No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
Does the Constitution protect the ability of an Australian to enter the country? This article investigates that question. Whilst the Constitution provides no express guarantee of a citizen’s right to enter Australia, a series of recent cases — particularly Love v Commonwealth1 and Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs2 — give occasion to consider whether a freedom of entry forms an implied part of Australia’s constitutional framework. Early scholarly attempts to establish a freedom of entry have relied upon the definition of non-alienage to ground this implication. This article commences by reviewing the effect of the High Court’s recent alienage jurisprudence on these arguments. After concluding that fatal difficulties attend this approach, I investigate an alternative foundation for an implied freedom of entry: an implication drawn from a constitutional principle of popular sovereignty. Focusing on a recent thread of High Court jurisprudence which has placed an increasing emphasis on the constitutional protection afforded to popular sovereignty, I conclude that this alternative basis provides a viable foundation upon which an implied freedom of entry could be recognised in the Constitution.
1. Love v Commonwealth (2020) 270 CLR 152 (‘Love’).
2. Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 560 (‘Alexander’).
3. Euripides, Medea, in Richard Rutherford (ed), Alcestis and Other Plays, tr John Davie (Penguin Books, 1996) lines 650–1.
4. Theodore Plucknett, ‘Outlawry’ (1933) 11 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 505; Shai Lavi, ‘Citizenship Revocation as Punishment: On the Modern Duties of Citizens and their Criminal Breach’ (2011) 61 University of Toronto Law Journal 783, 809.
5. Claire Breay (ed), Magna Carta: Manuscripts and Myths (British Library, 2002) [45].
6. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) bk I, 120–41.
7. Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, 289 (Griffith CJ) (‘Potter’).
8. See Canada Act 1982 (UK) sch B pt I s 6; Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany art 116(1).
9. Leslie Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 5th ed, 2008) 589.
10. Jeremy Kirk, ‘Constitutional Interpretation and a Theory of Evolutionary Originalism’ (1999) 27(3) Federal Law Review 323, 345.
11. Amanda Stoker and Jye Beardow, ‘Mr McGowan, Tear Down this Wall!: Section 92 after Palmer v Western Australia’ (Speech, Samuel Griffith Society Online Speaker Series, 2021) 8.
12. Regina Jeffries, Jane McAdam and Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Can We Still Call Australia Home? The right to return and the legality of Australia’s COVID-19 travel restrictions’ (2022) 27(2) Australian Journal of Human Rights 211, 218–19.
13. Helen Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (2008) 30(1) Sydney Law Review 131.
14. Love (n 1).
15. See McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178, 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 252 CLR 530, 548 (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ) (‘Unions NSW (No 1)’).
16. Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Emergency Requirements—High Risk Country Travel Pause) Determination 2021 (Cth) s 6 (‘Biosecurity Determination’).
17. Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Australia’s decision to ban its citizens from returning from India – Is it legal? Is it moral? Is it just?’, ABC News (online, 7 May 2021) <https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-australias-india-travel-ban-legal-moral-just/13335360>.
18. Originating Application, Newman v Minister for Health and Aged Care (5 May 2021) 5 <https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/gary-newman/NSD388of2021-Originating-Application.pdf>; see also Newman v Minister for Health and Aged Care [2021] FCA 517 [3]–[4] (Thawley J).
19. Section 10(2)(b).
20. Love (n 1) 198 [95] (Gageler J), 230 [213] (Keane J), 270 [325] (Gordon J); Irving (n 13).
21. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520, 567 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby JJ) (‘Lange’); Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162, 175–6 [8]–[11] (Gleeson CJ), 186 [43] (Gummow, Crennan and Kirby JJ) (‘Roach’).
22. Tajjour v New South Wales (2014) 254 CLR 508, 569 (Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ); James Stellios, Zines’ the High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 6th ed, 2015) 587.
23. Lange (n 21) 567 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby JJ).
24. Ibid.
25. Evelyn Douek, ‘All Out of Proportion: The Ongoing Disagreement about Structured Proportionality in Australia’ (2019) 47(4) Federal Law Review 551.
