’).
9 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1.
10 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181 ('Wainohu’).
11 See, eg, H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland (1998) 195 CLR 547 ('Bachrach’); Silbert v DPP (WA) (2004) 217 CLR 181; Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146; Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513 ('Baker’); Fardon v A–G (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 ('Fardon’); Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45; Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532 ('Gypsy Jokers’); K–Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501 ('K–Generation’).
12 International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319; Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181. See also Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531; Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 85 ALJR 957 ('Momcilovic’) (Gummow J, Hayne J and Heydon J).
13 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 208 [43] (French CJ and Kiefel J); see also at 209–10 [45], citing Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 81 [201] (Hayne J).
14 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 45 [66] (French CJ), citing: Clyne v East (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 385; Building Construction Employees’ and Building Labourers’ Federation (NSW) v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372; Nicholas v Western Australia [1972] WAR 168; Gilbertson v South Australia (1976) 15 SASR 66; City of Collingwood v Victoria [No 2] [1994] 1 VR 652; Gerard, Carney, The Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories (Cambridge University Press, 2006) 344–9Google Scholar.
15 Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 76 [63] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).
16 Ibid.
17 See, eg, Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31 ('Melbourne Corporation’); Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185 ('Austin’); Clarke v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 240 CLR 272 ('Clarke’).
18 See especially Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185.
19 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 103 (Gaudron J), quoting Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, 498–9 (Gaudron J).
20 See Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78A.
21 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
22 Textual indications of the assumption are evident in the definition of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction (s 73) and in the conferral of power to define jurisdiction (s 77).
23 Constitution ss 75, 76.
24 Ibid s 77.
25 Ibid ss 71, 77(i). The provision for the investment of federal jurisdiction is four–fold: first, there is conferred directly on the High Court original jurisdiction in five classes of matter (s 75); secondly, the Parliament is authorised to confer on the High Court additional original jurisdiction in the remaining four classes of matter (s 76); thirdly, the Parliament is authorised to create lower federal courts and define their jurisdiction with respect to any of the nine classes of matter (ss 71, 77(i)); and fourthly, the Parliament is authorised to invest any court of a State with federal jurisdiction (s 77(iii)).
26 R v Murray and Cormie; Ex parte Commonwealth (1916) 22 CLR 437, 452 (Isaacs J), quoted in Le Mesurier v Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481, 495 (Knox CJ, Rich and Dixon JJ), and in Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 67 [39] (Gleeson CJ). But see Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 100 (Gaudron J).
27 Cheryl, Saunders, ‘Administrative Law and Relations between Governments: Australia and Europe Compared’ (2000) 28 Federal Law Review 263, 290Google Scholar, quoted in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559, 572 [12] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
28 Clarke (2009) 240 CLR 272, 306 [65] (Gummow, Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
29 See, eg, Melbourne Corporation (1947) 74 CLR 31; Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185; Clarke (2009) 240 CLR 272.
30 See especially Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185.
31 Constitution ss 51, 52.
32 See, eg, Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39(2), 68(2).
33 Lorenzo v Carey (1921) 29 CLR 243, 252 (Knox CJ, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ).
34 There were no lower federal courts until the specialist Federal Court of Bankruptcy was created in 1930. The Federal Court of Australia, possessed of wide jurisdiction under many Commonwealth statutes, was not established until 1976: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); as at June 2011, 184 principal Acts conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Court: Federal Court of Australia, Acts which Confer Jurisdiction (June 2011) <http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/aboutct/aboutct_jurisdiction_acts.html>. Federal and state courts share large tracts of concurrent federal jurisdiction, although federal courts, consistently with s 77(ii) of the Constitution, have exclusive jurisdiction under several important statutes: see, eg, Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 9; Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 86.
35 See complementary legislation in each state, eg, Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross–Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) s 4; Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 ('Wakim’).
36 Wakim (1999) 198 CLR 511.
37 See Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 608 (Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ); Leslie, Zines, Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 3rd ed, 2002) 137–48Google Scholar.
38 Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 218 CLR 330. See also Graeme, Hill, ‘The Common Law and Federal Jurisdiction — What Exactly Does Section 80 of the Judiciary Act Do?’ (2006) 34 Federal Law Review 75Google Scholar.
39 Solomons v District Court (NSW) (2002) 211 CLR 119, 134 [21] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ), quoting Pedersen v Young (1964) 110 CLR 162, 165 (Kitto J).
