.1'11t, decision of tlirt High ('ourt in I'ln?,toj! iorti Ors. 1 % . IItyy~oir 01.c.l covers a nurnher of important points of conbtitutional l:t\~. 'fhc lrlain effect of the c;~seib to e.;tal)lish thy ~)rirlcipl~. that thrx Stnttx of S c w Sont11 \Yalei, acting under the autliority of its own conytitutional statute3+,ma!. ;il,olish its Uppc,r House \i-itl~outthc' conwnt of that chambc~i- t h r abolition bill. 'fhe ('our-t has ; ~ l s o to given a n opinion on the clur.,tion. whicll receivr.d .;omts dibcr~sion in l'ref/zoa,lc~z's Casr~. ~vhtlther;I court may by injunction or dt,claration interfere with thr liai.;ari. of a Kill which hiis not ycJt 11ce11 c>n:tctetlinto law. .I'l-le caw arose from a liill introductld liy the. S c w South \Vale5 t;o~.i~rnmento at)olibh tht. Sv\v Soutll \\`air, 17fq)crHouse,. Thv t I:i!l in cluestion nab thc ('on>titution .-lmtwtlnnrnt (IAr~giblatit-es ('ouncil .-\bolition) I3ilI I!t(io. lit4ore t.s;irninirlg the. Ilr!;tcc~l ~lir~etccwtlr crntur!- ltlgi-lation which c.tahlisheti the. :~litl~or.it\. po\vt3rs o f ;ii~tl tiit, Legiblatllre of New Solit11 \\.;i!c>. 5t.c. 5 of t11c. .lct \vas a.; foilo\\.-: "Thr Idegi>l;iturc bhall. ..ul~jcjct t o t!itx ~,ro\.isionsof the, Common\vc.;llth of .\ustra!ia ('onstitution &Act,h:~\.ci)o\vcLr o ~ n ; t k c t laws for the peace, ~velfare,irnd good govcrnmixnt of SCM. 501lt11 Ll'alcs in all cases wli:itsocver, provided that all 1:illb for appropriating an!. 11:irt of the public revcmue or for impobing any new ratex. tax or impost shall originate in the Lcgislativc . l s s c n ~ l ) l y . " ~ ~ ~ section 7 tile 1.-t:gi>lature was given authority t o alter the, laws concerning the Legiilati1.t. Council provided that a bill of this naturt. was t o bc rrserved for the royal assent and laid 1)eforc. 110th Ile)usc~s of tfie Imperial I'arlia~nent.:~ I n 1929 the ('onbtitution (I.t.gislati\.c Council) .Amrndmt,nt . k t was passed. This introd~lcx~tl I I ~ W ;L section 7.4 after -. 7 . Section 7.4 provided that thcx I-t~gisl:iti\.c~ Council was not t o he aholishtd except in a specificti m:trlncr. 'I'hc. manner specified MT;i- snbmission of tht, bill after 1):lhsagc t h r o u ~ h thv irrlrk 1 . (1960) 33 .\.I,.J.H. 3 7 8 . 2 . The Legislaturt, 15 dellnet1 1)y matter). s . :3 a i meaning H i i SIajc.sty thc li~n:: with t h e adxicc and consent o f t h e I.egi>lative ( ' o ~ ~ ~n ~c till ~ i I.cgi\lati\-t. -1ssernbly (sul~jectt o a contrary i n d ~ c a t i o nin t h c ciintest or su1)jcct- 3. The Australian States ('on5titution .let 1!)OT (11npc.r-I'LI) lay> do\\.n tlrc rules relating t t ~ rrserxation. I3y 5. I (1) 11111\ altcr111:: tllr constiti~t~crli t i l t s 1-cgislaturv ~ ~ m rht% s t ~-t~.cr\-t.ci. Ho\\t.\ el-, there. I S ;t proviso t o tlrc. rffrct t h a t this stiall not :rffr.ct l~illsIn rclnt~on t r , i\l11c11instructions have Irrc3ri given 1)v t l ~ cAIori:~rch t o t h v ( ; o v c r - ~ i ~ ~ r . or \\11cre assent is K I X err 11vt11e C;oxernor 11yrc:kvllr 01 a pu11Iic ~ I I I ? I - ~ C I I V \to :L tc~nll)orar\11iIl. nf I)otll I l o u h c ~ o ;I rcfrrcntlllm and :i~)pi-o\.al I ;I majorit!. of tllosc, t I ~ \.oting a t sl~cli refercndurn. ;I In 1!)50 I ~ o t l~ouses the, Secv Soutll if'alo. 1,egislatrlrc~ l~ of passet1 two Ieerl refcrrctl.;' An appeal was taken t o the High Court, the appcal being lirnitcd to thc cluestion whether the Parliament of New South LVale-, had 1)oucr to repeal s. 7A or to al3olish the Legislative Council except in the manner provided by s. 7A. The High Court dismissed this alq)t>iilfiand Privy Council upheld the jlldgments of the tllr, lower courts: .4ttovney-General fov N.S.II'. 7 1 . l'vethoii'a~~.' 7'rfthori,a?i'sC'asc- established the rulc t h a t the 1,egisIature \raq Ijound t o follo\v thc manner and form laid down 1)y s. 7.4 for tht. :rl)olition of the 1,cyi.lativc Council, i.e., submission to a refcrendum. anti that ;L IZill cc,ul(l not he lawfully prc,.cntcd for the ro!-a1 a s c n t \ritliout t l ~ i ,~)rocc,d~~rts n g I ~ r i followed. Sul~secluent o this decision t t 1 1 1-rgi4;tture of Sc'w South \Vales passed the Constitution Amenct~ ment (Idclgislati\.c. ('ouncil) A4ct 193"jNo. 2 of 1933). This Act iritroducrtl two nrLnrsections into the Constitution Act of 190.': 5;4 and 513. dcaalt with money Hills. I t provided that if thcl 1-cgislativt, C:ouncil rejected or failed t o pass a money Rill which had 11ecn passed 1jy the 1.egislative Assembly, the 4ssembly might direct that tllc 13ill he presented t o the Governor for the roj-a1 [issent notwithst:\nding t h a t t h e Legislative Council had not assented. 5 K dcalt with Wills other than money Bill-;. I t laid clown a jxoccdurc whcrel~ya Hill. passed 1)y the Assembly, wl~ich tile 1,egislativ~ Council had rejected or failvd t o pass, collld r11tirn;itcl~-~ prcsc,nted for th(, royal asitxnt withorit passage through f e the 1.r~gisl:itivc ('ouncil, pro\~idrdt h a t the following condition-; viere olxcrvetl: ( I ) the 1-cgis1;ttive ('ouncil reject, fail t o pa>>, or pass with :imc.ndmcmt, a IZill passed b y the Xssrmhl!.; ( 2 ) thr, 1:ill I)? p a s c d again after :in interval of t h r w n ~ o ~ l t l l ~ -!,I the iisscmbly and again rcjectcd, not passed, or 1jassc.d with arnendmrnts b y the Council; 1. 'I'Iic~(.\\et-c aniotlg t h e fit-st legislative enactinents of tlic 1,;~rig 3Iini,tr!. \\liicli \ \ a \ r ( , t ~ ~ l - n cto po\\er in 1!130 after tile tlctcat ( 1 1 the II L - ~ I31 IS.R. (X,S,lV.), i~ 1,. I I I ,I , 183. ( i . . / t t ( ~ ~ ) ~ ~ ~ j ~ - t i Ji.,) ~7,. ~ ~~ e t h o w a ~ ~ ,('.T,.l<. (1!)30-1 1, 3!)4. (.I-..Y. c ~ r 7 ' t l 44 i r ~ ~ ~ , l , - ( ; (.\'..Y.lt7.) ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ t l ~ o 1!1:32 ~I.\.('.-, 52li. ~ , $ ~ t , 71. l wm (:{I ;I free conference take plact I)c.tn.t~~tl managc.i-\ of I7otil 1 IOll,t~> (4) :I joint sitting tali(, place. I,et\~-t.en rnc~rnl)c,i-i I~otlikiou-( ; of j.7) tlir I:ill I)(. then s111,niitted to :I ~-c.fc~rc~r~tlurr~ for ;~l~l)!.ox.,rl I t is to Ile ~iotctltliat t h ('oii..;titution .\rnc~ntl:~lcnt(l.c,qi>l,cti\-c. ~ ('ouncil) Act 1932 \ .p a - e d 11)- both Houst.. of I',LI-lia~nent !a ailil - ;~ppro\.cd tllr clectors in accordi~ncc. cvitll tllt~jiroc~c~tl~~re. Iai11 dow11 iii s. 7-4.9 111 I!).?!) t h r S e w Soutll \!'ale, Governrnctnt I)rougllt ill tiicl C'onstitl~tion - i r n c n d ~ n c ~ ~ t A (Legislati1.e ('ouncil .ll~olition)1:ill. 'flriy Ijill pro~.id<.d t)j- +. 2 that the L.egislativc. ('ouncil \ v : I ~ litbrc.l~!. al~olislied. . nc!v hection wai added t o tlltx ('onstitution .4ct of I 1902 :L- amended hy inserting b. 71: aftcr s. i\ .. S. 71; pru\.i(kd that n Legiblative Council sliould not he re-est:~l,lishcd c1sctSpt tilt: in manner ~ ) r o \ ~ i d e d the section, \vhich kva..;sul>niihsioil to :I rvft.1.by enduni ancl approval 11y thc tlcctori. Tli' Bill \va- pabsed 1))- the I ~ c ~ g i ~ l a t i.\i,c\rnl)l~. o i l 2nii \.t~ l)ecern'nc~-19.59. On the same dax- t l l ~ I,r,qi-l;~ti\-t('ourlc.il ~i:i-.c.ti a motion t h a t the l-lill bc returned t o thc, .lhstin~l)l\. \\.itliotit c l t . l i l ~ ~ . : - , ~ tion t1rr.r-con. Tllc 1,asi.; of tht, motion wa, t l ~ a ttllc, 1:ill -1roultl have originated in accordance with "long cital)lisl~c~l 1ir~~crdt.tir. practice and procedure" in the Legislative Cou11c.iI. 0 1 1 31-t ~ I ; L I - I , I I I!NiO tilc L'remic~r of Sew honth \Talc. ~ n o \ , t , dI motion to t i 1 1 ; f,ftect t h a t lt,ave i,t. g i w n to bring in :tgai~itlic, [:ill in ;~c.cortl;i!lt~~~ ~ i t h the proccdurc laid down in 5 . .?I3 of tlic, ('onstit~ition.41.i. Lcavc. \\.as g i v ~ n and tilt, Hill was again iritro(11ic~t~tl.l t I\-:I. i)rtain (ti3cil-sion of the Bill on the hasis of t h r claim of 1)l-il-ilcge; ~ n ( it \\.a: l rcturnc,d t o t h e Assembly. On 7th April thc . \ h ~ c ~ ~ n lh-l y motiori ) ! requtxbted a free conferenccx with rtitl Council and namc~tl a. its managers certain Ministers of the ( r o w n . ?'he%Council ~);~s.c~l .L motion t o the effect t h a t it did not considcr that any .