26. Lange (n 21) 566–7 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby JJ).
27. Irving (n 13) 138. Rangiah has recently utilised ‘Irving’s logic’ to advance a similar argument, arguing that all non-aliens have an implied freedom of entry: Priam Rangiah, ‘COVID Travel Bans, Citizenship and the Constitution: Do Australian Citizens Have a Constitutional Right of Abode?’ (2022) 50(4) Federal Law Review 558, 567. Whilst Irving’s argument is the focus of this part, I consider both arguments in this section. As both arguments proceed from an identical logical foundation, my reasons for rejecting each account are the same, as identified in Part II of this article.
28. As I do with Rangiah (n 27).
29. Love (n 1).
30. Mischa Davenport, ‘Love v Commonwealth: The Section 51(xix) Aliens Power and a Constitutional Concept of Community Membership’ (2021) 43(4) Sydney Law Review 589, 600–1.
31. For a discussion on the ‘essential character’ of a head of power, see James Stellios, ‘Constitutional Characterisation: Embedding Value Judgements About the Relationship Between the Legislature and the Judiciary’ (2021) 45(1) Melbourne University Law Review 277, 280–9.
32. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicural Affairs, ‘Submissions of Appellants and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (Intervening)’, Submission in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Montgomery, S192/2021, 28 January 2022, 6.
33. Love (n 1) 190 [74] (Bell J), 246 [257] (Nettle J), 276–7 [349] (Gordon J), 287–8 [393] (Edelman J).
34. Ibid 300 [420].
35. Ibid 290 [398] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
36. Ibid 170 [74].
37. Ibid 246 [257].
38. Ibid 276–7 [349].
39. Ibid 187 [64] (Bell J), 244 [252] (Nettle J), 263 [303] (Gordon J), 309 [440] (Edelman J); see also Singh v Commonwealth (2004) 222 CLR 322, 383 [153] (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ), 418 [268] (Kirby J) (‘Singh’).
40. Love (n 1) 308 [439] (Edelman J).
41. Ibid 187 [64] (Bell J), 236–7 [236] (Nettle J), 271 [328] (Gordon J), 291–2 [401] (Edelman J).
42. Ibid 187 [64] (Bell J).
43. Peter Gerangelos, ‘Reflections upon Constitutional Interpretation and the “Aliens Power”: Love v Commonwealth’ (2021) 95(2) Australian Law Journal 109, 111.
44. Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 205–6 (McTiernan J), 263–4 (Fullagar J) (‘Communist Party Case’).
45. Love (n 1) 185–6 [60] (Bell J), 240 [245] (Nettle J), 269 [322] (Gordon J); Singh (n 39) 383 [154] (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).
46. Love (n 1) 287 [392] (Edelman J); Singh (n 39) 351 [57] (McHugh J).
47. Stellios (n 31) 320.
48. Ibid (citations omitted, emphasis added).
49. Ibid 289.
50. Love (n 1) 190 [73] (Bell J), 257 [278] (Nettle J), 262 [298] (Gordon J), 308–9 [438]–[439] (Edelman J); Davenport (n 30) 600–1.
51. Ibid 288 [394].
52. Ibid 289 [396] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
53. Ibid 288–9 [395].
54. Ibid 190 [74] (Bell J), 263 [301]–[302] (Gordon J).
55. Ibid 276 [347] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
56. Ibid 276 [348]–[349].
57. Ibid 190 [74] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
58. Ibid 250 [252].
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid 258 [279].
62. Ibid 253–4 [272].
63. Davenport (n 30) 600.
64. Irving (n 13) 149.
65. (1988) 165 CLR 462, 470 (‘Air Caledonie’).
66. Singh (n 39) 387–8 [166] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
67. (1992) 176 CLR 1, 29 (‘Lim’).