40 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 607 (Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ).
41 Constitution s 73(ii).
42 Australia Acts 1986. See also Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 (Cth); Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 (Cth); Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88, in which the High Court held that it was not bound by decisions of the Privy Council and that state courts should, if faced with conflicting authorities, follow the High Court rather than the Privy Council.
43 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say–Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89, 151–2 [135] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
44 Ibid. See also Justice, J D Heydon, ‘How Far Can Trial Courts and Intermediate Appellate Courts Develop the Law?’ (2009) 9 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 1, 22–4Google Scholar.
45 See Justice Robert French, ‘Judicial Exchange — Debalkanising the Courts’ (Colloquium Paper, Judicial Conference of Australia, 4 September 2005) <http://www.jca.asn.au/attachments/2005–French_Paper.pdf>.
46 Judith, Resnik, ‘Categorical Federalism: Jurisdiction, Gender and the Globe’ (2001) 111 Yale Law Journal 619Google Scholar (reacting to the United States Supreme Court's statement that the Constitution ‘requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local': United States v Morrison, 529 US 598, 617–18 (Rehnquist CJ, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas JJ) (2000)).
47 Chief JusticeMurray, Gleeson, ‘The State of the Judicature’ (2000) 74 Australian Law Journal 147, 148Google Scholar.
48 Angus, Stevenson (ed), Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 6th ed, 2007)Google Scholar.
49 The word ‘attribution’ is used in this sense, for example, in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Pt IX.
50 See, eg, Ronald, Dworkin, ‘The Jurisprudence of Richard Nixon’ (1972) 18(8) New York Review of Books 27, 28Google Scholar: ‘When I appeal to the concept of fairness I appeal to what fairness means, and I give my views on that issue no special standing. When I lay down a conception of fairness, I lay down what I mean by fairness, and my view is therefore the heart of the matter'; see also, eg, W B, Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’ (1956) 56 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 167Google Scholar; John, Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971) 5Google Scholar; Ronald, Dworkin, Law's Empire (Harvard University Press, 1986) 70–2Google Scholar; Jeremy, Waldron, ‘Is the Rule of Law an Essentially Contested Concept (in Florida)?’ (2002) 21 Law and Philosophy 137, 150–3Google Scholar.
51 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 141.
52 K–Generation (2009) 237 CLR 501; Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1.
53 Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 76 [63] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).
54 Chief JusticeJ J, Spigelman, ‘The Centrality of Jurisdictional Error’ (2010) 21 Public Law Review 77, 79Google Scholar.
55 Owen, Fiss, ‘The Forms of Justice’ (1979) 93 Harvard Law Review 1, 11Google Scholar. Professor Fiss’ theory of constitutional adjudication as giving meaning to public values was cited in Gypsy Jokers (2008) 234 CLR 532, 561 [46], 570 [74] (Kirby J); see also Momcilovic (2011) 85 ALJR 957, 996 [87] (French CJ) citing Owen, Fiss, ‘Against Settlement’ (1984) 93 Yale Law Journal 1073, 1085Google Scholar.
56 See, eg, Adrienne, Stone, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure: Standards of Review and the Freedom of Political Communication’ (1999) 23 Melbourne University Law Review 668Google Scholar; Adrienne, Stone, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure Revisited' (2005) 28 University of New South Wales Law Journal 842Google Scholar; Stephen, Gageler, ‘Beyond the Text: A Vision of the Structure and Function of the Constitution’ (2009) 32 Australian Bar Review 138Google Scholar. Recognition of the relevance of theories of federalism is implicit in Leslie, Zines, ‘Sir Owen Dixon's Theory of Federalism’ (1965) 1 Federal Law Review 221Google Scholar, in which the author identified in Sir Owen Dixon's decisions certain ‘federal assumptions'.
57 Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330, 357 (Griffith CJ).
58 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245, 267 (Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ): ‘Difficulty arises in attempting to formulate a comprehensive definition of judicial power not so much because it consists of a number of factors as because the combination is not always the same. It is hard to point to any essential or constant characteristic.'
59 Wakim (1999) 198 CLR 511, 573 [108] (Gummow and Hayne JJ, with whom Gleeson CJ and Gaudron J relevantly agreed).
60 Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia (2008) 234 CLR 418, 475–6 [97] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) ('Betfair’); see also Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129.
