Craven, Greg --- "Heresy as Orthodoxy: Were the Founders Progressivists?" [2003] FedLawRw 3; (2003) 31(1) Federal Law Review 87
* BA, LLM (Melbourne), Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Foundation Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, Australia[.]
1 There are subtle differences between the two, with originalism comprising essentially a particularly historicist version of intentionalism, but these differences are largely immaterial for the purposes of this article. For a discussion of such issues see, generally, Jeffrey Goldsworthy, 'Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation' [1997] FedLawRw 1; (1997) 25 Federal Law Review 1; Jeremy Kirk, 'Constitutional Interpretation and a Theory of Evolutionary Originalism' (1999) 27 Federal Law Review 323.
[2] The Founders are most commonly identified as the relevant source of constitutional intention in Australian intentionalist and originalist literature: see, eg, Goldsworthy, above n 1; Greg Craven, 'The Crisis of Constitutional Literalism in Australia' in H P Lee and George Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Perspectives (1992) 1. Progressivist commentators sometimes argue that the relevant source of intention is comprised in the colonial populations themselves: see, eg, Kirk, above n 1, 326, 341–3; Stephen Donaghue, 'The Clamour of Silent Constitutional Principles' [1996] FedLawRw 5; (1996) 24 Federal Law Review 133, 151–2. For obvious reasons, this article proceeds on the former assumption.
[3] There is now a voluminous and recent literature on such issues in an Australian context: see, by way of example only, Goldsworthy, above n 1; Jeffrey Goldsworthy, 'Interpreting the Constitution in Its Second Century' [2000] MelbULawRw 27; (2000) 24 Melbourne University Law Review 677; Kirk, above n 1; Sir Anthony Mason, 'Constitutional Interpretation: Some Thoughts' [1998] AdelLawRw 5; (1998) 20 Adelaide Law Review 49; Justice Michael Kirby, 'Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent: A Form of Ancestor Worship?' (2000) 24 University of Melbourne Law Review 1; Donaghue, above n 2; Craven, above n 2.
[4] As expressed in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd ('the Engineers Case') [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129.
[5] See, eg, Commonwealth v Tasmania ('the Tasmanian Dam Case') [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1.
[6] The phrase memorably employed by Andrew Inglis Clark in Studies in Australian Constitutional Law (1901) 21, and adopted by Deane J in Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 171–3.
[7] As, for example, the expansion by the High Court of the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to external affairs (s 51(xxix)) in the Tasmanian Dam Case [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1.
[8] See, eg, Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 168–73 (Deane J); Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999)198 CLR 511, 600 (Kirby J).
[9] For a sustained attack on progressivism as a constitutional phenomenon see Greg Craven, 'The High Court of Australia: A Study in the Abuse of Power (Thirty-First Alfred Deakin Lecture)' [1999] UNSWLawJl 47; (1999) 22 University of New South Wales Law Journal 216; see also Haig Patapan, 'The Dead Hand of the Founders? Original Intent and the Constitutional Protection of Rights and Freedoms in Australia' (1997) 25 Federal Law Review 211.
[10] As to the different shades of progressivism see below nn 30-6 and accompanying text.
[11] For example, by a paradoxical argument to the effect that the Founders' intent is not binding per se, and that the Founders' views as to general modes of interpretation therefore may be ignored, but that as matter of policy, intentionalism as related to particular constitutional expressions and phrases nevertheless is the preferable mode of interpretation having regard to such considerations as certainty and predictability.
[12] See below nn 37–52 and accompanying text.
[13] See, eg, Craven, above n 2, 16–17.
[14] See, eg, R v Brislan; Ex parte Williams [1935] HCA 78; (1935) 54 CLR 262; Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479; and see, generally, Leslie Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (4th ed, 1997) 17–22.
[15] [1971] HCA 16; (1971) 122 CLR 353.
[16] Ibid 396.
[17] Cf Geoffrey Sawer, Australian Federalism in the Courts (1967) 197.
[18] In such cases as Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106.
[19] Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 168–73 (Deane J).
[20] Inglis Clark, above n 6, 21; and see below nn 129–42 and accompanying text.
[21] See Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520.
[22] Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 600 (Kirby J).
[23] See, eg, Re the Governor, Goulburn Correctional Centre; Ex parte Eastman (1999) 200 CLR 322, 355; Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1, 79; Cheng v The Queen [2000] HCA 53; (2000) 203 CLR 248, 321; Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, 321–2; Kirby, above n 3, 10–14; Dan Meagher, 'New Day Rising? Non-Originalism, Justice Kirby and Section 80 of the Constitution' (2002) 24 Sydney Law Review 141, 141–2.
[24] See, eg, Cheng v The Queen [2000] HCA 53; (2000) 203 CLR 248, 292–5; Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor (2001)207 CLR 391, 426–7.