-itu:ltio!i hacl arisen for thrl holding of a free confercncc. : ~ n d:rccordingly it refused t o acccde to the request of the Asseml~l!.. 0 1i3t11 .-\~lril 1 the Council rcceix-cd a message from the Go\.i,rnor to tllc. tbffc~ct t h a t Iic hacl clc,cided to convenc a joint sitting ~ I tIh c IZill I7ct\r.c,1 11 n1en1be1-iof both Houscb. The 2Ott-1 .lpril W:IS ;~ppointetl;I. ;I c l < ~ i . for the llolding of a joint sitting. (: i at S. 'rhcre a r e t\\-o fornli of crmference, : n clrclina~.!. confrrc~~cc \ \ l ~ r c l ~ n~anagflflrepresentatlr-e~) 110th tlol~-.c, rnccLtan(l d e i l v t ~ rc<\11111lunicnof tion\ in \\rlting ant1 a free confcre~lcvat u h i c l ~~ I l \ ~ ' ~ l ~ b l 15 t ;l~ 1 1 o \ \ t v ! . ( l !I. See . \ ~ C L ) , ' . S Pavlic.l-.; 1 1 1 t t ~ r c ~ i ~ l ~ c r i of ( by prt%'rilling all electi\.c pl.oct'\i in ~!l;rceof tlle l!re\ l o l l h byht('Il1 \v112rt~11\ rneml~ixr> \\ere riominatecl 1)y tllc (;o\ernrne~it. '1'111s put all c 3 t ~ t lt o poiill~~iit!- ".;\\ami~infi". of The Council by a majority of 33-22 pa\st1d a motion t o thcl ctfc)ct that it did not consider that a situation had arisen for holding a joint sitting and resolved that its members shollld not participate in such joint sitting. On 20th April twenty-three members of the Council and eighty-five members of the Assembly came togetli~rin the Legislative Council Chamber.1° Deliberation on the Bill took place at this meeting. On 12th May the Legislative Assembly passed a resoluticn directing that the Hill bc submitted to a referendum of electors in accordance with s. 5R of the Constitution Act. Thereupon, a suit was commenced by five members of the Legislative Council, one member of th' Legislative Asse~nblyand one member of the federal House of Representatives against the defendants, who consisted of the Premier, his Ministers and the Electoral Commissioner, for a declaration that the Constitution Amendment Kill 1060 was not a Bill which could properl!. or lawfully 1)t. buljmitted to a referendum, and for an injunction restraining tlii, defendant lllinisters from holding a referendum or from appropriating monej-s from consolidated revenue in relation thereto, and tht. dcfcndant Electoral Commissioner from taking an!. stcp-, to submit tlie Kill to a referendum. The ~ u i camtl 1)cfore JlcClelland J , in Equity, \vliu referred it t to a Full LZench which consisted of Evatt C . J . , Owcn. Herron, Sugerman and JIc(~1elland J J . At the hearing, the defendants dcmurrecl ore texzrs to the statement of claim. 'Thtl Court by a majority of 4--1 dismissed the suit.ll On an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court (which was treated as an appeal) tlie latter Court by a majority of 6-1 upheld the decision of the Supreme Court.'" -St the outset of course the plaintiffs were under the obligation of establishing that they had a sufficient interest whicli would entitle them to pursue the remedies which thev were seeking and tliat the grant of the declaration or an injunction would not interfere with the internal proceedings of Parliament. They were greatly assisted in this respect by an undertaking given by the defendant.; by which it was conceded that "an injunction might he granted a t the suit of thosc plaintiffs who were ;.~ernbersof the Legislative Council againht the defcndants who were 5linisters of tht, ('ronn restraining them from taking any steps to hold the rcfercndum if, 10. The ['resident of the Council being absent, the Speaker took tllr chair. 11. E v a t t C.J., Sugerman, Herron and McClelland J J . , O \ \ e n J . cli-;senting, 77 W.N. (N.S.W.), 767. 12. Dixon C . J . , McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, \Vindeyer ] J . , 1:ullagatJ. dissenting[1960] HCA 92; , 34 A.L.J.R., 378. -Yr.;t S o ~ l t h Il'clies Legislutir~c Couiicil Aholitioil Case 27 in tilt. c,vt.nts which II;II-~. happened, it would I)e l~nconstitutiond for thcs Hill to ~ ~ O C P I Y a r-c~ft.rrnd~m."~~ to ~ I IIC clll("ition of tlie jurisdiction of a court to c>saminc.matter? \vhicl~cornpi-iie matttbry of parliamentary proct,ss ~vliertil)j- 1-311is a c~nacted into Iil\v ha5 1~c.t.n tht. subject of discussion ehljt~ciallyin tilt, \vrll-kno\vn article (111 Trethori'a~z'sCase 1)y I'rofchsor f;ricdmann.l~ I t will l ~ c rcrne~nlwrrdthat in rl'wflzon'cci~'~ t 1 Full Collrt of Case ~ Sew South \fyalc.; ashumetl jurisdiction and grantcd an injunction to restrain tlir Hill in that case from 1)cing presvnted for the royal a\sent. The member5 of that court werv of tlie opinion that thc. plaintiff.; who were 1nem1)ers of the 1,~~gisIaturc had a sufficient interest to e~ltitle thrm to sue. The basis of their opinion was that the plaintiffs ivould he deprived of parliamentary privileges if thc tlireatencd breach of tllc law \-\,as c o m m i t t e d . l ~ f o r e o v c r , the opinion wah rspressed that therc was no unlawful interference with parliamentary process in granting the rclief sought in T-iewof the fact that 5 . 7-\ contained an express prohihition against presentation of a Bill for the royal assent which had not 1~ec.nsubmitted to ;I refrrendum.l6 One judge, 1,ong I n n e ~1 ., regarded tlit, huit 2.; being "in \illr.;tance a suit the object of \vhicll is to prc\-cnt the two Housc. of the Legislature from communicating to the third c element thcrcof, His Jlajrlsty, their a d ~ ~ i ineregard to legi\lxtion in thc process of making. I t a l ~ o , incidentally, prays in c f f t ~ t that this court ~ h o u l d interfrre with the internal affairs of I-'arlianic~it. "15 However, on the balance of convenience he thought t h t ~ injunction should he granted.18 The High Court, in granting hpecial leave to appeal in Trethowcl~~'~ ordered that the appeal be limited to the question Case, whether the Parliament of the State of S e w South IVales had power to abolish the Legislative Council or to alter its c o n s t i t u t i ~ n . ~ ~ Consequentlj-, the vital issue of jurisdiction was excluded from argument before the High Court. However, a statement by Dixon J. (as he then was) seems to leave open whether the courts in any case could assume jurisdiction in this type of situation. "An Act of the British Parliament which co~ltaincda provision that no Hill repealing any part of the Act including tlie part so restraining its own repeal should be presented for tlie Iioyal Assent unless tlie Iiill were first approved by the electors would have the forcc, of law until the Sovereign actually did asscnt to a Hill on it-; rcpcs:tl. 1 3 . (1960) 7 7 1 V . X . (K.S.lV.) zit 769. 11. Tretliowa~i'sCase, Parliamr~rtary .Sur'en~ijir;/!,,nnd /l(i, 12it~rils0.f Chatzg~,, 1 .\.L.J. ( 1 9 5 0 - l ) , 103. 2 1.5. See Stl.cet C . J., 31 S.K. (N.S.\\'.) a t .'()l-(i. OWCI,J . a t 219. l n n e s 1 . at 232-3. l i i . street ?'. J . a t 204-6. Oxven J . at 219-221. 17. at 233. 18. at TZ5. 1 0 d l ( . . l , . U . < \ t: $ ! j ! L l O o . I.