61 Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 92 [20] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
62 H L A, Hart, ‘Introduction’ in John, Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and the Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence (Humanities Press, 1965 ed) xGoogle Scholar.
63 H L A, Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Press, 2nd ed, 1994) 100–10Google Scholar.
64 Ibid 101. Hart is said himself to have confirmed this interpretation in private correspondence with Professor Kent Greenawalt: see Kent, Greenawalt, ‘The Rule of Recognition and the Constitution’ (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review 621Google Scholar, 631 n 30.
65 Greenawalt, above n 64, 648–54.
66 Leslie, Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 5th ed, 2008) 557Google Scholar: ‘There is of course no logical or legal reason why we need to have a “sovereign” at all, or to think or talk in those terms.’ See also Leslie, Zines, ‘The Sovereignty of the People’ in Michael, Coper and George, Williams (eds), Power, Parliament and the People (Federation Press, 1997) 91, 93Google Scholar.
67 Evidence to the Royal Commission on the Constitution, Melbourne, 13 December 1927, 776, 792 (Owen Dixon KC). See also JusticeOwen, Dixon, ‘The Law and the Constitution’ (1935) 51 Law Quarterly Review 590, 607Google Scholar; JusticeRae, Else–Mitchell, ‘The Judicial System — The Myth of Perfection and the Need for Unity’ (1970) 44 Australian Law Journal 516Google Scholar; SirFrancis, Burt, ‘An Australian Judicature’ (1982) 56 Australian Law Journal 509Google Scholar; SirLaurence, Street, ‘Towards an Australian Judicial System’ (1982) 56 Australian Law Journal 515Google Scholar.
68 Tony, Blackshield and George, Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010) 651–2Google Scholar.
69 See, eg, Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485.
70 See Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 90 (Toohey J).
71 Ibid 65 (Brennan CJ), 77 (Dawson J), 92–4 (Toohey J), 109 (McHugh J).
72 (1995) 184 CLR 348.
73 Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57.
74 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 96 (Toohey J), 103–4 (Gaudron J), 132–4 (Gummow J).
75 Strictly, this formulation did not attract a majority in Kable itself, because Toohey J held that the actual exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth by the Supreme Court was crucial to the result: Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 95, 99. Later cases, including International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319, 363 [86] (Gummow and Bell JJ), Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1 and Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, illustrate that an actual engagement of federal jurisdiction is not necessary and that the imperative of institutional integrity flows at most from the court's capacity to exercise, and probably no more than the court's liability to be invested with, federal jurisdiction.
76 Gageler, above n 56, 138–40.
77 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 103; see also at 96 (Toohey J), 116 (McHugh J), 143 (Gummow J).
78 See, eg, Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, 468–9 (Mason CJ, Dawson and McHugh JJ); Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund (1982) 150 CLR 49, 61 (Mason J); Le Mesurier v Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481, 495–6 (Knox CJ, Rich and Dixon JJ); Federated Sawmill, Timberyard and General Woodworkers’ Employees’ Association (Adelaide Branch) v Alexander (1912) 15 CLR 308, 313 (Griffith CJ). See also Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 46 [67]–[68] (French CJ).
79 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 67–8 (Brennan CJ), 81–2 (Dawson J).
80 See especially ibid 101–2 (Gaudron J).
81 Ibid 102 (Gaudron J).
82 Ibid 103 (Gaudron J), quoting Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, 498–9 (Gaudron J).
83 (2009) 240 CLR 319.
84 Above n 11. But see Re Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 [2004] 1 Qd R 40.
85 Baker (2004) 223 CLR 513, 561 [142]; contra Fardon (2004) 223 CLR 575, 618 [104] (Gummow J).
86 APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 322, 484 [469].
87 Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 67 [40]. See, more recently, Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 95–6 [245] (Heydon J): ‘No counsel has ever sought leave to argue that Kable's case be overruled. Hence it must be faithfully applied, whatever its meaning.'
88 Fiona, Wheeler, ‘The Kable Doctrine and State Legislative Power Over State Courts’ (2005) 20(2) Australasian Parliamentary Review 15, 31Google Scholar.
89 (2009) 240 CLR 319.
90 (2010) 239 CLR 531; the impugned privative clause was not held invalid but construed not to oust review for jurisdictional error on the basis that such ousting would be invalid.
91 (2010) 242 CLR 1.
