• Specific Year
    Any

McKenna, Mark; Simpson, Amelia; Williams, George --- "First Words: The Preamble to the Australian Constitution" [2001] UNSWLawJl 28; (2001) 24(2) UNSW Law Journal 382

[*] Australian Research Council Fellow, History, School of Humanities, Australian National University. Parts of this paper have been developed from Mark McKenna, ‘First Words: A Brief History of Public Debate on a New Preamble to the Australian Constitution 1991-99’ (Research Paper No 16, Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library, 1999-2000).

[**] Associate, Columbia Law School; Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Australian National University.

[***] Anthony Mason Professor and Director, Gilbert & Tobin Centre of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales; Barrister, New South Wales Bar.

The authors thank Pat Knowles for his research assistance and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and criticisms.

[1] George Winterton, ‘A New Constitutional Preamble’ (1997) 8 Public Law Review 186, 186-7.

[2] See also the functions of a constitutional preamble as listed by John Williams, ‘The Republican Preamble: Back to the Drawing Board?’ (1999) 10 Public Law Review 69, 70-1. On the symbolic and functional aims of a preamble see Jeremy Webber, ‘Constitutional Poetry: The Tension Between Symbolic and Functional Aims in Constitutional Reform’ [1999] SydLawRw 10; (1999) 21 Sydney Law Review 260.

[3] Ivo D Duchacek, Power Maps: Comparative Politics of Constitutions (1973) 17.

[4] [2001] UNSWLawJl 29; (2001) 24 University of New South Wales Law Journal 401.

[5] See Application for leave to issue a proceeding; Neville George Ford [1999] HCA 58; (1999) 166 ALR 661, 662 (Gaudron J).

[6] See the draft preamble set out in Sydney, Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention (1891-98) (1891) vol 1, 943.

[7] Adelaide, National Australasian Convention Debates, 22 April 1897, 1183-9.

[8] Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 2 March 1898, 1732-41.

[9] See the revised drafts in Adelaide, National Australasian Convention Debates, 23 April 1897, 1221 and ‘Draft of a Bill To Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ in Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 1898, 2525.

[10] Sydney, National Australasian Convention Debates, 1 April 1891, 550-7. This discussion arose out of the drafting of cl 1 of what became the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp). The issue is the same, however, in regard to the appearance of the word ‘Commonwealth’ in the Preamble.

[11] See, eg, Adelaide, National Australasian Convention Debates, 29 March 1897, 217 (William McMillan). See generally Gregory Craven, ‘An Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth? The Founding Fathers and the Secession of an Australian State’ [1983] MelbULawRw 20; (1983) 14 Melbourne University Law Review 281, 293-9.

[12] For discussion of the 1890s debate surrounding the inclusion of God’s blessing in the Preamble, see Richard Ely, ‘Andrew Inglis Clark on the Preamble to the Australian Constitution(2001) 75 Australian Law Journal 36 and Mark McKenna, ‘Maker of Miracles’ in David Headon and John Williams (eds), Makers of Miracles (1998).

[13] Adelaide, National Australasian Convention Debates, 22 April 1897, 1184-5. Glynn’s private reflections in his diary were quite different. After ensuring God’s inclusion in Melbourne, Glynn wrote in a matter of fact style: ‘Today I succeeded in getting the words humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God in the Preamble. It was chiefly intended to secure greater support from a large number of voters’: Patrick Glynn, Diaries, 2 March 1898 (available from Mortlock Library, State Library of South Australia). See also Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 4 February 1898, 656 (Henry Higgins) and Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 2 March 1898, 1776 (Josiah Symon).

[14] Adelaide, National Australasian Convention Debates, 22 April 1897, 1189.

[15] Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 2 March 1898, 1737 (Edmund Barton).

[16] Ibid 1732.

[17] Ibid 1741.

[18] John Quick and Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901) 284.

[19] Ibid 286.

[20] Ibid.

[21] The section states in full: ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.’

[22] See Richard Ely, ‘Andrew Inglis Clark and the Church-State Separation’ (1975) 8 Journal of Religious History 271; George Williams, Human Rights Under the Australian Constitution (1999) 35-6.

[23] See Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Black v Commonwealth (1981) 146 CLR 559, 612 (Mason J) (‘DOGS Case’); Cliff Pannam, ‘Travelling Section 116 with a US Road Map’ [1963] MelbULawRw 3; (1963) 4 Melbourne University Law Review 41, 53-5; Quick and Garran, above n 18, 951.

[24] Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 2 March 1898, 1769; also 1735-6 (Henry Higgins), 1737 (Edmund Barton); Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 4 February 1898, 654, 656, 663 (Henry Higgins).

[25] Melbourne, Australasian Federal Convention Debates, 2 March 1898, 1737 (Dr John Quick): ‘I do not know that the placing of these words in the preamble will necessarily confer on that Parliament any power to legislate in religious matters’; 1738-9 (William Lyne); and 1740-1 (Sir John Downer): ‘Whether the words are inserted or not, I think they will have no meaning, and will have no effect in extending the power of the Commonwealth’.