[25] Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 552 (McHugh J).
[26] [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1.
[27] Ibid 41–51.
[28] Ibid 50.
[29] See below nn 32–4 and accompanying text.
[30] See above n 14 and accompanying text.
[31] See Craven, above n 2, 16–19.
[32] See the cases cited above n 24.
[33] See Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455.
[34] The term 'strong progressivism' is used accordingly throughout this article.
[35] See Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, 481–7 (Deane and Toohey JJ).
[36] See the cases cited above n 22.
[37] [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129, 145.
[38] See, eg, Paul Brest, 'The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding' (1980) 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 215–6.
[39] Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 168–73 (Deane J).
[40] Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 551–553 (McHugh J).
[41] Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1, 40–51 (McHugh J).
[42] Ibid 41.
[43] Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 600 (Kirby J).
[44] Mason, above n 3, 53.
[45] Kirk, above n 1, 358.
[46] Ibid.
[47] James Crawford, 'The Legislative Powers of the Commonwealth' in Greg Craven (ed), The Convention Debates 1891–1898: Commentaries, Indices and Guide (1986) vol vi 113, 123.
[48] Donaghue, above n 2, 139.
[49] James Thomson, 'Principles and Theories of Constitutional Interpretation and Adjudication' (1982) 13 University of Melbourne Law Review 597, 606 n 39.
[50] See Craven, above n 9, 221–2.
[51] See Patapan, above n 9, 231–3.
[52] See, generally, Goldsworthy, above n 3.
[53] The Convention Debates are collected in the following volumes, and are referred to here as follows:
National Australasian Convention, Official Record of Proceedings and Debates (Sydney, 1891) (Convention Debates, Sydney, 1891);
National Australasian Convention, Official Record of Proceedings and Debates (Adelaide, 1897) (Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897);
Australasian Federal Convention, Official Record of the Debates (Sydney, 1897) (Convention Debates, Sydney, 1897); and
Australasian Federal Convention, Official Record of the Debates (Melbourne, 1898) (Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898).
[54] The parts of the Debates most closely analysed here are those most likely to contain discussion concerning the interpretative role of the High Court: that is, the debates concerning the Judicature Chapter, which mainly took place at Melbourne in 1898; debate on the amendment clause; and debate on the general resolutions both at Sydney in 1891 and at Adelaide in 1897.
[55] As expressed in the Sussex Peerage Claim [1844] EngR 822; (1884) 11 Cl & F 85 and applied by the first High Court in Tasmania v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 11; (1904) 1 CLR 329, 338–9 (Griffith CJ).
[56] Ibid; and see Kirk, above n 1, 344; cf Donaghue, above n 2, 153.
[57] R v Burah (1878) 3 App Cas 889.
[58] See below nn 84–6 and accompanying text.
[59] See, eg, O'Connor, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 58; Isaacs, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 717.
[60] See above nn 13–29 and accompanying text.
[62] For example, most of Chapter I of the Constitution, with the arguable exception of parts of s 51 itself, in no sense resembles a mere constitutional blueprint.
[63] See, eg, the references in Kirk, above n 1, 358 n 256. The comments there referred to of Higgins, O'Connor and Barton are of no direct relevance to methodologies of constitutional interpretation.
[64] Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 937. Dobson's comments are not pertinent to the issue of progressivism.
[65] Convention Debates, Sydney, 1891, 476; Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 938; Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 274–8.
[66] Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 129, 984; Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 271–2, 344–5.
[67] Ibid 737–40.
[68] Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 25. Baker's comments do not touch upon progressivism.
[69] See below nn 87–114 and accompanying text.
[70] See James Bryce, The American Commonwealth (2nd ed, 1889) 267–8, 363–8, 373–5.
[71] Ibid 374–5.
[72] Ibid 364.
[73] John La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (1972) 18–19.
[74] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 344.
[75] Ibid 283.
[76] Convention Debates, Sydney, 1891, 476; Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 275.
[77] See, especially, Symon, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 344–5.
[78] See, eg, Barton, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 25; 953–6; Reid, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 272.
[79] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 24 June 1903, 1340.
[80] As to which see below nn 154–68 and accompanying text.
[81] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 275.
[82] Ibid 283.
[83] Ibid 344–5.
[84] See, eg, Barton, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 25; Barton, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 952-3; Reid, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 271–2; Trenwith, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 335–6; Dobson, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 937; Downer, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 274–5; Symon, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 297.
[85] See, eg, Higgins, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 279; Carruthers, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 323.
[86] See, eg, Kingston, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 273.
[87] See, eg, Donaghue, above n 2, 139; Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1, 41 (McHugh J).
[88] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 274.
[89] Ibid 275.