(::(i1 , . I ~ ~ t l g 28 7 he U ~ z z z ' c r s ~(4Queendatzd Law Jouvtzal tj~ 111 >trictncass it would bs an iinlawful proceeding t o present 5 ~ ~ a 1 1 I3ill tor the Iioyal Assent I~cforeit had been approved 1)y thc c4vctors. If, l~eforcxtlie Bill received the assent of the Crown, it \Vii, found possible, as appears t o have been done in this apl~eal, t o raise, for judicial decision thc question whether it was lawful t o 1)l.c~scirit the, Hill for that a i e n t tllr courts would he l ~ o u n dt o 1)ronounce i t unlawful t o do so. Moreover, if it liappened that, notwithstanding ttlc statutory inhillition the Rill did receive thc 12oyal :lb;c.nt although it \va. not submitted t o thc electors, the 'ourt might ljr called up011 t o consider whether the suprelnc legisI'iti\.c, 1~~1vc.r rc,>pt.ct of tli~smatter had in trutli been esercisecl in in tht, rr~annerI-c>cluiredfor its autlicntic cispression and 1)~.tiltx t,l!,incmts in which it had come t o I n H z t ~ h e sa ~ z d I - t r l ~ Ltd. ;,. (;lrir i t ~ d OYS. llixon ( ' . J . t.spressed the opinion that lie 1 ~ 1 d long entt.rt;~inrd a doubt as t o the correctness of the decision of tlie I;1111 ('our-t of S e w South \Tales in Trethozwz's Cusc even oil tlic tcrrns of the Act. He al-o considcrt:d that the Art in question Cltsi. in T v i ~ t h n s ~ , c ~ ~ l ' s \vas o f ;t ipecial kind in that it contained :I clis~v-t>t;ctutor\. ~)i~uliibitii)li i ~ l s prr.,entation of the Hill for the. qa t lic~!.,il ;\-*c%nt." In tiic. artic.lt- cittd a b u ~ . e ,l'rofc-ssor Friedinan11 argues t11,it English ('our-t~, :iccu.to~ncd t o tticx principle of parliamtmtal-y ~ I I ~ ) I - ( ' ~ I ~ c I ' , 1 ) ~ .l o ; ~ t tto intcrft're in a n y way with a I3ill whicli rrla!. ~ i~ before. l':lrlian~erlt \vllilt> the Australian Courts, esisting in a n cm\-ironn~vnt u-1ic.1-cItlgislati\-e po\ver is limited, may I~a\-c> sucll no i~~liil)itiorls." 111 , t r.t>ccnt Englisll case, Hnrpcr u ~ l dOrs. v . I'ilr. .S~~c.r.i't,i):~' itf'Stiittc'ji)rthr H o t ~ l rI)c@itvtmt~zt,'~ plaintiffs sought ti11 the injl~nctioliagainst tlie tlcfvndant restraining him from submit tin^ hslo11 to the Qucen-in-('oil~~cil tiraft Order3 drawn up I)>- a ('ommi. .' ~ on ~)arlianlcmtaryco!~stituc.nc lwundaries. l i o x l ~ u r g lJ. grantc,d . ! intt'riit~ r , ~ 11 /xlrii7 injunction. Or1 appral, thc Conrt of A%ppc;il 11c.ld that tllc ('ommi5sio11 had not departed from tliv rulcs laitl d o \ ~ n tlit~*lct \vhic.h controlled it. T h t ~i-nen~brrsof thc Colirt irl c.1-itic-izc.tl tilt, granting of the 1,s pavtc injunction oil tile ground t h a t I':trlian-i~~~lt not col~tt>rnplated 11:td that it ~vouldbe competent for tlit courts t o interf(trt1 in this type of mattcr. \That is significant in thc,ir j ~ l d g m ~ n however, is a short reference t o Trethowa~l'i t, c.;iic.: "'Trcthowanl.i case can 1 x 3 distirlgui.;hcld as the Legislature, ut Ntsw 5oatlr IValcs Iiad unclt.1- thv Australian ('onstitutior~limitc.11 11crc cuncerned with , i lv. \VI~CLI.C) in no x.11,~~ tilt, Yarlia~nerlt or Lcgirlaturt~ having lirnitetl legislative functions according t o the C o n ~ t i t u t i o n . " ~ ~ I t might Ilc tllougllt then that wl~ilra strong tradition would p r e r u i t an English court frorri interfering in sonw way with parliam e n t i q - process, ;\ustrali;ul courts, which were not enurcd to tllc tradition, would take a different vicw. And indeed, in McDorzulii 1 ' . Caij125 the Full Court of Yictoria assumed jurisdiction in a caw of this nature. There two members of the Legislative Asseml~ly of Victoria brought a n action against ?Ilinisters of thc Crown seeking a declaration that it wab contrary to law for the defendants to present to the Governor for his assent a Rill providing for 11c.w electoral districtb. Tile ]$ill had been passed in the Assrmbly wit11 a n absolute majority but with less than a n absolute majority in the Council. The plaintiffs contended that under the \'ictorian Constitution Act a bill dealing with electoral boundaries must be passed by a n a1)solute majorit!. of both Houses. Thc members of the Court (Gavan Dug!-, Martin arid 0'Hrya11 J J . ) rejected this contention and hrld that the Eill could be passed ljy a sinlplc majoiit?,, hut they also dibcussed the question wlietlicr they liail jurisdiction. JZartin J . said that mini.sters of the Cro\vn had the obligation of obeying the law. A ~leclaratiorldid riot ~):-cv~mt 1Iinistei--; f ~ o n ~ giving advict~to thr, (;o\.ernor, hut would rc,cluire that, silould they adribe him, such ad\.ict, sliould I)? correct . O'liryan .J. was of the samc opinion: ".A dccli~rationin in 1 such a cnhe will authoritatively inform and hint1 thaw rt~sponsit~lc Ministers of the Crown as to what the law is, on a matter whicll concern.; them as Ministers. Such a declaration does not intcrit're with their right to give advice to the Governor or the Governor's right to seek their advice. All it ensures is that the responsible Ministers of the Crown will know what the law is so that correct lcgal advice mav be given."27 The Full Court of New South Wales in I'rethoma~z's C'ust- a ~ t d the Full Court of 1-ictoria in McUo~tald v. Gain secrn to h a r e of regarded a prejudicial effect on the plaintiffs' ~nembershil) I'arliament as an interest sufficient to gi\re the plaintiffs a locus s t u t i ~ l i . ~ ~ The members of the Full Court of Victoria were even prep;rrrd to regard presence on the voters' rolls as creating a sufficient nexus between the individual plaintiffs zmd the i n h e s t sought to I I ~ . 24. ihid., 2.i3. See. a l o Ijilsfotz C ' o r p o n r t ~ or~. l 1 7 0 1 i ' r r l i i r ~ ~ ~C'i~vp(~t.irfi,~it l ~to~i 11!)1.', 1 ('11. 3 ! ) 1 a t 3!)3, \\.here Sirnvnds J., although a d ~ n ~ t t i ntg a t h jurisdictioll in the a t ~ i t r a c texihted (in a cahe \\here a n injunction \!as sought restraining o n e o f the parties from petit~oningfor an .2ct of I'arliarnent) said tlrat i t \\as ditficr~lt conceive of a case in v,h~clr it to \\.oul~l 1)roper1>.I I cxserc~ietl. ~ 2.5. ( 1 CI.50) 60 .!,I,,I<., !I(i5. 2 ( ; . i l ~ i d . a t 978. , 27. ihirl., a t 98;. (;a~-a11 I)affy J . c l i t l tlot decitle t l ~ e point. S'e his jutlgnlrnt a t 972. 28. 60 .\.1..1<. a t 978, !MS. See also 11. 15. jirotc~ctcd 11y thrir action in that tlleir voting rights \voultl ht. :iJ'fc~tcsd1 ) ~ ' tllv ~ ) r o l ~ o w d changes in I~oundarirt-;.~" A significant difference between these two c;r:,rs and Clajl/oil's Cizsc was to 1)c found in the fact that in Claytorl's C m e the defendants 11ad given :tn undertaking not t o dispute the court's juri.diction. I t might 11c ,urrnib~d that it was the intention of the partic? not so m u c l ~to 1)anit;ll discus.sion of what was important principle of law ah to reach a spc~edydetermination of the bubstantial clurstion, n a m ~ l y ,whether the Government had acted contrary t o the law in the steps that it had taken to abolisli the ('ouncil. I n tlic 1:ull ('ourt of S e w South IValeh, E v a t t C.J. and Suger~nan . adopted a J \-ic3w that would distinguibh Australian from English practice. Tliey recognized t h a t in matters of major public interest the courts \vcrt7 empowered t o assume jurisdiction and t o act by injunction or declaration t o prevent a Rill from being presented for the royal asqent contrary t o law. "A degree of con\.cniencc arnonnting virtuall!- t o necessity rnakt.5 it propcr t o dctt.rmirit1 a t an ;rpliro1)riatcly (.at-IJ-.tagc3whether bucll a me;isurc, if ~lltimately~nactcltl, \rill ha\.(, 1x.en enacted wit11 con.itit11tional \.alidity and in accoi-dance \vith t l ~ c forms rc~lliir~cl its e n x t m e n t , and tlrc urgent!- in the for 17uI)lic intt,rcst of ;in t ~ ; ~ r determination of this clucbtion Iia- l~cxcn ly rc.c.ognizet1 11y tl~thc ~ t l -into the agreement carlicr ref(x~-~-(d ~. to."3" 'l'l~c.ir Ilono~lr. tli-tinguislitd Hughes alzd L.alt, ll/>'. Lfti. 7,. ( i i r i ~as a case arixing out of an infringement of a p~-ovibion tht. ('on.;tituof tion of the ('onlnionn-caltll.:" l'hey considered that in dccidirig ti c ~ ~ c c : such as tli(-onc 1)t.fort. t h m l the Court was determining the cluestion of contitntionnl \.alidity in relation t o thcl ultimate. .ollrcc uf constitutional po\h7er of ttie Stxte of New South \Vale>, i.~..,the anthority of tllr\ lrnperial I'arlia~nent, and tlixt it \va; acting irl anticiiiation of a cluestion \vhic.h could kc expected t o aribe if the Ihll a-ab appro\.etl 11y thc ('lectorl zrnd recril-t.d the royal a.;5c2nt. 