92 (2011) 243 CLR 181.
93 (2011) 85 ALJR 957 (Gummow J, Hayne J and Heydon J).
94 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 124. See also Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348, 377 (McHugh J).
95 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 124 (McHugh J).
96 Ibid 132.
97 Ibid 143.
98 Rohan, Hardcastle, ‘A Chapter III Implication for State Courts: Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions’ (1998) 3 Newcastle Law Review 13, 24Google Scholar.
99 (2004) 218 CLR 146.
100 Transcript of Proceedings, North Australian Aboriginal Legal Service v Bradley [2003] HCATrans 408 (8 October 2003) 1969–70 (S J Gageler SC); see also at 1652–7 (S J Gageler SC); Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146, 147–9 (S J Gageler SC) (during argument).
101 Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146, 163–4 [30]–[32], 172 [65] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ).
102 (2004) 223 CLR 513.
103 (2004) 223 CLR 575.
104 Fardon (2004) 223 CLR 575, 617–18 [102] (Gummow J); see also at 593 [23] (Gleeson CJ), 629–30 [144] (Kirby J); Baker (2004) 223 CLR 513, 519–20 [5]–[6] (Gleeson CJ), 534 [51] (McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ) 542 [79] (Kirby J); but see Fardon (2004) 223 CLR 575, 598 [35] (McHugh J), 653 [213] (Callinan and Heydon JJ).
105 (2006) 228 CLR 45.
106 Ibid 76 [63] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).
107 Ibid 122 [194] (Kirby J), 149 [274] (Heydon J).
108 Momcilovic (2011) 85 ALJR 957, 1096 [598] (Crennan and Kiefel JJ); Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 219 [68] (French CJ and Kiefel J).
109 (1998) 194 CLR 355.
110 Ibid 390 [93] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); see also at 374 [38] (Brennan CJ).
111 Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364, 369–70 [10] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597, 613 [46] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), 643 [144]–[145] (Hayne J).
112 Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446, 469 [60] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
113 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Payne (2001) 202 CLR 93, 111 [47] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ) (footnotes omitted), cited in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Day (2008) 236 CLR 163, 179 [29] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ).
114 Hardcastle, above n 98, 16–20.
115 Ibid 18, quoting J J, Doyle, ‘Constitutional Law: “At the Eye of the Storm“’ (1993) 23 University of Western Australia Law Review 15Google Scholar, 20.
116 Baker (2004) 223 CLR 513, 533–4 [47]–[48] (McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).
117 Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 60 [17] (Gleeson CJ), 136 [238] (Callinan J), 141–6 [256]–[267] (Heydon J); see also the observation that ‘[b]oth before and long after federation, courts of summary jurisdiction have been constituted by Justices of the Peace or by stipendiary magistrates who formed part of the colonial or State public services': at 82 [82] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).
118 Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531, 580 [97] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
119 (1874) LR 5 PC 417 ('Willan’).
120 Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531, 580–1 [97]–[98] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
121 (2010) 242 CLR 1.
122 Cf R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 268 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ) famously describing the conferral of federal jurisdiction upon state courts as an ‘autochthonous expedient'.
123 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 38 [50].
124 Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 76 [64] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ). See also Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146, 163 [30] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ): ‘No exhaustive statement of what constitutes that minimum [independence and impartiality] in all cases is possible'.
125 (2010) 239 CLR 531.
126 (1874) LR 5 PC 417.
127 Transcript of Proceedings, Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW), [2009] HCATrans 239 (1 October 2009) 8087 (S J Gageler SC).
128 (1892) 18 VLR 456 ('Biel’).
129 See Transcript of Proceedings, Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW), [2009] HCATrans 239 (1 October 2009) 8086–116 (S J Gageler SC), 9072–85 (Gummow J and S G E McLeish SC); see also Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531, 543 (S J Gageler SC) (during argument).
130 K–Generation (2009) 237 CLR 501, 530 [90] (French CJ); see also Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 201–2 [30] (French CJ and Kiefel J).
131 See, eg, Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 132 (Gummow J); International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319, 379 [140] (Heydon J).
132 Fardon (2004) 223 CLR 575, 618 [104]; see also Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 47 [69] (French CJ), 82 [207] (Hayne J); Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 201–2 [30] (French CJ and Kiefel J).
133 K–Generation (2009) 237 CLR 501, 530 [90].
134 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 202 [30].
