In a recent work dealing with Dr Evatt, the politician, he is described in the title as an “enigma”. Perhaps there is some enigmatic quality in Evatt, the High Court judge and constitutional lawyer. In the ten years he was on the High Court (1930-1940) a number of dominant themes can be detected in his judgments on constitutional law which at first sight seem to be not fully consistent with each other. In many cases they show a concern to prevent the undermining of State executive and legislative authority and a tendency to restrict Commonwealth power. In other cases, his judgments propound a rather broad interpretation of Commonwealth powers.

Although the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution, steeped in the study of American federalism, found the United States Constitution a valuable model which they could copy or adapt to the requirements of the six federating Australian colonies, they deliberately departed from the judicial provisions of that model in two major respects: first by creating the High Court of Australia as a general court of appeal from the Supreme Courts of the States; and, secondly, by empowering the Parliament to invest State courts with jurisdiction in all matters which might be brought before the High Court in its original jurisdiction.

Nearly half a century has gone by since Sir Cecil Hurst invited readers of the British Year Book of International Law to consider with him the question—“Whose is the Bed of the Sea? ”

Almost twenty-five years ago, President Truman initiated State action to assert authority over the natural resources of the sea-bed and sub-soil of the continental shelf beyond the limits of the territorial sea.

In 1953, Australia contributed significantly to the body of State practice. On 11 September 1953, the Governor-General issued a proclamation declaring the existence under international law of Australia's sovereign rights over the sea-bed and subsoil of the continental shelf contiguous to the coasts of Australia and its Territories for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of that sea-bed and subsoil. At about the same time, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Pearl Fisheries Act (No.2) 1953 (Cth) amending the Pearl Fisheries Act 1952-1953 (Cth), which made subject to Australian control foreign nationals and foreign vessels engaging in pearling on the continental shelf. In section 5 of the Principal Act, “pearling” was defined to include—

The Commonwealth grants power refers to the legislative power conferred by section 96 of the federal Constitution. Section 96 provides that:

There is no exact counterpart of this section in the United States Constitution, though Congress has authority to make grants to States under the so-called General Welfare clause—section 8 of Article I—which declares that:

Recent proceedings brought in the South Australian and Victorian Parliaments against persons alleged to be in contempt of Parliament and a report relating to the penal jurisdiction of Parliament that was presented to the House of Commons in 1967 have once again raised the issue whether Parliament is a proper body to exercise the power to punish certain conduct as contempt.

This Digest is intended to provide lawyers with a key to those questions and Ministerial Statements in the Commonwealth Parliament in which they are most likely to be interested, and it is, of course, selective. It covers the period 12 March to 28 November 1968, and is compiled from the published debates of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The page references to Parliamentary Debates (“S.Deb.” and “H.R. Deb.”) are to the published debates of the Senate and the House of Representatives, for the second Session of the Twenty-sixth Parliament, first and second periods.