'That cluc,>tion \2-onld I)? whethcr an enactment of the rcconbtitutcd 1-c.gislaturc ~vo~lltl 1,art of the law of tht. 5t:rtc." be 2hncn J. conhidtsrcd that it was necessary for the co~lr-tt o encluircl "to an c.xtcrlt" into t110 internal proceedings of 1'arli;rment in or-dcr t o tictcrmi~ie wlictlir,r t h c recluirementh of niannc3r ar~tl fol-m prvscril~cd law had becn fultilled."" I t would lct.nl from t h .;tatemcnt of 131-att ('..T. and >llt.c,rln;ln ~ that thcy \vol~ldhave 1)c3c311 1)rel)arc~l ;I-.urnc jnri-diction cti.t>~1 to witflo~lt;I coric<'.iio~~ tllc defcncl:~~lti this cluta..tion. 1 1 1 : l i ~ ~ l 1)y on it \vould sewn that tht.ir ol,i~iion i b in ;iccord;lncc \vit11 :i 13a4c 1'1 inciplc, of juclic-ial 110wc'r t1i;~tinribdiction r.si-;t. intl~.1)1~1ld(.ntlv of .I. t.o11-~11t t11:~t st ill it cIoc5- not otllc~rwi~c. ~)osic.-;. :t court jr~ri\cIictio~~l ~ i ' i ~ ~v Ilo\\-c.\.cr-,the jutlgmci~lt\of tllo m r ~ ~ t l l ~of~tlrcs Fligll ('ourt arca c rs r-rlar-lic,tlI,\- ; I tlt.tiuitt. Ilostilit!. to tllc. :~s~urnl)tion juridiction in of t l ~ i -t\.lw of ca,c,, c,\.cn taking into accorlnt thc. concc,.;hior~ rnacit' 1))- tllc~tlc~fc~~ltl,tnt~. 1)ison ('.,I., \IcTiesrn:~u, 'faylor and \i7indeyc~r J.1.. i i l :t joint jritlgn~cnt,csl~rc'sscdgrc:it d o u l ~ tas to nhctlir~rtlie lain in tiff. had ;i u f i c i v n t i~ltr,~-cst gi\,t. them ;I lol-/r.\. .sfa~tr/l'.:'l to 'I'lli. :\orlltl .cbtlnl to cast tionl)t on tllc' dicta of tllc. Full ( ' o r ~ r tof \'ic.tori;\ i r i . I I ~ l ) o ~ i ~ l ( l 1'. ('trill to the effect tllirt me~nl)cv.llii) of or c~onnit~tioii \r.itlr tllr' It,gi>l;iti\.t. 11otl~-aff~xctcatl1,y tllc. ~)rol~osc.d legi>l;~tion conft,r; iocli~ stt- \vclrt3 of tlltb ollinion that tllc- S t w 5outtl \\'all.\ ('ourt i l l tilt, l)ri>.ye~lt w o ~ ~ lhavv 1)c.t.n ponc.l-le,~, act ~vithout caw tl to t11c conct,>-ions rnatl(. I,>- tlltl defendant>. Ex.t,n \vitll tllo concebt.ion tllc. ('oilrt \va\ I(,ri into :ill c,ncluir!- into u1;lttc.r. of lj:u-lia~nc.nt:~~-~, ~ w o i ' t ~ l u r ~ ~iiito ,~;oiilgI~c~!.o~iil dlltj- of d(.c.itling \vlrc.tllc.r-;in ant1 the t 01 : t i t v 1 . If the!. \vc~-c tlc,cid(, tire, \.;~liclity to of ,t \tatlilt ;ictr~all!- adopted, some of the 111;~tte~r.'ivoriltl 11;ir.c l ) c . t , i ~ t.c,en in ti-1ic.1.pt~r:l)t~cti\-r ~ l t l a plrt on onti sitlt. ";I. 1nattc.1-5I)c$longi~lg to Icgi-lati\.t proceih wliich collld not I)(. rc.-\.iewc~d after the. statute i y ~ ~ . ; ~ c . n tto.""" 'l'iic implication i> that thca court can only c~d juirt. iiito tlit' cl~it.stionof \.alidit~. after the I4ill has I~cen enacted into la\\. Llic. ~ . i c \ v tile High Court then heems to cast d o u l ~ ton tv.o of prc)po\itionh \vhicil had rt,ceived judicial sa~zctionin prc\.io~lsc:~sc.>: (1) a tieclaratiorl or injunction nix!. Ilc granttic1 a t tllo suit of m c ~ n l ~ e r - I'arliarnent w110 ;~r('x d \ . ( ~ s i , l ~i.f f c ~ t t ~ l ;I of ; I)!. propost~cl 1:ill rclnting to thrs c1iarnl)cr of which tilct!. ; ~ r c mernbrrt. : (2j that an i ~ ~ j u n c t i otrill i * ~ n c rttstrain prr,sentation of ;I n to Iiill for tilt. I-oyal ast.tXnt. CL c 3 1 i c P . 'The re-ult of this vi~,\vwoal(l scLcm to l ~ c thxt any ag1-c,c.n1c\ntto jurisdiction or1 the, {la]-t of tilt, clefvndants hiis 110 legal cffcct ; ~ n d nil! not Icitd t o thcb c o ~ ~ f v r r n t ~ n jurihdiction on thc ('oilrt. Henof t ever, t1csl)itc. thcxir tlolll~t. 0 1 1 tlirx cluc.ition of jllristliction tlrr. FIicl~ ('orlrt \v;i\ ~)rc~p;i~-c~tl s ; i ~ ~ l i tlit. , .;ul)t.tar~tiali>.;uc,s ~t.llic-11 to c s ~~i \\.(.I.,. i ~ ~ \ . o l \ , cin the al~l~lication -1)ecial It~;i\'et o aj~pealfrom the d for Ncw h u t 1 1 \\.'alcsh court. T h c two s u b s t ; ~ n t i ; issues were, firstly, ~l tllc. \ralitlity of s. 51% the New South \\`ales Constitution .ict, the of procedure of which thc Go\rcrnment purported t o adopt in passing tlie Al~olitionHill of 1960; secondly, tlie extent to which the Go\,ernr11t.nt complied with the terms of s. 513 in attempting to rcsol\.e the deadlock 1)etwecn thc ,i:;st'ml)l!. and thv ('ouncil. Ill As was 1)ointed out earlicr, s. 5B of the Constitution Act was inbcxrtcd in 103.' a5 ;L means of resolving :illy deadlocks t h a t might and C o ~ n c i l . ~ 'I t was a general occur 11t)tween thc A ~ s s e m h l y juo\i.;ion ajqplying to a11 Bills except money Bills. I t therefore would seem t o extend t o Bill.; abolishing or changing the structure of the Legislati\.e Council. was invalid ;is I t was contended for the plaintiffs t h a t s. 51% 1)c.ing contrary to 5. 3 of thc Colonial Iaatvs L7alidity Act. I n t l ~ c i r a~.gtirncnt,tllc, 11od~. which legislati\,e power was invehted by in s. .;IS \\.;is a 1c~gisl~~tn1-e differtlnt from that referrcd to in thy Colonial 1-;1\vsL7nlidit!. .Act. 5ucli a legi.;laturc., it was haid. was a 1)i-carncral oncx conhisting of IAc~gi>lati\.c .lhw~nl)ly and 12cgislative Co~lncil. Tl~is argument w ; 1 ~.cjc>d.cd ) ~the F ~ t l l 1 . Co!~r of S e n South \\':~li~s t on the authority of a 1)rc~iolis decision of the High Court, 'Z'r~?dor7 1 . .4 ttovr~c~~-Cc~zcri11v1 1 t ~ ~ ~ 1 s l ~ t l d . 3 8 j ~ ( T(i?ilor's Cnsc cic:~lt wit11 :L provision himilar t o 1. 513. I t was 5. 1 of thc I'arlianii~ntar~~ I3iilh Referendum Act l!fOX of Q;)uc.can.I:llitl, \vhicl~ pro\,idtd for the ultimate sul)mi.;sion of a lei11 to a rcaf<~rend~im wittlout t h r a.sent of the 1,egislative Council in t h c c.\.chnt of rlisagrermc~nt bc.twcen the two H0uses.3~ I t 11.a. 1111dt.r tllii 11ro~iyion that t l ~ c Quecnsland Government liad in 1017 i11t1-otlurcd a ISill to ai)oli\h tlic Legislative Council.") I hc 171r11 ('our t of (j~lecnslandhad taken the lrie\\ that ; 5 . of tlir ('olonial I.;L\v>\.alidity Act cor-ercd a qituation \~hc.~-c tl!cre \?.as mcrcly a c l ~ n n g cin internal parliamcntal 1- 1)rocc.durc. and (lid riot authorize tliil al~olition ii charnl~er the Icgi~lature.~' of of Indc~od 0 . 3 7 . . 4 ? 1 t f , , 12, 3 2 . 38. (191fi-7) 43 C.L.K., 437. 3!l. .l'liel.e \ \ a s , h o \ \ c \ c r , n o l,ro\~,ion for a i o ~ n tsitting l1et\\ecxn tlie t \ \ o I1ouse.z. 40. I'or tlic tietaiis (11 t h r payiage i ~ fthis I3ill scc 23 C.L.R. a t 4Oli-4(i:3. 41. [1!117, S t . R . ((!(I.) %)8 a t 2 3 8 . S . 5 i-; as follrl\\s. --"E\.er!. ( ' I J ~ I J I I I , I ~ 1.egihlat11re sl~all Ira\e, alicl l)e tlecrned a t all times t o have hacl, it111 l'o\\ er \ \ ithin its uristliction to estal~lish('ourts of J l~dicatllrr,ancl t o ;tt~ollshnrltl recon..;titlrte tht. hame, alld t o altcr t h e ('onstitutit~ntliereot, and to make I'ro\ ]>ion lor tlie .idministration of Julatl~re; pro\.ided t h a t 5uch La\\> shall liave 11ee11 p a s w l in huch Manner ant1 I:orln as m a y from 'flmc t o 'l'lmc I)e required Ijy all\- .let of I'arliament, 1.ctters l'atent, Order in C'c1ui1c.11,ilr ( ' o l u ~ ~ [.a\\ for t h c ~al time 11cing in force. In tlle saicl Colon! ." in their view s. 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act read together with t h r Queensland ('onstitution preventctf >lick1 a n abolition: "\Ye think that the powcr to allolish can oi11y come from the s;ilnr. .ourcc, as the pourer to create, ancl that it is not within tlic. powt'lof t h t It~gislat~lre Quecnsland, as the (:onstitution nowr stands, of or during its history has stood, to destroy the esistencc of citlirr chamber, each being an essential pal t of the organ of g o ~ e r n m e n t . " ' ~ However this view was rejected when the case came on alq)txal to the High Court.43 Barton J . in interpreting s. 5 of the ('o1oni:~l Laws i7alidity Act said: "I take thtl constitution of a legislaturcx, as the term is here used, to mean the composition, form or nature of the House of Legislature where there is only one House, or of either House if the legislative body consist> of two Houses. I'robal~l>~ the power does not extend to authoriz? the c,limination of thc representative character of the legislature within the rncaning of the Xct."44 Barton J. might have arrived at the opposite conclusion if the Queensland Constitution . k t (1867) wai alone Hrr applicable for this provided by s. 2 for the pahsage of laws "I>!; Majesty with the advice and consent