[26] W Harrison Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (2nd ed, 1910) 288.

[27] Quick and Garran, above n 18, 286.

[28] Anne Winckel, ‘The Contextual Role of a Preamble in Statutory Interpretation’ [1999] MelbULawRw 7; (1999) 23 Melbourne University Law Review 184, 210 fn 210.

[29] [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129.

[30] Winterton, above n 1, 189.

[31] Gregory Craven, ‘The Constitutionality of the Unilateral Secession of an Australian State’ (1984) 15 Federal Law Review 123, 126-35.

[32] [1909] HCA 43; (1909) 8 CLR 465, 535.

[33] Gregory Craven, Secession: The Ultimate States Right (1986). See also Moore, above n 26, 603.

[34] Craven, above n 31, 131. See also Craven, above n 33, 133.

[35] Examples of this descriptive use of the Preamble include: Bonser v La Macchia [1969] HCA 31; (1969) 122 CLR 177, 223 (Windeyer J); Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria [1983] HCA 23; (1983) 151 CLR 599, 660 (Deane J); Commonwealth v Tasmania [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1, 197 (Wilson J), 207 (Brennan J) (‘Tasmanian Dam Case’); Davis v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 63; (1988) 166 CLR 79, 110 (Brennan J); Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [1992] HCA 51; (1992) 177 CLR 248, 274 (Brennan, Deane and Toohey JJ).

[36] [1971] HCA 16; (1971) 122 CLR 353, 386.

[37] [1977] HCA 60; (1977) 139 CLR 585, 592.

[38] [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1.

[39] (2000) 171 ALR 155 at 170.

[40] Ibid. See also Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 574 (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[41] [1949] HCA 46; (1949) 79 CLR 121.

[42] Ibid 135.

[43] [1999] HCA 30; (1999) 199 CLR 462.

[44] Ibid 502.

[45] Justice Michael Kirby, ‘The Australian Referendum on a Republic – Ten Lessons’ (2000) 46 Australian Journal of Politics and History 510, 513-14.

[46] [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106, 138.

[47] Geoffrey Lindell, ‘Why is Australia’s Constitution Binding? – The Reasons in 1900 and Now, and the Effect of Independence’ [1986] FedLawRw 2; (1986) 16 Federal Law Review 29, 37.

[48] Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 171 (Deane J). See Williams, above n 22, 91-2.

[49] See, to similar effect, Justice Michael Kirby, ‘Deakin: Popular Sovereignty and the True Foundation of the Australian Constitution[1996] DeakinLawRw 10; (1996) 3 Deakin Law Review 129, 138.

[50] [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106, 210.

[51] (1992) 174 CLR 455.

[52] Ibid 475.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid 286.

[55] [1988] HCA 18; (1988) 165 CLR 360, 385. The Court found that regard could be had to the Convention debates ‘for the purpose of identifying the contemporary meaning of language used, the subject to which that language was directed and the nature and objectives of the movement toward federation’. On the other hand, regard could not be had ‘for the purpose of substituting for the meaning of the words used the scope and effect – if such could be established – which the founding fathers subjectively intended the section to have’. See also Brown v The Queen [1986] HCA 11; (1986) 160 CLR 171, 189 (Wilson J) and 214 (Dawson J); Gregory Craven, ‘Original Intent and the Australian Constitution – Coming Soon to a Court Near You?’ (1990) 1 Public Law Review 166; Sir Daryl Dawson, ‘Intention and the Constitution – Whose Intent?’ (1990) 6 Australian Bar Review 93.

[56] Constitutional Commission, Final Report of the Constitutional Commission (1988) vol 1, 109-10.

[57] See McKenna, Simpson and Williams, above n 4.

[58] Republic Advisory Committee, An Australian Republic: The Options (1993) vol 1, 137.

[59] Online information on the Convention is archived at National Library of Australia, Pandora Archive – Women’s Constitutional Convention (1998) at 13 September 2001.

[60] See Constitutional Commission, above n 56, vol 1, 20-4, 101-9; Civics Expert Group, Whereas the People: Civics and Citizenship Education (1994) 13; Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee, 2001: A Report from Australia (1994) 50. See also Marian Sawer, Women’s Constitutional Activism in Australia and Canada (Unpublished, 1998) (copy on file with authors).

[61] [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1.

[62] Debra Jopson, ‘Call to Note Blacks in Constitution’, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 13 August 1997, .

[63] Prior to its amendment in 1967, s 127 of the Australian Constitution read as follows: ‘In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.’