68. Alexander (n 2) 578–9 [74].
69. Love (n 1) 190 [73].
70. Ibid 253–4 [272].
71. Transcript of Proceedings, Delil Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCATrans 8.
72. Love (n 1) 308 [438].
73. Ibid 309 [440] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
74. Irving (n 13) 139.
75. James Stellios, ‘The High Court on Constitutional Law: The 2021 Term’ (ANU College of Law Research Paper No 22.8, 1 February 2022) 37–8.
76. (2021) 272 CLR 609 (‘Chetcuti’).
77. Three of the four Chetcuti majority dissented in Love. Gleeson J was newly appointed to the Court.
78. Chetcuti (n 76) 622 [12] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
79. Ibid. See also Stellios (n 31) 314.
80. Ibid.
81. Chief Justice Gleeson had a similar conception of section 51(xix): Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Ex Parte Te (2002) 212 CLR 162, 171 [24] (‘Ex Parte Te’); Singh (n 39) (Gleeson CJ) 376 [128].
82. Love (n 1) 192–3 [83].
83. Ibid 192–4 [86].
84. Ibid 197 [93].
85. Ibid 210 [132] (Gageler J. See also 170–1 [5] (Kiefel CJ), 221 [177] (Keane J).
86. Stellios (n 31) 290; Love (n 1) 193 [84] (Gageler J), citing Attorney-General (Vic) v Commonwealth (1962) 107 CLR 529, 578 (Windeyer J).
87. Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employés Union of NSW (1908) 6 CLR 469, 611 (O’Connor J) (‘Union Label’).
88. Stellios (n 31) 290.
89. The Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479, 493–7 [19]–[26] (Gleeson CJ, Gaurdron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
90. Union Label (n 87) 611 (Higgins J).
91. Ibid.
92. See Part I.A-B.
93. Love (n 1) 193–4 [86] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.
96. Communist Party Case (n 44).
97. Love (n 1) 622 [101] (Gageler J).
98. Ibid.
99. See Part III.B.2.
100. Love (n 1) 195 [88]. See Stellios (n 31) 314.
101. Love (n 1) 194–5 [87] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
102. Clubb v Edwards (2019) 267 CLR 171, 205 [85] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
103. Alexander (n 2) [186].
104. Ibid [196].
105. Ibid.
106. Ibid [202].
107. Ibid [220].
108. Ibid [224].
109. Ibid [212].
110. Ibid [218].
111. Love (n 1) 307 [436].
112. Ibid 290 [399].
113. Ibid 320–1 [467] (Edelman J), see also 270–1 [327]–[330] (Gordon J).
114. Chetcuti (n 76) [12] 710 (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).
115. Alexander (n 2) [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ), [98] (Gageler J).
116. Love (n 1) 194 [86] (Gageler J).
117. Irving (n 13) 148.
118. This characterisation of section 51(xix), for identical reasons, also foreclose Rangiah’s argument that a freedom of entry is a ‘defining characteristic’ of those people who are not aliens: Rangiah (n 27) 567.
119. Lim (n 67) 54 (Gaudron J); Love (n 1) 270 [325] (Gordon J); see also Love (n 1) 210 [132] (Gageler J).
120. Singh (n 39) 329 (Gleeson CJ); the majority judgments in Alexander (n 2) signalled that Chapter III of the Constitution imposes limits on Parliament’s capacity to strip a person of citizenship. However, that observation is conceptually distinct from a freedom of entry connected to section 51(xix) and so can be put to one side. Below, in Part III, I discuss how Alexander may be relevant to an alternative grounding for this freedom.
121. Alexander (n 2) [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ).
122. Ibid (citations omitted, emphasis added).
123. Love (n 1) 264 [305] (Gordon J).
124. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 3 March 1898, 1797 (Isaac Isaacs); Kim Rubenstein, ‘Citizenship and the Constitutional Convention Debates: A Mere Legal Inference’ (1997) 25(2) Federal Law Review 295, 307.
125. Joe McIntyre and Sue Milne, ‘The Alien and the Constitution: The Legal History of the ‘Alien’ Power of the Australian Constitution’ (Research Paper, 29 July 2020) 8.