of the 1,egislativc~('ouricil and the Lc.gis1ati.i-e Assembly." However, lie considci-ed that tllc3 effect of s. 5 of the Colonial Laws \.alidity Act was to vest in Parliament the power of changing the con.;titutional structure c ~ ~ i t l provided a means whereby in the e\.cnt of disagreement I>ctwcc,n the Houses the assent of the Legislative (:ouncil could be dispen>c.tl with. This procedure would extend not only to ordinar>, IZills l)ut a1.w to Bills abolishing the Council itself." Isaacs J. explained th<> change effected by the Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act as n o longer requiring "as an absolute condition of legislation the concurrence of both Houses in advising the Crown. After two faillires to agree, the advice of the 1,egislative -Assembly is sufficient pro\-idcd thele be obtained the approval of a majority of electors a r e f e r e n d ~ m . " ~ 6Isaacs J. was not impressed by thc argu~neritof Feez K.C., counsel for the plaintiffs, to the effect that s. 5 of thtl Colonial Laws Validity Act envisaged changes in the legislative, structure onlj- of an internal nature (such as clualifications of members or electors). "I read the words 'constitution of sucll legislature' as including the change from a uni-camera1 to a bi-camera1 system or the reverse. Pro1)al)ly the representative character of the legislature is a basic condition of the power relird upon and is preserved bv the word 'such' hut, that being maintained, I can see no reason for cutting down the, plain natural nic,aning of the words in question so as to exclude the power of :L .<,If-governing c o ~ ~ ~ m u ntloi t ~ . that for State purposes on? Ho11.c. is bufficient as its organ of I ( . g i s l a t i ~ n . " ~Gavan 1)uffy ant1 liicll 1.1. ~ ;rlso ;igrectI the 1)owarconferred I)y b. 5 was not rcstrictetl to mattcxrb of internal 11rocedurc.. 'fhcp rcscognizr.d, h o w e l ~ c r ,t h a t t h e rcl)rcssc,nt;~ti\lc nature of t h c legislatrlr<*coultl not bo a l ~ o l i s l ~ r ~ tBoth l.~~ 1s;~;ic ;~ritlI'on~(lrt, .].I. ~ ( T Y ;LISO of t h e opinion t h a t t h c power t o c11;~nge t ~ c. i ~ ~ i i t i t u t i oof t h e Icgislaturt did not cxtend to a law t n tli5l)cnsing witti thca ('rown a s a n r.lement in tllc Icgislati\re process.4' l'hc 1)rincipIc. tllc,r~t o derived from t h e I-c;ibons of tlit. judges is tIi:~t s. 5 of tllc. ('olonial I>aws 17alidity .4ct vc,sted in t h e Legisl a t ~ ~ r c s ~ ) o \ v cto~lay down a mtlthocl of legislating by which t h e tilt` ~ . ;~s.c~rit of orie House t o proposed lcgislatiorl could ultimatclv lxh tli,,l)(~n\(~(li t l ~ . 'l'hi.; p r o c t d ~ ~ rmight extend t o a 13ill u71iich w e ,ought t o al)olixlr onex Housc. Tllr t ~ s c c ~ ~ ) t i oIiowever, arcLt h a t ns, t l ~ t l~-c'ljrt,s(.~~tati\-(. actt.1- of thc, 1,c.giilaturc rnust be ~)rrsc>i-\~ed cl~al ; c l l t l t l ~ , i t tlio :c~,c~ritof tlic. ( ' ~ O \ Y I I c o ~ l l dnot 1,c d i q ~ c n i c ~witli. d '1'11t.it. t w o (~xc(~l)tion-.\vo~lld ~)r(:v(\xlt a S t a t ? I.cgiil;rt~lrc from c.~ia~ti~lk l(tgi4ation \vhictl would c \ t ; ~ b l i ~a rc.pul)licari tyl)ts of h c,onstitution ( a sit~liition\\-liicli wo~llti 11c. ~jrcvcmtcscl riot only 115. t l l c , ('olonial I<;I\\.\ litlit\ lit\. .4ct Ijilt ;\lso by tlw ('omrnon\vc~;llt~~ ( onbtit~ltio~l .\ct) (11. ;I c!ic.t;~to~ t\.l~c.of constitution \vliicll \vonlcl ial \,(,itI(~;;i\lati\~c~ \ \ ~ . I . i r i on,, 11i;~n in ;L j ~ n t a (ah \v;it, . u ~ g e s t c ~ l I)o 01or i r i ; ~ r g l i r i ~ ( . ill t( ' l i ! \ . / i ~ i ~ '\( I s c ) r~ ( \1.0111c1 111o\7id(.for ~ I I c ' i);l';;lg(' of I(,gisl;ttiori 115.:I ~~iiiioi.it\. tl1c1 I ~ ~ g i h l t ~ t t ~ r v , of ' l ' l ~ i - , of coii~.\(., foc~l>c%i ;~tttxutior~ thcx clllcbtiol~ t o \ v l ~ a t on ~ , s t c - n tlit. I ~ t ~ g i ~ l ; ~~t: lI iI iI(li\.est itwlf of ; i ~ t l i o r i t ~ I~ Ctr;~nsfc'rit t (~ LL ~ ~ Castto >.oinv otllcr I)otly. 111 (,~lrlj'to~z'.~ thta High ('ourt was not ~ ~ ~ - v l ) ;to cc~sarnincxl l i i i c l u c ~ s t i oin ~isolation fr-om the particulalu ~l ~ ,t;itr~tor\.l1o\trers of tilts K(.\v Solith \?':iles 12egisl:rtur-c, I ~ u tt1lc.r~is ,olile tIi>c,u\bion of tlrc, ( ~ t l ( ' h f i o ~ lthe. jriclgmcnt of l S \ ~ ~ ('.,I. ;III(I in tt Si~gr.rrn;ln.I. in t11(~ 1;1111 ( ' o ~ ltr of Nc\v Soutli I V ; ~ l ~ ~ s . " ' l Ill for tlic- 1jl;~i11tiff,,had sril~rnittc~d a t b. 5I< of tl~cb th ('orl.;tit1ltiorl Act lr;lil inf1.ingt.d tllc. I~asicconstitutional I-ciluircsnlc,nt t11;~t sr~l)orc!inatc*12c*gi~l:cturo a could not di17c.t i tsrlf of i ~ ullorit>t ;it tllcx sarnc timv :ii it c o n t i n u t d in esisttncc~. 'fhil ei'fcct of i. .',I<, II(. saitl, \\.;I> tlrat \vliilt, tl~r.1)ower of thc, Iac~gislat~lrc, m a k r I;L\v:, to i l l :L I)i-c;~lnc-~-al rl1;Lnnc.I- (i.t., 1)y a I~od!. coniisting of tn.c~Iroribc) c . o ~ ~ t i n i ~o % i l t ~ (.xist, Y . 51: ~ ) ~ . o v i t l as mc.;ins \ v h c r c t ~ Ic.gixlatio11 r c ~ ~ u I)(% 1)t1>bc11 ;L unic;uilci1 ;11 rnarlricq- (i.~'.,\vitliout t11c ;lsscSnt of ld in on(- liou~c.). 5tio11grctli~~ncct \vtis ~)laccxdon a clictum of lilt. I)I-~\.\. ('oriricil ill KLT111ifitrti7'~~l d KEf~~,ell(l/(rn (o ; t ~ i ( l ;I 11ict111n of 1)es 4 7 i / ~ / f / . , :ti 4 7 4 . 4:). / I I / ~ / . ,;tt 4 7 2 , 4 7 4 , 4 S l . 4s ,>II. //I/(/ .-!I. g ~ l~lllllllt:I l l l t < l \ , \ \ I t 1 1 it li(J,trr0 1 l ~ ~ ~ l ~ l : 1 t0i1 l1 ~tIlP ~ l l I l j , ~ C t <~lltrll~L<~(I o l l , t o ~t 90 a111\)Iv tlli~t( , ~ ~ j i j \ . t * c lI)\. :I I)ro\~i11c1:11 , C ~ I ~ I ; L ~ I II I~I < (':III:I(~:I, :I\ I ~ L O I I I ( I , 1, I ~ i l c{ ) I - O V , I - \ I I I ~11, o i i 11 C : I ~ I ; I C I ~ ) . 111ti1c.1, ~ ( h kt l ~ t %\ S I S ~ : I I I C ~ , 01 :I \ u I ~ ( ~ s t l ~ nL: ~~t 'rI I C I ~. ' ~. , . I I I I ~~t ~ I o r h11ot t o I I o \ \ tll;~t~t can create :11111 ; ~ ct~(loii \\it11 it. ( ~ \ \ c.al)ac.~t\. ne\\ legihl;~tl\c n :I po\\rt 11111 cre;itr(l I)! t l ~ c .\ct to \\-liich ~t o\\es it. c-\~.trnce." 19I!ji I.('. !)35 :it !l4*5. , :ti 477-!I. 7 7 \ \ ' . S . ( S . S . \ \ ' . ) , 777-77:). Uison .I. (;LS he tlicn in I)iq~~trir',s CNZI':'~ s11pp0rt of tht' in iirgumcnt that thcrcl h;id 1)c.e.n nrl 11nl;l\vf11lal)clication of authorit!.. E v a t t ( ' . J . ancl Sugcrm;~n.I. (lid 11ot ;~ccel)t tlli. ;trglirncnt: " T l ~ c12cgislati\.c ('ouncil l-t~~nains1i;lrt of tile 1,c~gi~l;~tllrt.~ t l a :t~ ol tht, lrgiilativc, procc.;.;, true ; r i it rnav 1 1 ~ . tliat it. capacity is limitcld. I n ol-dt,r thgtt 5. 51.: nlay ol)t,ratc the, Iiill I I I ~ I - ; l~ ~ c t\q7ic.c. ~ ) r e s e r l t ~to it, ; ~ n d il tlie 12c~gi.;lnti\re ('ollncil rnllit t ~ v i c trc.jt,ct or ~ fail to pas, it, or IJaii it with an amcmtlrnc.nt to \vl;ic-11tht. I,c~gisl:iti\-t~ .i,scmbl~-does not agrc3cx. Its cal);icity, that i i to .ay, i i limitc>tl t o deliberation nljon and concurrc,nccx in they l3ill if it i- ~)rel);ir('(l to accept i t ; it is tlepii\~edof an uricontrollc~(1cap;icity to rejc~ct conclusi\~ely,since its rejection is only cxfft,cti~.c.i f it coincit1c.s wit11 the e x p ~ e h s wish of thcl majority of the rlcctor.;. Ho\vit\-c.r, this i i merely a ~)roccdul.cl rt>.;ol\-irigdeadlocli bet\vt>c~ri two Nouic,i. for tlit hnch ah, in varying form.;, ii alio found not only in rigid hut also s o m c t i m t in flexil~lecollitit~~tions.""" I'lic, fIigh ( ' o ~ ~ r2ts, I saiti, 1 was not prepal t d to L,xaniinc tliis ; ~ r g l ~ n ~ irln i,ol,ltion hut bacltl v t their decisicjr~on tlie a u t h o ~ \vllicll :.. .?I3 do^ i \ ? t i from the Svn. it! 5011th Ll'a1c.h ('011ititution.jJ It mic:l~t ic3ern illi,rl that Clil\'toii'.~ Cirsr wo~lltl hc nlt~rrly a I-c~tatcmvnt\>nzlfrifi\ i : : i l t c t ? z ~ i i . ~ i of tlit, principles in Trz~,/or's C'rtsc. Ion.c>\.(~r- tiiSfv:-- fl-or117'1<\d(:r'a , ' r l \ l > it C in an important rc.,pect: tlir later co111-t~)l;ici~rl c~n?pii;ibi.: the. on New Solit11 \ \ ' a h ('onhtitutiorl .\ct a ;I .O;I!I.