135 Ibid.
136 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 102–3 (Gaudron J); see above nn 81–2 and accompanying text.
137 (2004) 218 CLR 146.
138 (2006) 228 CLR 45.
139 (2010) 242 CLR 1.
140 Ibid 96 [246]. See also New State Ice Co v Liebmann, 285 US 262, 311 (1932), in which Brandeis J (dissenting) famously described ‘one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country'.
141 Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531.
142 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181.
143 Momcilovic (2011) 85 ALJR 957.
144 Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45, 76 [63] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).
145 See especially Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 208 [43], 209–10 [45], 212 [52] (French CJ and Kiefel J); Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 81 [201] (Hayne J).
146 Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531, 581 [99] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
147 Ibid 580–1 [97]–[99] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
148 See, eg, Richard Fallon, ‘Strict Judicial Scrutiny’ (2007) 54 UCLA Law Review 1267, 1273–5.
149 (2004) 223 CLR 575.
150 Ibid 591 [17].
151 Ibid 601 [43].
152 Ibid 617 [100].
153 See ibid 601–2 [43] (McHugh J): ‘The Kable principle, if required to be applied in future, is more likely to be applied in respect of the terms, conditions and manner of appointment of State judges … than in the context of Kable–type legislation.'
154 See Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146; Forge (2006) 228 CLR 45.
155 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 46 [68]. See also Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 212 [52] (French CJ and Kiefel J).
156 (2008) 234 CLR 532.
157 (2009) 237 CLR 501; see also Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146.
158 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1 ('Work Choices Case’) 161 [355] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins (2000) 202 CLR 629, 644 [28] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ); A-G (Vic) v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 237, 267 (Dixon J).
159 Applicant VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88, 98 [24] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ), quoted in Gypsy Jokers (2008) 234 CLR 532, 596 [182] (Crennan J).
160 International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319, 349 [42] (French CJ).
161 (2003) 215 CLR 185.
162 (1947) 74 CLR 31.
163 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 269 [181] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
164 (2008) 234 CLR 599, 626 [57] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).
165 Baker (2004) 223 CLR 513, 544 [84] (Kirby J).
166 (2009) 240 CLR 319.
167 (2010) 242 CLR 1.
168 (2011) 243 CLR 181.
169 (2011) 85 ALJR 957.
170 (2010) 239 CLR 531.
171 International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319, 354–5 [55].
172 Ibid 366–7 [97] (Gummow and Bell JJ), 385 [155], 386 [160] (Heydon J).
173 Ibid 374 [126].
174 See above nn 156–60 and accompanying text.
175 International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319, 349 [42].
176 Ibid.
177 The practice may be compared with the broader interpretive principle, sometimes employed in the United States, according to which a construction that avoids not only constitutional invalidity, but also constitutional doubts, should be preferred: see Crowell v Benson, 285 US 22, 62 (1932); Ashwander v Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 US 288, 348 (Brandeis J) (1936); National Labor Relations Board v Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 US 490, 500 (Burger CJ, Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist and Stevens JJ), 510 (Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun JJ dissenting) (1979); William, Eskridge and Philip, Frickey, ‘Quasi–Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules as Constitutional Lawmaking’ (1992) 45 Vanderbilt Law Review 593Google Scholar.
178 Amelia, Simpson, ‘State Immunity from Commonwealth Laws: Austin v Commonwealth and Dilemmas of Doctrinal Design’ (2004) 32 University of Western Australia Law Review 44, 56Google Scholar.
179 (2008) 234 CLR 532, 537–8 (D F Jackson QC) (during argument).
180 (2009) 237 CLR 501, 504–5 (M J Hinton QC) (during argument).
181 (2009) 240 CLR 319, 349 [40] (French CJ), 378 [135] (Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), 387 [162] (Heydon J); see also at 330 (M G Sexton SC) (during argument).
182 Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531, 566 [55] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ). This is qualitatively different from the kind of strained construction employed in Gypsy Jokers (2008) 234 CLR 532, K–Generation (2009) 237 CLR 501 and International Finance (2009) 240 CLR 319 (Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) because the construction of privative clauses in this way has been familiar in the federal sphere at least since Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 ('Plaintiff S157’). Kirk is not so much about giving a strained construction as extending the federal principle to the state sphere.
183 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 52 [82] (French CJ).