[90] Ibid 276.
[91] Ibid 278.
[92] Ibid.
[93] See Donaghue, above n 2, 139; Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1, 41 (McHugh J).
[94] See above nn 85–7 and accompanying text.
[95] Convention Debates, Sydney, 1891, 476.
[96] This is quite consistent with views expressed by Downer during debate on the Judiciary Bill; see below n 197 and accompanying text.
[97] See Kirk, above n 1, 358.
[98] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 283.
[99] See, eg, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 283–4; 717–20; 1727–8.
[100] See, eg, Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 307; 717–20.
[101] Ibid 1727.
[102] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 1727–8.
[103] See below n 203 and accompanying text.
[104] See below nn 228–33 and accompanying text.
[105] Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 129.
[106] Ibid 129.
[107] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 344.
[108] Ibid 344.
[109] See below nn 171–5 and accompanying text.
[110] See, eg, Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 129; Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 271–2; 1723.
[111] Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 739.
[112] Ibid.
[113] Ibid.
[114] Ibid 740. It should be noted that the counsels of Glynn and his allies concerning the need for a flexible amendment procedure were heeded during the debate on the clause that was to become s 128. Consequently, that provision as adopted included within it a mechanism that, at least theoretically, would permit a referendum in the event of a deadlock between the state and the House of Representatives over a bill for constitutional alteration.
[115] See above nn 55-62 and accompanying text.
[116] Ibid.
[117] See, eg, the reliance of Deane J (in Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 168–73) on the work of Andrew Inglis Clark, above n 6; the reliance of McHugh J (in Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1, 40–51) on the comments of Downer; the reference made by Sir Anthony Mason to the evolutionary sentiments of Deakin, above n 44; Kirk's citation of Isaacs, Higgins and Deakin as having displayed elastic approaches towards constitutional interpretation during the Convention Debates, above nn 45–6; Donaghue's similar use of the comments of Downer, above n 48; and see the general conclusions drawn concerning the contents of the Convention Debates, above nn 115–17 and accompanying text; the conclusions drawn concerning the actual significance on this point of the comments of Andrew Inglis Clark, below nn 135–41 and accompanying text; and the comments concerning the inherent limitations of Deakin's remarks made during debate on the Judiciary Bill, below nn 160–8 and accompanying text.
[118] Richard Chaffey Baker, A Manual of Reference to Authorities for the Use of Members to the National Australasian Convention (1891).
[119] Robert Garran, The Coming Commonwealth (1897) 66–7, 152–4.
[120] Robert Garran and John Quick, Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901) 793.
[121] Ibid 792.
[122] Robert Garran, Prosper the Commonwealth (1958) ch xiv 'Development of the Constitution'.
[123] John Quick and Littleton Groom, The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth (1904) 126–9.
[124] Henry Higgins, Essays and Addresses on the Australian Commonwealth Bill (1900).
[125] Alfred Deakin, The Federal Story (ed Herbert Brookes) (1944).
[126] John Cockburn, Australian Federation (1901).
[127] Bernard Wise, The Making of the Australian Commonwealth 1889–1900 (1913).
[128] Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 168–73 (Deane J).
[129] Inglis Clark, above n 6.
[130] Ibid 24–7.
[131] Ibid 14–18.
[132] Ibid 21.
[133] Ibid 25-27. Inglis Clark's reference is to Thomas Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America (3rd ed, 1898).
[134] Ibid 27.
[135] Goldsworthy, above n 3, 692–3.
[136] Inglis Clark, above n 6, 21.
[137] Ibid 19.
[138] Ibid 19–20.
[139] Ibid 21.
[140] Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 172 (Deane J).
[141] James Thomson, 'Constitutional Authority for Judicial Review: A Contribution from the Framers of the Australian Constitution’ in Greg Craven (ed) The Convention Debates 1891-1898: Commentaries, Indices and Guide (1986) 173, 178.
[142] La Nauze, above n 73, 271, 287.
[143] William Harrison Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (1902).
[144] Ibid 236.
[145] Ibid.
[146] Ibid 332.
[147] William Harrison Moore, 'The Constitution and its Working' in J Holland Rose, P Newton and E A Berians (eds), The Cambridge History of the British Empire (1933) 455, 474.
[148] Ibid.
[149] Ibid.
[150] See, eg, Glynn, above nn 111–14 and accompanying text; and Downer, above nn 87–96 and accompanying text.
[151] See, eg, the comments of Glynn, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 June 1903, 622–8.
[152] See, eg, the comments of Glynn, ibid 622–30; and Hughes, ibid 697–704 for examples of anti-High Court rhetoric.
[153] See, eg, the comments of O'Connor, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2695.
[154] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 18 March 1902, 10962–89.
