Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Sir/Madam,
I understand that currently before the High Court of Australia is the matter
Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ord, in relation to qualifications within s44 of the
10 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
On 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria (by consent) in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
ordered that the S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS be dealt with by the
High Court of Australia. This notice included:
QUOTE
15 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
(i) Can a person obtain Australian citizenship without first obtaining State citizenship (Quasi
States being Territories included)? If so, then by which constitutional valid manner?
30 (ii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define citizenship? If so;
(a) under which provision? And
(b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?
35 (iii) Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant citizenship? If so,
(d) under which provision? And
(e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or
(f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia?
40 (iv) Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of a resident in a
State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which constitutional powers?
END QUOTE
I am aware of the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill judgment but as this was to some extent
45 outside the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia anyone can disregard this.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
35 makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
40 "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
50 enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
10 Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
15 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.