(> ;~i~tl;o:it\. of for -. 513 and donl~teti \vhtxthc.r the, ('olorii;~l I.;I\I\.;liitlit\- .\ct autllorized thtt tnactmvnt of a p~o~.i.ion iuri! ~ 1 -,. 5I:.-" I t will 1 1 of interest at thii it:?g(' to >IIIIIIII;II I L ~t l:i f . (,;~rly x Iliitor!. of th? S e w South \I7ale:>('ollstitution .-Ict. :;2 of ;!I) IIIII)<\I.~;LI .\ct ( 1 3 & 14 \.ict. C.11. 5!l)5fi tI1t1 ( ; O \ . ~ ~ I I I < I I ;!II(I I , v ~ i ~ I a t ic.01111cil \~(~ of S(l\z-5011th \Vales ~v(,1-(. ;!utho~izr,tl to ~ ~ t ; i l ) l ii .~~ l -~ c , of d ~ l ; ~ ;L 1.t~gislativcCouncil a 1)i-camtral I t ~ ~ i s l a t u lcoil-i?ting of ~t Co~lncil il and a Housc of Ii~,l~rc>t,ntati\.cs. 1'111-il:antI!: t l1i5 1 o\vc.~- S t ~ v tl1c8 5011tll \\'ales 1.t~kriilativc ('ouncil i:;t:..;t'tl a ( ' o ~ ~ - t i t ~ : t i1:iIl i \vlricll o~ \\.as I-t,sc.r\.cd for- r h t ~roj-a1 a-writ. 'I-lli+ 1;iIl [ l ; t t ( > ~1i11otv11 t11(1 ('oristitt~tio~l .let) \v;is contaiilvii i l i :I sc~lic'c;t~lo a n i ~ i i l ) c ; t~l ~ a r t to i 18 M 1 9 Vict. ('11. 3-C (Izitcr I < I ~ o \ v I ~ . I > 111~. ' o ~ i i l i t u t i o ~ l ( 5tatutt.i xvliich plve the. ( _ > ~ ~ c ~ cpoivcbr tt) a-.c>nt t o t I I ( - I ~ , v . I \.('ti I ;ill (wit11 .ri cc,rtain a~ncndnicnt> ni:~tl(~ it) \vllicl~ to \vai corrt,iiric~d tl~c. in .c-l~t'tl~~lc. 5 . 52. " I t > ~ ( I L I I ( I~ l \ oI V 11r1ticc11 I t11;tt. 111 t11c o 1 1 1 1 i i o 1 1I [ ~ I I L ,J I I ( I I C I ~ I I ['111111mittv<%, , n #er~c.r;ilp \ \ e r "I l'giil;ltiol~ l , ( ' I o ~ ~ g i10l g I t > g ~ i l ~ i t ~ t r~ ,~ h t i t ~ i t c . < I ~ ;I co t IITI! ; I I I \ 101 111 01 t.t~,1ctli>cwt crc.;ltt\ dc~r~t to a r i < I :II-III \ \ 1tI1 ~ c ~ ~ i cl ~ ~ # i~s I ; ~ t ~;\ ~ t ~ t l r o\ r ~I t I I I , \ \ l1.g1\1;111\ 1 1 1 \ \ < ~ 1 ~ I I I ~ crt l , I, 1 I crc;~tecl01- nutlir)rlz~,~l tlic. I I I ~ ~ I - I I I I I I , I~) \! ~ i\111i 11 ~t \ \ ; I \ c~1;11111~11~~~1." (l!I:31-2) 4ti ( ' . l , . I < . , 7 3 : ~ !);-Ii, t 511~11 I ~ I I . Ir ~1 IS , I IV I II l ; r \ \ I I I I I I . I I I I I ; I ~ I ~ \ . ;I ~ ( l ( I I . YI I . 7 \ \ I S \\it11 t I 1 t t C;15135 \ \ t l ~ % l L , > I ~ l l l l , ~ r - < l l l l : l t ll ~ ~ ~ l ~ l ~ l l tl ,l, l\ l \t ~ l):l.\i>. l cllll~lltl~lll~ll ~ I I l e g i ~ l ; ~ t i o ~St,<> ,,, l ~ i i ~ ~ 1:{1 1\ ],I ] ) . ( < I - \ . ( & 14 -.-14, 34 ,\.I,.). I < . a t :! ~ e ~ i s l a t u r e deri1.c.d ~ l l t i ~ n a t e lfrom an imperial enactment, immediately from its c\sn y enactment. ?'he Constitution Statute by s. 4 made it lawful for the New South UTalesLegislature to make laws repealing or altering of any of thcl ~~rovisions that reserved Bill (i.e., the Constitution Act) subject to conditions imposed b y the rescrved Bill (such as numerical majoritirs, reservation for the royal assent) unless those conditions werc repealed by the New South \Vales Legislature. The Constitution Act by s. 1 provided for the establishment of a Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly which would have authority t o make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Colony i r ~;ill cases whatsoever. I n 1902 the Constitution was repealed and consolidated in a new Act. Act with amend~nvnts S. 3 of the r ~ c w Act defined the Legislature as meaning the Crown lvith the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Asseinl)Iy. 5 . 5 of the Act provided as follous : "The Lcgi.;lature shall, subject to the pro~7isions of the Common\vealth of Australia Constitution Act, ha\-e power to make laws for the pcactL, wc~lfare anti good government of Xew South \Vales in all casc,~ \vllatsoc\.ci-. I'rcivicied that all Kills for appropriating an), part of tile 1)11blicI-c.1-enlic.,or for inlposing an!. new rate, tax or impoht, hllall originat? i11 ttic. IAtlgislati\-e Asseml3ly." 5. 7 gal-e the 1,cgislature potver to x1tc.r laws relating to the 1-egislative ('ouncil (with a proviso that such 13ills must be laid l~efol-e the Imperial Parliarnent bcfore the ro!.al assent be given).ji A> I pointt~tlout cal-lier, the High Coult in C l a ~ , t o ~ z Case 's considered that s. 5 of the ('onstitution Act rather than 5. ,5 of the ('olonial Laws T'nlidity -4ct was the sour-cc of authority for s. 5H. I t cill 1)e I-emcrnl~clcd that in T a y l o r ' s Cnsc the memhers of the ('ourt gave an extended meaning to the words "constitution, powers and ~ x o u d n r r t l ~ r of 1egislatu1.e" in the Color~ial Laws 1-alidity ,4ct b o as to cover a provision buch as s, 513.58 Similarly, in T r e t h o ~ , ( l ~ z ' s (,.rise thc autl~o:it;~tive force of s. 7,4 (which provided that a bill to aholi~tithr ('ouncil or to alter it.< powers should be submjtted to a rc%ferendum) \va> collsidt~rcd be derived from s. 5 of the (:olonial to 1,:~~s Validit!. Act. Iiich J . conbidered that the Colonial Laws 1-alidity Act was "tllc final and autho~itativeexpression e e\-ery f colonial rcprcscntativc legi5lature's power to make laws respecting and ~ ) r o c e d n r e . " " V tdid not deal with narrow its own constitl~tion (pestions of p n r l i ; i ~ t t r y procedure but with the "rntire process 6 7 . See n. 3. s 5 8 . See ante p. 41-2. Isaac> J . , lio\\.e\.er, In I ' u ~ ~ l o v 'Cuse cc~nsitleredt h a t clause 22 of t l ~ t . Order-in-Council (1859) estal~lishing the C'trlonq of Ql~eensland \\a, \ \ itle enough to support the validity o f the I'arl~amentary Rills Referendum .4ct ant1 [night support constitutional changes outside the ambit of a. 5 of the C.L.\'.A. 23 ('.I..K. a t 476. 59. 44 C'.I,.R. a t 4 1 i . of turning a propo,wd law into :t. legislative e n a c t ~ n e n t . " ~ ~ Disoil .). (as hv t11c.n wai) wai also of thc opinion that 5. 7.1 was a law rclsp~,cting powers of thc Idc,giilaturc. ".I11 intcv-prctation which thc restricts ;i~q)licationof tho words o tilt. p~-o\sisoto contlition.; f occurring, io to speak, within the rcy~rcscntativt. I(~gihl:~turc., contint.5 to rnattcr. of 1)rocedurt~ part of a con5titutional l)ro\rision l~asalit1 the, tievelopnient of iclf-go\.erning Colonies. 'file more natural, thc wide and the morc gener;llly accepted meaning includes within tlic proviso all the conditions which the Imperial l'arliament or that of the self-governing i t a t e and Colony may sec fit to prescril~c;is essential to the enactment of a valid law."61 In 7'rrthorcalz's Casc the Privy Council also considered that s. 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act was the master section, although they intimated that s. 1 of the Constitution Statute might still have some operative effect.B2 In C l a ~ t o ~ tCase the members of the Full Court of New South 's \Vales considered that s. 5B was a law respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Legislature. Heiron J., for example, said that "Wider words than 'full power to make laws respecting the constitution, powers and procedure of such legislature' can hardly be used in conferring power to make constitutional laws."63 However, the members of the High Court (with the esception of Fullagar 1.)cast doubt on the application of the words "constitution, powers or procedure of the legislature" to s. 5B. The reason given was that no alteration was made to the legislature itself. The legislature was left as it was-what was prescribed was a method whereby in the event of disagreement between the two Houses, the disagreement could ultimately be resolved by the passage of a Bill into law without the concurrence of one H0use.6~ In reconciling Clayton's Case with the previous decisions one might say that the present view of the High Court is that the words "constitution, powers or procedure of the legislature" in the Colonial Laws Validity Act refer to the enactment of provisions imposing requirements which in some way modify the constituent parts of tlltl legislature but do not extend to deadlock provisions such as s. 513 where the actual constituent parts of the legislature are left intact and a method is prescribed in substitution for the normal legislative process in the case of a disagreement between the two Houses. I t therefore seems that the statements of the judges in both T u y l o r ' . ~ Case and Trethoz~~a~z's to the effect that all that pertains to Case the process of tllrning a Hill into law is covered by the words of s. 5 were too wide. tiO. ibid., a t 418-9. 