² S. 8 reads in part:

³ (1969) 43 A.L,.J.R. 275, 287A.

⁴ Id. 282G. For the view of Windeyer J. see Id. 291B.

⁵ (1968) 65 D.L.R. (2d) 353. For discussion of this decision see: Head, I. L., “The Canadian Offshore Minerals Refe,rence: The Application of International Law to a Federal Constitution” (1968) 18 Univ. Toronto L.J. 131Google Scholar.

⁶ (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63.

⁷ (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 275, 285C.

⁸ Id.278D.

⁹ O'Connell, D. P., “Problems of Australian Coastal Jurisdiction” (1958) 34 Brit. Y.B. Int. L. 199Google Scholar, 209; (1968) 42 A.L.J. 39.

¹⁰ Australian Conservation Foundation, The Future of the Great Barrier Reef (1969) 31-33. Compare Campbell, E., “Regulation of Australian Coastal Fisheries” (1958-1963) 1 Tas. Univ. L. Rev. 405Google Scholar, 416.

¹¹ (1968) 65 D.L.R. (2d) 353, 376.

¹² 48 and 49 Viet. c60.

¹³ (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63.

¹⁴ (1969) 43 A.L.I.R. 275, 2940.

¹⁵ ld. 281F.

¹⁶ ld.292B.

¹⁷ Lane, P. H., “External Affairs Power” (1966) 40 A.L.J. 257Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Section 123 reads: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majmity of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respe'cting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.

¹⁹ O'Connell, D. P., “Problems of Australian Coastal Jurisdiction” (1958) 34 Brit. Y.B. Int. L. 199Google Scholar, 231; Lumb, R. D., The Law of theSea and Australian Offshore Areas (1966) 64–65Google Scholar; Harders, C. W., “Australia's Offshore Petroleum Legislation: A Survey of its Constitutional Background …” (1968) 6 M.U.L.R. 415Google Scholar, 423.

²⁰ It is interesting to note that in the announcement by the Commonwealth government of its intention to assert a claim to the seabed from the low watermark to the limits of the continental shelf, the claim excluded internal waters as they existed at federation.

Does this mean that the alterations in the baselines from which the territmial sea is measured, made in 1967 in accordance with the convention on the Territorial Sea, do not operate domestically?

²¹ Broken Hill South Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W.) (1936-37)56 C.L.R. 337, 375; Johnson v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1956] A.C. 331.

²² Giles v. Tumminello [1963] S.A.S.R. 96; Munro v. Lombardo [1964] W.A.R.63.

²³ (1969) 43 A.L.I.R. 275, 280D.

²⁴ O'Connell, D. P., “The Doctrine of Colonial Extra-Territorial Incompetence” (1959) 75 L.Q.R. 318Google Scholar.

²⁵ (1969) I.C.I. Reps. 1; also reported (1969) 8 International Legal Materials 340; for comment on the cases see: (1969) 3 P.L. Rev. 283.

²⁶ (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 275, 2790.

²⁷ Australian Conservation Foundation, The Future of the Great Barrier Reef(1969) 27. 28 Ibid.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ United States v. California (1946) 332 U.S. 19.

³⁰ Reference re Ownership of Offshore Mineral Rights (1968) 65 D.L.R. (2d) 353.

³¹ Lumb, R. O., “The Offshore Petroleum Agreement and Legislation” (1968) 41 A.L.J. 453Google Scholar.

³² On 16 April 1970 the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in accordance with the government's intention as announced at the opening of Parliament on 3 March 1970.

The Bill purported to declare and enact that sovereignty in respect of the territorial sea and its seabed is vested in and is exerciseable by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. Similar provision was made in respect of internal waters. The Bill sought to give the Governor-General power to declare the limits of territory in which the ‘Commonwealth claims sovereignty but not so as to be inconsistent with the Convention on the Territorial Sea.

Saving provisions of the Bill ensured that the Commonwealth's assertion of sovereignty would not affect existing State ownership of wharves and port facilities.

It was ex:pected that this Bill would be followed by further legislation on off-shore mining by which the ’Commonwealth would exercise sovereign control inrespect of mining for all minerals other than petroleum, relying on the States to make use of their facilities to implement the legislation, receiving in return a proportion of theroyalties. (1970) C.P.D. 1276 (16 April 1970).

However, at the time of writing, the legislation has met with strong opposition and has been held over tothe Budget Sessionof Parliament in August 1970. If the legislation is passed in its existing form it is clear from statements by the State governments that it will be thesubject ofimmediate challenge in the High Court.

³³ Harders, C. W., “Australia's Offshore Petroleum Legislation: A Survey of its Constitutional Background …” (1968) 6 M.U.L.R. 415Google Scholar, 424.

³⁴ O'Connell, D. P., “Problems of Australian Coastal Jurisdiction” (1968) 42 A.L.J. 39Google Scholar, 46-47; Lumb, R. D., “Sovereignty and Jurisdiction over Australian Coastal Waters” (1969) 43 A.L.J. 421Google Scholar, 446-447.

³⁵ (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 275, 298F.

³⁶ United States v. California (1946) 332 U.S. 19.

³⁷ Reference re Ownership of Offshore Mineral Rights (1968) 65 D.L.R. (2d) 353.