184 Ibid 66 [142] (Gummow J).
185 Ibid 173 [481] (Kiefel J).
186 Ibid 160 [436].
187 Ibid 52 [82].
188 Ibid 88–9 [226].
189 Ibid 99 [251] (Heydon J).
190 Above n 140 and accompanying text.
191 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 219 [67] (French CJ and Kiefel J). See also at 230 [109] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).
192 Ibid 228–9 [105] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).
193 Ibid 219 [68]; see also at 210 [47], 212 [51].
194 (1996) 189 CLR 1 ('Wilson’); see also Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57; Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348.
195 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 212 [52].
196 Ibid 213 [52], quoting Enid, Campbell, ‘Constitutional Protection of State Courts and Judges’ (1997) 23 Monash University Law Review 397, 421Google Scholar.
197 Work Choices Case (2006) 229 CLR 1, 73–4 [54], 103 [141], 104 [145], 116 [183], 118 [189], 120–1 [195]–[196] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
198 See Zines, ‘Sir Owen Dixon's Theory of Federalism', above n 56; Gageler, above n 56, 154; Melbourne Corporation (1947) 74 CLR 31.
199 (2008) 234 CLR 418.
200 Ibid 452 [12] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).
201 Ibid 474 [88] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).
202 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78A(1). ‘States’ in this context includes the mainland territories: s 78AA. Prior to the insertion of the statutory right by the Judiciary Amendment Act 1976 (Cth), intervention required leave, which was readily granted as a practical matter. For convenience I will refer simply to interventions by the Commonwealth or a state, even though the right is that of the Attorney–General.
203 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B.
204 See generally Enid, Campbell, ‘Intervention in Constitutional Cases’ (1998) 9 Public Law Review 255Google Scholar. But see also K–Generation (2009) 237 CLR 501, 544 [155] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) in which the High Court appeared somewhat critical of Queensland and Western Australia for putting ‘certain arguments not accepted by the immediate parties'. For a defence of intervention submissions not put by the parties, see Transcript of Proceedings, International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission [2009] HCATrans 107 (26 May 2009) 1999–2016 (S J Gageler SC); Pamela, Tate SC, ‘The High Court on Constitutional Law: The 2008 Term’ (2009) 32(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 169, 177Google Scholar.
205 Transcript of Proceedings, Kable v DPP (NSW) (High Court of Australia, S114/1995, Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ, 7 December 1995) <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/1995/430.html>.
206 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 61.
207 Ibid.
208 See R v Moffatt [1998] 2 VR 229; Wynbyne v Marshall (1997) 7 NTLR 97; Felman v Law Institute of Victoria [1998] 4 VR 324; Lloyd v Snooks (1997) 7 Tas R 18; Hi–Fert Pty Ltd v Kuikiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 2) (1997) 75 FCR 583; Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163; Bachrach (1998) 195 CLR 547. But see also Comptroller–General of Customs v Kingswood Distillery Pty Ltd (1996) 135 FLR 411 (in which the Comptroller–General was a party); Cheesman v Waters (1997) 77 FCR 221 (in which the Attorney–General was a party); Laurance v Katter [2000] 1 Qd R 147 (in which Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) s 16(3) was challenged); Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173 (in which Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 15X was challenged); Re Australasian Memory Pty Ltd (1997) 149 ALR 393 (in which the Attorney–General intervened in support of the validity of the Corporations Law; it was disputed whether Kable applied, but it was conceded that the law would not be invalid on Kable grounds, at 428–9 (Santow J)).
209 (1998) 195 CLR 547.
210 Ibid 561–2 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
211 (2004) 223 CLR 513.
212 Baker (2004) 223 CLR 513 was argued on 4 February 2004. Earlier, on 8 October 2003, the High Court heard oral argument in Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146, in which the Commonwealth Attorney–General's submissions did not invoke the logic of Bachrach (as to which see below n 245 and accompanying text): Transcript of Proceedings, North Australian Aboriginal Legal Service v Bradley [2003] HCATrans 408 (8 October 2003) 3115–561 (D M J Bennett QC); and on 9 December 2003 an enlarged Full Court dismissed an application for special leave without hearing argument from the interveners: Silbert (2004) 217 CLR 181, 184 (Gleeson CJ) (during argument); Transcript of Proceedings, Silbert v DPP(WA) [2003] HCATrans 515 (9 December 2003) 2467 (Gleeson CJ).