6%. r1!332] 4.C. 526 at 539. 61. i l ~ i d . ,a t 43%3. ti3. i 7 1 V . N . (N.S.W.) a t 7 9 9 . 64. 34 A . I . . J . I l . a t 3 8 i . 1;ullagar J . was o f thc opinio11 that s. 5 o l t h e Colonial 1,aws Validity Act did confer po\ber, I h ~ d . ,a t 3!)1. If t1lc.n s. 6 of tllr t'olonial Laws Validity Act did not provide tllc. source of authority for- s. 51%what other section or Act did ? I5efore the I ~ u l lCourt of New South Wales in Cluyto~z'sCusc t \ ~ o 9f tlie jlidgcs (Evatt ( ' . I . and Sugerman J.),rcferring to the dictum of the l'rivy Council in 7'vr~f/1oii.~uiz's Case previously cited, considered tllat s. 4 of the Constitution Statute was merely supple~nontaryto s. 5 of t h r Colonial Laws Validity . 4 ~ t . ~ Ijn contrast, tile judgcs of the High Court found the complete source of authorit!. to reside in s. 5 of the Constitution Act. In the view of 1)ixon ('.I., McTiernan, Taylor and \Vinde?-er J J ., this section conferred complete authority with reference t o New South \Tale5 (111 the 1,egislature of that State and this potver extended to alterations of the Constitution Act itself, including the passage of a law providing a procedure whereby the assent of one House (sul>ject t o t l ~ crestrictions noted previously in Taylor's Cnse) might be diy1)c.nsed witll. I n otller words, s. 5 of the Corlstitution Act of l!N\:! conferred constit~lcmtas well as ordinary po~er.~"fenzie~ J., in ;L separate judgment, examined the history of the Constitution Act and camcBto thc conclusion that s. 5 of the I!,O? Act, t0gcthr.r wit11 5 . I of tllc, ori~in;il ('onstitution Act, could 11e regarded as giving 1)ower to a1tc.r or reyea1 the Constitution once the effect of tlict ('onstitution Statutt. (thc imperial enactment) was c ~ h a u s t c d . ~ ' This would mean that the authority of the New Sout11 \\'ale.; lcgislatur-e today it, txtsed on a local and not a n imperial enactment. However, all the judges in the High Court were agreed that tllis did not mean that s. 5 of the Colonial Laws \'alidity Act was inapplicable to corlstitutional legislation of the State which did not concern the "constitution, powers or procedure" of the Legislature. \Vhile it did not l~rovidethe source of authority for legislation which fell outsidt, this category, i t did control such legislation Incans of the ~)ro\.isowhich required that laws be passed in the "manner and form as may from time to time be required I)y :in>Act of I'arliamellt, Letters Patent, Order in C'ouncil, or Colonial Law for the time 1)c~ing force in tlie said Colon\,."M This would in mean that the powers of the (:olonial Legislature enumerated in tl~e firht part of s. 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act arc merely illustrative and not exhaustive of the constitutiollal po\vers cow it-I-red and that tllcs proviso controls not only 1a~v.iI-elating to c.onstitution, p o ~ v c ~ s procedure of tltc, 1,c~gislntrlrebut :ill Iii~vs and o f a constitutiorial n;itul-e. Therc is 110 doul)t that tho ~nchrnbcrh 't ' of the, High ('ourt rc~cognizedthat the proviso is still in opc,r i1011 \\.it11 regard to sucll laws evcn tllough theil- authoritative source (i' liii Iii. 7 7 \ \ ' . S . ( S , S . \ \ ,) at 777. 34 .\.i..J.I<. at :W. 7'1113 lattcr proposition Lvas of course established in l l l c ~ ~ ~ C'(l,\l l ll!)20 ~ ~ ' s ~ ~ ~ ~ .l.c'.691. 34 .\.I,. J . R . :3!lli-S, 3:):. 68. ibid., at 385-8. 8 arisvs out.;idc thc C'olonial I,aws Validity .let . 6 y The colisc.clucncts of thib \.itx\r is that any Hill leading to a dcadlo~liI>tltwec~n t\\'o the Houses could only be passed into law without thc. ;issent of thc 1,cgislative ('ouncil by following the mannt.r a n d form laid down in s. 513. T h e alleged brizjilege of the Legis2ative Coutzczl. I want now to examine the manner ant1 form laid down in s. 5H and to see to what extent the Constitl~tionAmendment Hill of 1960 complied with it. The plaintiffs had subrnittcd that a s a matter of privilege the Hill, in so far as it affcctcd the Legislative, Council, bhould have originated in that ('haml~er, that this privilege. was a matter of law within the proviho of s. 5 of thr Colonial Laws Validity & k t ,and that the failure of thr Government to introduc-the other judges. i n the view of Long Innes J . the ('olonial 1,an.s Validity .\ct was a general act in this context. 70. The case of Hnrtou 11. Tajjlov (1886) 11 .\.C. 1 9 7 a t 203 ehtal)lishes t l ~ c 1)~-incipleh a t ill thc case of a colonial 1cgislati11-c t ~~rivilcjie conferrc(1 is vither 1)y statute o r by the l r x et c o z s ~ t i ~ / , ~ i(t d /~ i i ~ ~ i i ' >(If i lar ah it is h ~ ~ )i applica1)lc. The decision of the Jutliclnl Committcr nlakes it clt.nt- that only lirnitctl polverb fall within this secotitl c;ttt.gorv. 7 1 . 16th lid., p. 492. 40 The U n i ~ l e r s i t yof Queensland Lau' Jourrlczl which, on being laid before the Governor and I~eingapproved I,\. him, were to btlcome "binding and of force." The view of Evatt C.J. and Sugerman J. in the Supreme Court was that such a claim of privilege even if it could be considered as having statutory force could not prevail 0vt.r the clear words of s. SH, which envisaged that any Hill to which the section applied would originate in the A s ~ e m b l y . ' ~Herron -1. pointed out that s. 5 of the Constitution Act of 1902 by requiring money Bills to originate in the Legislative Assembly implied that all other Bills might originate in eith?r House and therefore it negatived the existences of tlic privilege ~laimed.~"e also considered that the words of s. 15 of the Constitution Act did not give statutory force to the asserted Rule as they did not cover the bringing in of a Hill but s. BB (ss. 5 ) expressly extended the only its passage.i"orcover, operation of s. 513 to a 1511 to which s. 7A applied, i.e., to a Bill affecting the pokvprs of the Legislative Council. As Herron J . pointed out, s. 7 r \ laid down one manner and form when the House> were in agreement, while s. 613 laid down another manner and form when the Houscs were in di~agreement.'~The members of th(. High Court ucr-c i r l agreement with the Supreme Court on thii point. 7 6 The real subbtancc of the plaintiffs' case was to be found in their argument that the proposed Bill had not followed the manncr and form laid down by s. 6B itself. I t will be remembered that .;. SR laid down a certain procedure which consisted of the following steps: (1) the Legislative Council's rejection or failure to pass a kill originating in the Assembly ; (2) re-enactment after an interval by the Assembly and furtlier rejection or failure to pass by the Collncil; (3) a free conference between managers of the Houses; (4) a joint sitting between members of the Houses; (6) submission of the Hill to a referendum. A number of these matters fall within the category of internal parliamentary procedure and it is obvious that thc High Court would not have I~cetiprepared to examine the steps carried out by the Governrnr~it it had riot been for the concession given by if thc defendants." plzrase\ "reject", ''jkzl to bass". I t was contended by t l ~ plaintiffs that the Legislative Council . had not "rcjected" or "failt,cl to pass" the Bill. I t w ~ t ssaid that l'hr meaniiig of thi7 tl~cxrcx\\.,I> a sl)ecitic. ~ ) ; ~ ~ . l i ; l r l ~ t wnsc ~ - yth(>WOI-d . n t ; ~ of "rcjectioll" ~-t,fu\;il ;~ccl~~it-h(, tlt.lil,c~r;~tiou-- that tl~c~~-cforcy ('o~incil to :~ttc$rant1 the, t ~ ; ~ not r-ctjt.ctc~cl tl tl~c)Iiill. :I5 f;lr ;I> thcb phrabc. "fi~ilul-ot o 1);1--" \$.;I> co1i't~r11(~1, rc~f(~rt~11ci~ \v:i\ r~ia(lt. ><. 