Australia will, I believe, ratify the convention and afterwards this Parliament will pass the necessary legislation to show other countries that we join in universal condemnation of the horror [of genocide].

"The Common Law abhors infiniteness"

[C]o-operative federalism is not a constitutional term. It is a political slogan, not a criterion of constitutional validity or power. ... Where constitutional power does not exist, no cry of co-operative federalism can supply it. If the object lies outside the reach or the effect of what a State or the Common-wealth can constitutionally do, the subject matter is beyond the reach of the legislature.

Co-operative federalism is the process by which the Commonwealth and the States organise for their overlapping constitutional powers to be exercised concurrently in order to achieve national outcomes through consensual processes. Beginning with Re Wakim, the controversial cross-vesting case, from which the opening statement above by Justice McHugh was taken, the High Court has applied a restrictive approach to interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions when cooperative arrangements have been challenged.

On 5 October 2000, the High Court handed down its latest decision on the scope of s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution. This note provides an overview of the decision and its importance, and offers a critique of the reasoning employed in the majority judgments.

Section 80, variously described but commonly referred to as the trial by jury provision, “has led to some of the sharpest divisions of opinion in the history of this Court”. Whilst the decision in Cheng v The Queen (hereafter Cheng) confirms the interpretation given to s 80 in Kingswell v The Queen—which involved a challenge to the same provisions of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth)—some of the judges making up the majority in Cheng admitted to reservations about that interpretation. In addition, Kirby J and Gaudron J were vociferous in their disagreement with much of the majority's reasoning, which suggests that fundamental differences over the meaning of s 80 will continue to plague the Court into the future.