213 Transcript of Proceedings, Baker v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 3 (4 February 2004) 2545–51 (H C Burmester QC).
214 Transcript of Proceedings, Fardon v A–G (Qld) [2004] HCATrans 039 (2 March 2004) 3205–13 (H C Burmester QC); see also Fardon (2004) 223 CLR 575, 591 [18] (Gleeson CJ), 608 [68]–[69] (Gummow J), 631 [145] (Kirby J).
215 Transcript of Proceedings, International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission [2009] HCATrans 107 (26 May 2009) 2170–4 (Gummow J and S J Gageler SC).
216 Transcript of Proceedings, Hogan v Hinch [2010] HCATrans 285 (3 November 2010) 3913–31 (S J Gageler SC).
217 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 items 106–7; see also DPP (Cth) v Kamal (2011) 248 FLR 64, 79 [44] (Martin CJ), 103 [161] (Buss JA).
218 (2011) 243 CLR 506, 554 [91] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
219 See ibid; Momcilovic (2011) 85 ALJR 957 (in relation to the validity of s 36 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), authorising the Supreme Court to make a declaration of inconsistent interpretation).
220 (2009) 240 CLR 319.
221 Transcript of Proceedings, Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) [2009] HCATrans 239 (1 October 2009) 8180–277 (S J Gageler SC).
222 Spigelman, above n 54, 77.
223 (2003) 211 CLR 476.
224 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 228–9 [105] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ).
225 Transcript of Proceedings, Wainohu v NSW [2010] HCATrans 319 (2 December 2010) 2823–4 (S J Gageler SC).
226 Ibid 2881–97 (S J Gageler SC).
227 Ibid 2069–77 (M G Sexton SC).
228 Ibid 3321–597 (P J Hanks QC).
229 Wainohu (2011) 243 CLR 181, 248 [172] (Heydon J).
230 Transcript of Proceedings, Momcilovic v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 227 (3 September 2010) 400–35 (French CJ, Crennan J and P M Tate SC), 476–88 (Crennan J and P M Tate SC).
231 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) s 32(1).
232 Ibid s 36.
233 With respect to the declaration provision (s 36), the Commonwealth supported its validity: Attorney-General (Cth), ‘Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Intervening)', Submission in Momcilovic v The Queen, M134/2010, 31 January 2011, [26]–[31]. The Commonwealth's interest in the validity of the power to make a declaration of inconsistent interpretation may be seen explicitly in its published legal advice on the topic: National Human Rights Consultation Committee, National Human Rights Consultation Report (2009), Appendix E ‘The Solicitor–General's Advice', 1–13 <http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au>.
234 Transcript of Proceedings, Momcilovic v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 227 (3 September 2010) 426 (French CJ).
235 Momcilovic (2011) 85 ALJR 957, 1050 [379].
236 Attorney-General (Cth), ‘Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Intervening)', Submission in Momcilovic v The Queen, M134/2010, 31 January 2011, [25].
237 Transcript of Proceedings, Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 17 (10 February 2011) 8541–2 (S J Gageler SC).
238 See, eg, In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257, 264 (Knox CJ, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ): ‘To make [an authoritative declaration of the law] clearly is a judicial function, and such a function is not competent to this Court unless its exercise is an exercise of part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.'
239 Transcript of Proceedings, Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 17 (10 February 2011) 8572–3 (S J Gageler SC).
240 Ibid 8577–92 (S J Gageler SC).
241 Ibid 8594–609 (S J Gageler SC).
242 See Solomons v District Court (NSW) (2002) 211 CLR 119, 135 [24], 136 [28] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
243 Momcilovic (2011) 85 ALJR 957, 987–8 [50]–[51] (French CJ), 1013–14 [168]–[171] (Gummow J, with whom Hayne J relevantly agreed), 1090 [565] (Crennan and Kiefel JJ), 1111 [684] (Bell J); contra at 1068 [450] (Heydon J).
244 (1998) 195 CLR 547.
245 (2004) 218 CLR 146.
246 (2006) 228 CLR 45.
247 Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 124–6 [328]–[330], 128–9 [337]–[339] (Heydon J).
248 Transcript of Proceedings, South Australia v Totani [2010] HCATrans 95 (20 April 2010) 2546–51 (S J Gageler SC).