126. Love (n 1) 240 [245] (Nettle J); Singh (n 39) 349 [54] (McHugh J), 405 [225] (Kirby J), 423 [293] (Callinan J).
127. Javier Bleichmar, ‘Deportation as Punishment: A Historical Analysis of the British Practice of Banishment and Its Impact on Modern Constitutional Law’ (1999) 14(1) Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 115.
128. Hussey v Moor (1616) 81 ER 232, 236; Sir Robert Murray v Murray Bruchtoun (1672) Mor 4799, 4810; Sibbald v Lady Rosyth (1685) Mor 13976, 13978; Alexander Stuart v Patrick Haliburton (1713) Mor 6829, 6829.
129. AV Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (Macmillan, 8th ed, 1915) 3–4.
130. Potter (n 7); Attorney-General (Cth) v Ah Sheung (1906) 4 CLR 949; R v Macfarlane (1923) 32 CLR 528 (‘R v Macfarlane’); Ex parte O’Flanagan and O’Kelly (1923) 32 CLR 518 (‘Ex parte O’Flanagan’).
131. Potter (n 7) 305 (O’Connor J) (emphasis added), 289 (Griffith CJ).
132. R v Macfarlane (n 130) 576–7 (Higgins J) (emphasis added). See also 531 (Knox CJ), 552 (Isaacs J), 580 (Starke J).
133. Potter (n 7) 305 (O’Connor J), 289 (Griffith CJ); R v Macfarlane (n 130) 576 (Higgins J).
134. Jeffrey Goldsworthy ‘Constitutional Implications Revisited’ (2011) 30(1) Queensland University of Law Journal 9, 19–20.
135. James Edelman, ‘Implications’ (Spiegelman Oration, 21 April 2022) 18–20; Jeremy Kirk, ‘Constitutional Implications (I): Nature, Legitimacy, Classification, Examples’ (2000) 24 Melbourne University Law Review 646.
136. Lange (n 21) 566–7 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby JJ).
137. Irving (n 13) 148.
138. Ibid.
139. See, eg, Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461.
140. Irving (n 13) 148.
141. Chetcuti (n 76) 710 [12] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).
142. Love (n 1) 186 [61] (Bell J), 262 [296] (Gordon J); 288 [394] (Edelman J).
143. Pillai (n 17).
144. Chetcuti (n 76) 710 [12] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).
145. Zines (n 9) 414–15.
146. Kirk (n 10) 345.
147. See Part III A.
148. See Part III B.
149. George Winterton, ‘Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Continuity’ (1998) 26(1) Federal Law Review 1; Leslie Zines, ‘The Sovereignty of the People’ in Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), Power, Parliament and the People (The Federation Press, 1997) 91.
150. Gerner v Victoria (2020) 270 CLR 412, 427 [25] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ) (‘Gerner’).
151. See Introduction.
152. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); Unions NSW (No 1) (n 15) 548 (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
153. Winterton (n 149) 4.
154. George Duke, ‘Popular Sovereignty and the Nationhood Power’ (2017) 45(3) Federal Law Review 415, 415.
155. Zines (n 9) 557; see also Geoffrey Lindell, ‘Why is Australia’s Constitution Binding: The Reasons in 1900 and Now, and the Effect of Independence’ (1986) 16(1) Federal Law Review 29, 32–3.
156. See Andrew Inglis Clark, Studies in Australian Constitutional Law (Harston, Partridge and Co, 1901) 14; William Harrison Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Robert Maclehose and Co, 1910) 66.
157. See James Stellios, Zines and Stellios’ The High Court and the Constitution ( Federation Press, 7th ed, 2022) 673–4.
158. Owen Dixon, ‘The Law and the Constitution’ (1935) 51 Law Quarterly Review 590, 597.
159. Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 181 (Dawson J) (‘ACTV’).
160. McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140, 237 (McHugh J) (‘McGinty’).
161. See Zines (n 149) 192; Lindell (n 155) 34.
162. James Madison, ‘Report on the Virginia Resolutions’ (1836) 4(2) Elliot’s Debates on the Federal Constitution 569, cited in Theophanous v Herald v Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104, 180 (Deane J).