1of 5. 51; \vl~icl~ to l)~.o\.i(it,(i Illat "for tlit, l)rlrl~oscs> this hection t110I2cgi5lati\.t.('oullcil i ~ a l Il) r . of t;~keno l~avc t failttcl to pas5 a Iiill if tiits 13ill i5 not retilrn(.cl to t l ~ c !,t:gislativt. A i s s e m l ~ \\.ithin two months aftcr its tran>rnissio~l l~. to the IAcgislativc ('ouncil ant1 thc Sc,ssion contirlutxs (luring that period". It was arglictl that this section contained a n c.sh;tusti\.c, definition of t h r word5 "failure to pass" ant1 t l l ~ tthe, I.egihl;tti\.c ('ouncil in returning irl lirnille the Hill on thc: I);lsis of i t allc~gcld pri\.ilegc had by it5 :~ctiorinot come withill the opr~rationof ss. I . 'The members of the New South Lt'ales Full Court (ivitll tlie exception of Owen J.) did not accept these arguments. Hcrro~l.I. pointed out that there were some ways of refusing assent to 1:ills which did not amount to a consideration of the provisions of a Hill and that ss. 4 of s. 5 B was merely illustrative of one way ~ I \\.llicIi I the Council might fail to pass a Bill, i.e., by i n a ~ t i v i t y . ' lIo~.c~o\.(l~-, ~ there was no specific parliamentary sense of the word "rejt,ct ". Rejection could occur even though a Rill was not considt~rt~d iton merits.79 The High Court was in agreement with thc Sul)rc~nic, Court on this point.80 Owen J., however, considered that the wortl "reject" implied a deliberatiorl on the merits of the) 1Sill and alho that ss. 4 provided an exhaustive definition of thr. phrase "failurch to pass" with the consequence that ;L basic recluircrnrnt of s. 51: had not been fulfilled, i.e., a rejection or a f;~ilureto pass. Ss. 4 did not apply as the Hill had in fact heen returned and in so f i l l as the Clouncil had not deliberated 011 the merits of the Bill it could not be said to have rejected it.x1 T h e mt.14ning of the phrase "after a f r e ~ conjerri~cc~ Oc'fit t,L71r ~r~cl~lrrg~.va". I n the Supreme Court E v a t t C.J. and Sugermali J . \\,c>rcL of the opinion that these words did not crcatc' :L condition 111-cct.tlent for the ulti~natesubmission of a liill to a rcfcrc~ndllnl. 'l'li(, \\.ord.; wcrcx tlirt~ctoryrather than ~nandator?.. l ~ ; r i l ~ ~ r cc,onll)l\. wit11 to ~ thcni tiid not rnc1an that the s ~ ~ l , s t ~ c l uactio~lof tllc. ( ; O \ X ~ I . I I I I I ~ ~ I I ~ c-~~t i1111)osi11g. of ti11;(,11 was in\.:~li(l. "TII(I~vo~-dh t11v s(x-tio11ma!, a d u t y hut it is not ;r cluty irl~.ol\.ingsue11 coll.c,cluc3nc.c.. 111;1t i t m2ty I N . cliforCc~d r~rirrrrlont~~,~,l ~ ; ~ t ; i c t i o ~ ~ 101. l~rt~;~<.Ii I)\. or t :LII 1ic.s of it, 01. t l u t ~ I ~ I I - ~ ) ( ~ I . ~ ~ I - of Iit I III;I>.~ ;~L I I I O I I I I ~ t o ~ ~ o ~ i - f ~ ~ l l i l ~ l l t , ~ l l II ; ~IC of ; I (~o11ditio11 ~)I.(YY>(.I( ~ , ( I I I ~ i11I II:I\v 1~0 ~ C O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~IIO.,, \ $ . l ~ i c - l ~I I I ; I \ ; I I I : I ~ to SIICII ;l I I O I I - ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I i~l lI ~I )~ II. ~ ~ . : I ~ (~ ~ . ~ I I I > II I\ I ; L ( . I ~ ~ I Il -l . t s \vo~.,l. i l l (111(,stio11~ , ~ ~ ~ l ( l r ( ~ ,.) ~ , \ ( ~ [tI )lI I > < > > ~ I I C ~ I I I ' ' ~ ;II. 1 1 1 ~ s I l 1 t 5 is. 7 7 \ \ . K , ( X . S . \ \ ' . ) ; \ I SOli. SO, :iI \ . l . . ~ . l < . ,tt 3 S 1 , :{!I?, :{!l!l. 7!l Sl. 11tt were not mandatory but directory and did not create a condition precedent to t h r exercise of the power of the Go\,ernor to call a joint sitting of nicmbers, and that therefor? the failure to hold ti free conferencc did not lead to the invalidation of the h t e p takcn to hold tllc referendum.86 Kitto J . in a separate judgment differed from thrs majority in holding that all the steps laid doxvn in -. 515 w c v miindatory. In his view every step was conditional upon thc. completion of the preceding steps. The Council's consent should continue t o be indispensable for the enactment of a Hill, except where a defined course had been precisely f ~ l l o w e d . ~ ' Howc~~-er, hi. thought that a condition qhould he implied that the Council v.ould I)(. willing to send managers to a free conference. Therefore the 11rovi.ion had no operation where this willingness wa.; not prehent.s8 Fullagar J. diswnted from the majority. He thought that the l)ro\'ision relating to a free conference was mandatory and that no implication colild he read into it that the ('ouncil must be willing t o co-opcrate. Hf. could not see how some requirement> of the section c o ~ ~ be regarded as directory and others mandator).. I n ld his opinion, all of them were co-ordinates requiring to be fulfilled in the particular manner and form p r e ~ c r i b e d . ~ " 7'he Joiilt Sittiug. Tht, mcmbers of 110th the Supreme ('ourt xnd the High Court (csccpt Owcn J , who offered no opinion, and I;ullag:ir I., izlio dis-c~~itc~d) ;igrced thcre 11:td heen a joint sitting d c s p i t ~tlit. fact that the Upper Houw a5 ;L wlrolc had refnst~dto attend a joint sitting. It was pointcd ont 1 ) ~ Hcrron J . that the section rc.ft~rri.d to ii -fiit,-,. tht,,! \\-t>rcJthe, - ~ ~ l ~ - t , c t ~ t i ; t l ! " grol~ilil.. 0 1 1 the, I);l,i> oi :vi~ic.l! t i r e , kiigli C'olist ;~~-ri\-c.tl tlrcx ronrlubioli tii;it tli<. ~~i.occ.(lr:i ,lt <. .ctlo~~tc.c! t l i (;o\.c~rl~rnc.r~t a r l i ~ i ~t o it. ~ ) ~ - e ~ ~ ) ; r i - : i ~i.11111rlit 111~ It~ 1111 t t oii~ ) the, ('crii-titutioli Alnc.nclrnc~~it ]:ill t o ;I rt~fe.rc~ntll~ni \.;iliil ; r i l t l \\.:I.; \\.:Ii ~ :~c~cortlancc i \+.it11.. 51: of the, ( ' o n , t i t ~ ~ t i. or~ ~\vl1it~11 \ t it-txlt ~lt.ri~.c,cl allthosit!- from , .? of tlic Act. it-. . f'ic lying ti113tl(.c.ilion it. ; I \i.lrolc~.or](. rniglrt y ; t r - tlr:~t 11:. ~ i i o ~ l i~ril)ort~liit t>ffcxct t o c.lnpl~a~izt% loc.;il ( ' c ~ i r - ~ t i t ~ ~ t i o l ~ i~ tilt -1c.t ~ratli\.i. tlr,rn tlic. ( 'oforlial La\\.> \.;llitlit!- -4c.t ;I- tllc. ,ollr cc. of ;tutliorit\. for thc. ?tat(, of S v w 5oiltli \\.'ale,. (;Inel, ii!~lllic.(ll\.,foi- St;ltt'\ witii -irrlil;tr co11.titutior13) to cl~angc,it.: c.orr.titiitiori. I t ,rlbo iecxin- t h a t thts Hixli ( o ~ i i t\\-ill rc)f\i\c to i~it(.r\.c.~iv to I-eitr;~i!i 1:ill from I~eing ;I 1)rc.-vntc.d for tlrc, ro!.al ; r ~ c , n te,5 \ . t ' l i rvlrc.~. a concc.-iol) o n t!ii. 1)oirit 1i;ti I)c,c.n rnatltt 11) tilt, 1);trtic.i a g : ~ i ~ l - t \vl~orn re,lic,f i- *o~igltt. 'l'lrc~~~c~forc., ; r r i ;~ctioir \\.ill I I C * c*l~tc.rt;iinc.tl \ it . - i i t r ; ~ l i ii ~ t o f r ; I I I c ~ r ~ t ic lt 1 111 ~11cl1 ,~ctioirtl~c'court \(.ill n o t c.11tc.rtairi tli.c~ti--ion of rrlatt1.r- of ;ul ~~;~i-li;irllc.iitary 1)roce~tlurt~.?Ian\. of tliv ni;Ltti'r.; \r.l~icli \r.t,t-c. iucliciii1l~-e~s;~rni~~c.cl ' l ( < i ~ f o i i(' ( / A ( , (cl.g., free conft~i-tv~c.t!,, in C joint -ittiiig-) \\-oi~ld tl~trc,fortl t ~ r r ; ~out-iilt~t h e iiixld of ~l~(jilil-!. tll~x r ir~ of i ' u u r t . It \\-auld orif!, IIC \vli(t~-~, i l l Y . r t , t / ~ o i ~ ' ( / ~ ~ ' *>~ J I I I > t3Xtl.ii:L\ O 1):lr!i;triit,titi11-~. proc~~>.; or(i;ii~lc.d( ~ . q . s ~ ~ l > ~ n i of . 'Ii o]!- t l ~ o ~ pro\-1.0 of 3 of tlrc. ('o1olii;ii J.;i\i.- \.':rlitlit~. A\ct iratl I > c ~ * i l follo\\.vtl. ( ' ( / \ ( 7 , .. 44 The Unizlersity o Queensland La70 Jour~zrll f of parliament might indicate that only the Attorney-Gtmeral acting in thcs public intcl-eht could inbtitute such an action. Of course, the the Attorney-General of the State in wl~ich disputed erinctment had been made, in so far as he is a member of the Gorcrnment, would be loath to bring such an action. One might surmisc t h a t the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, acting as guardian of the Commonwealth Constitution (which, by s. 106, gives sanction t o the State Constitutions) would then be entitled t o intervene. *I.I..II. (Rlelb.), D.Phi1. (Oxon.), Lecturer in I-a\v, liniversity of (jt~cc~llsand.