[64] Larissa Behrendt, ‘What path Forward for Reconciliation? The Challenges of a New Relationship with Indigenous People’ (2001) 12 Public Law Review 79, 80-1; Frank Brennan, ‘The Prospects for National Reconciliation Following the Post-Wik Standoff of Government and Indigenous Leaders’ [1999] UNSWLawJl 14; (1999) 22 University of New South Wales Law Journal 618, 621-2; Garth Nettheim, ‘Reconciliation and the Constitution[1999] UNSWLawJl 15; (1999) 22 University of New South Wales Law Journal 625, 627; George Williams, ‘Race and the Australian Constitution: From Federation to Reconciliation’ (2000) 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 643.

[65] See, eg, Australian Republican Movement, Australian Republican Movement Platform (1991); John Howard, An Australian Republic: The Way Forward – Questions and Answers, unpublished document, Office of the Prime Minister, 7 June 1995, 19-20 (copy on file with authors). The Australian attempted to stimulate interest in the preamble by inviting leading figures to pen their own preambles.

[66] See, eg, George Winterton, ‘The 1998 Convention: A Reprise of 1898?’ (1998) 21 University of New South Wales Law Journal 856, 863.

[67] Constitutional Centenary Foundation, ‘We the people of Australia ...’ – Ideas for a New Preamble to the Australian Constitution (1999) 8.

[68] See above p 390.

[69] See generally Justice Michael McHugh, ‘The Law-making Function of the Judicial Process’ (Pt 1) (1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 15; Justice Michael McHugh, ‘The Law-making Function of the Judicial Process’ (Pt 2) (1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 116.

[70] [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 183 CLR 273, 304-5.

[71] Garry Sturgess and Philip Chubb, Judging the World: Law and Politics in the World’s Leading Courts (1988) 345.

[72] Sir Anthony Mason, ‘The Role of a Constitutional Court in a Federation: A Comparison of the Australian and the United States Experience’ [1986] FedLawRw 1; (1986) 16 Federal Law Review 1, 5.

[73] Alex Reilly, ‘Preparing a Preamble: the Timorous Approach of the Convention to the Inclusion of Civic Values’ (1998) 21 University of New South Wales Law Journal 903, 907. See also Amelia Simpson and George Williams, ‘International Law and Constitutional Interpretation’ (2000) 11 Public Law Review 205.

[74] Reilly, above n 73, 904; Gregory Craven, ‘Conservative Republicanism, the Convention and the Referendum’ (1998) 21 University of New South Wales Law Journal 886, 889; Sir Harry Gibbs, ‘A Preamble: The Issues’ in The Samuel Griffith Society, Upholding the Australian Constitution (1999) vol 11, 85, 91.

[75] Reilly, above n 73, 904.

[76] Some participants at the 1998 Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra, believed that a clause denying judges recourse to a new preamble, if placed in the body of the Constitution rather than in the new preamble itself, would not dampen the ‘rhetorical impact’ of the values and principles recited in the latter. This suggestion came from Convention delegate George Winterton, and was apparently accepted by the Convention, as it featured in the Convention’s recommendations. See Winterton, above n 66, 863.

[77] See Winterton, above n 66, 863; Stephen Gageler and Mark Leeming, ‘An Australian Republic: Is a Referendum Enough?’ (1996) 7 Public Law Review 143, 147.

[78] Jeffrey Goldsworthy, ‘The Preamble, Judicial Independence and Judicial Integrity’ (2000) 11 Constitutional Forum 60, 63.

[79] Gibbs, above n 74, 94; Craven, above n 74, 888-9.

[80] (1996) 187 CLR 1.

[81] [1981] 1 SCR 753, 805, 883 (Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Chouinard and Lamer JJ).

[82] [1997] 3 SCR 3.

[83] Ibid 69.

[84] Goldsworthy, above n 78, 63. See also Winterton, above n 66, 863.

[85] See George Williams, ‘Lionel Murphy and Democracy and Rights’ in Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), Justice Lionel Murphy – Influential or Merely Prescient? (1997) 50.

[86] Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ Federation [1982] HCA 31; (1982) 152 CLR 25, 108 (Murphy J).

[87] Attorney-General (NSW); Ex rel McKellar v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 527, 569 (Murphy J).

[88] R v Director-General of Social Welfare (Vic); Ex parte Henry [1975] HCA 62; (1975) 133 CLR 369, 388 (Murphy J). See also Seamen’s Union of Australia v Utah Development Co (1978) 144 CLR 120, 157 (Murphy J).

[89] [1908] HCA 95; (1908) 6 CLR 309, 367-8. This was affirmed in R v Coldham; Ex parte Australian Social Welfare Union [1983] HCA 19; (1983) 153 CLR 297, 314 (the Court).

[90] Constitutional Commission, above n 56, vol 1, 109.

[91] Kartinyeri v Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22; (1998) 195 CLR 337 (‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case’).

[92] The same conclusion is reached by Leslie Zines, ‘Preamble to a Republican Constitution(1999) 10 Public Law Review 67, 68.

[93] See ibid.