[155] See, eg, Kirk, above n 1, 358; Mason, above n 3, 52–3.
[156] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 June 1903, 643.
[157] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 July 1903, 1875–6.
[158] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 March 1902, 10965.
[159] Ibid 10967-8.
[160] Ibid 10987.
[161] Ibid 10968.
[162] Ibid.
[163] Ibid 10988.
[164] See, eg, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 July 1903, 1866–7.
[165] See, eg, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 June 1903, 589.
[166] See, eg, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 June 1903, 838–41.
[167] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 July 1903, 1866–7.
[168] See, eg, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2818.
[169] Ibid.
[170] Ibid.
[171] See above nn 105–10 and accompanying text.
[172] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 31 July 1903, 2934.
[173] Ibid.
[174] Ibid 2934–5.
[175] Nevertheless, he somewhat problematically continued to assert the fundamental role of the High Court as upholder of the federal balance: ibid 2927.
[176] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 5 August 1903, 3044.
[177] Ibid.
[178] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 June 1903, 1128.
[179] Ibid.
[180] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 14 June 1903, 1318.
[181] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 July 1903, 1906.
[182] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2827.
[183] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 June 1903, 630.
[184] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 June 1903 698.
[185] Ibid 699.
[186] Ibid 699–702.
[187] See ibid 699–703.
[188] Ibid 745.
[189] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 June 1903, 797.
[190] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2824.
[191] See Parliamentary Debates, above n 168.
[192] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 July 1903, 1887.
[193] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2711.
[194] Ibid 2712.
[195] Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, 937.
[196] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2722.
[197] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5 August 1903, 3058.
[198] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 29 July 1903, 2693–4.
[199] Ibid 2694.
[200] Ibid 2695.
[201] Parliamentary Debates, above n 176.
[202] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 June 1903, 801.
[203] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 June 1903, 719–33.
[204] Quick does not specifically address the issue of progressivism but, unsurprisingly given the treatment in Quick and Garran (above n 120), is generally hostile to Deakin's approach: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 June 1903, 643.
[205] [1904] HCA 11; (1904) 1 CLR 329.
[206] Ibid 339.
[207] Ibid 339-40.
[208] Ibid 348.
[209] Ibid 346–7.
[210] Ibid 348.
[211] Ibid 358–9.
[212] [1904] HCA 57; (1904) 1 CLR 585, 630.
[213] See, eg, R v Barger [1908] HCA 43; (1908) 6 CLR 41, 83–5 (Isaacs J); 112–14 (Higgins J).
[214] A-G (NSW) ex rel Tooth and Company Limited v Brewery Employees Union of NSW [1908] HCA 94; (1908) 6 CLR 469, 600 (‘Union Label Case’).
[215] Ibid 559.
[216] See, eg, Tasmania v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 11; (1904) 1 CLR 329, 338 (Griffith CJ); Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21; (1904) 1 CLR 497, 507 (Griffith CJ).
[217] See, eg, Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21; (1904) 1 CLR 497, 507 (Griffith CJ); D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1; (1904) 1 CLR 91, 110–11 (Griffith CJ).
[219] See, eg, R v Barger [1908] HCA 43; (1908) 6 CLR 41, 83–5; Union Label Case [1908] HCA 94; (1908) 6 CLR 469, 559; Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36; (1909) 8 CLR 330, 388.
[221] La Nauze, above n 73, 271–2.
[222] See, eg, R v Barger [1908] HCA 43; (1908) 6 CLR 41; Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36; (1909) 8 CLR 330, 388.
[223] [1908] HCA 94; (1908) 6 CLR 469, 501 (Griffith CJ); 521-2 (Barton J); 533 (O'Connor J); 600–10 (Higgins J); and see Federated Saw Mill, Timber Yard and General Woodworkers Employees Association of Australasia v James Moore and Sons Pty Ltd (‘Saw Millers Case') [1909] HCA 43; (1909) 8 CLR 465, 487 (Griffith CJ).
[224] See above nn 14, 30, 95–6, 164–5 and accompanying text.
[225] See above nn 129–41 and accompanying text.
[226] See above nn 154–67 and accompanying text.
[227] [1908] HCA 94; (1908) 6 CLR 469, 533.
[228] See, eg, R v Barger [1908] HCA 43; (1908) 6 CLR 41, 83–5.
[229] Cf Sawer, above n 17, 196–202.
[230] [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129, 145 (Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ).
[231] See Kirk, above n 1, 358.
[232] See, eg, Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36; (1909) 8 CLR 330, 388.
[233] See generally Greg Craven, 'Cracks in the Façade of Literalism: Is There an Engineer in the House?' [1992] MelbULawRw 2; 18 (1992) Melbourne University Law Review 540, 551–7.