163. Theophanous (n 162) 180 (Deane J); Nationwide News v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1, 72 (Deane and Toohey JJ) (‘Nationwide News’); McGinty (n 161) 230 (McHugh J).
164. ACTV (n 159) 180 (Mason CJ).
165. Ibid.
166. The principle ‘played [no] noticeable part’ in the Brennan or Gleeson Court’s jurisprudence: Zines (n 9) 559.
167. Duke (n 154) 424.
168. (2013) 252 CLR 530, 548 [17].
169. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).
170. Unions NSW v New South Wales (2019) 264 CLR 595, 614 [40] (‘Unions NSW (No 2)’).
171. Gerner (n 151) [18] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ); see also Unions NSW (No 2) (n 170) at 614 [40] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
172. Clubb v Edwards (2019) 267 CLR 171, 205 [85] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
173. Duke (n 154) 423.
174. George Winterton, ‘The Relationship Between Commonwealth Legislative and Executive Power’ (2004) 25(1) Adelaide Law Review 21, 34.
175. James Stellios, ‘Using Federalism to Protect Political Communication’ (2004) 31(1) Melbourne University Law Review 239, 243.
176. Duke (n 154) 423.
177. Ibid 424.
178. Gerner (n 151) 424 [18] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ).
179. Kirk (n 10) 345. Justice Stephen Breyer, former Justice of the United States Supreme Court, has similarly suggested that a popular sovereignty principle is relevant with respect to the United States Constitution (albeit as an interpretive principle, rather than a substantive constraint on government power). Justice Breyer contends that Courts ‘should take greater account’ of the ‘people’s right to “an active and constant participation in collective power”’ when interpreting the Constitution: Stephen Breyer, ‘Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution’ (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 17–19 November 2004) 4–5.
180. Ibid.
181. McCloy (n 15) 257 [216] (Nettle J); see also Michael Kirby, ‘Deakin: Popular Sovereignty and the True Foundation of the Australian Constitution’ (1997) 4 Deakin Law Review 129, 138.
182. Owen Dixon ‘Two Constitutions Compared’ (1942) 28(11) American Bar Association Journal 733, 734.
183. Kirk (n 10) 345–6.
184. Duke (n 154) 423.
185. Robert French, ‘Law Making in a Representative Democracy’ (Catherine Branson Lecture Series, 14 October 2016) 8.
186. Gerner (n 151) [24].
187. Roach (n 21).
188. Nationwide News (n 163) 71 (Deane and Toohey JJ).
189. Roach (n 21).
190. Nationwide News (n 163) 71 (Deane and Toohey JJ); McCloy (n 15) 257 [216] (Nettle J).
191. Unions (No 2) (n 171) 504 [5] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
192. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) (emphasis added); see also Roach (n 21) 186 175–6 [8]–[11] (Gleeson CJ), [43] (Gummow, Crennan and Kirby JJ).
193. Ibid 257 [216], citing ACTV (n 161) (Mason CJ) 137–8.
194. Ibid.
195. Unions NSW (No 2) (n 171) 614 [40] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ) (emphasis added); see also Unions NSW (No 1) (n 15) 548 [17] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
196. McCloy (n 15) 257 [216] (Nettle J), citing ACTV (n 161) (Mason CJ) 137–138.
197. Jeremy Kirk, ‘Constitutional Implications from Representative Democracy’ (1995) 23(1) Federal Law Review 37, 57; R v Smithers; Ex parte Benson (1912) 16 CLR 99, 108–9 (Griffith CJ), 109–110 (Barton J) (‘R v Smithers’).
198. Cheryl Saunders, ‘Democracy: Representation and Participation’ in Paul Finn (eds), Essays on Law and Government (Volume 1, Law Book Company, 1995) 51, 52.
199. Daniel Reynolds, ‘An Implied Freedom of Political Observation in the Australian Constitution’ (2018) 42(1) Melbourne University Law Review 199.
200. Rayner Thwaites and Helen Irving, ‘Allegiance, Foreign Citizenship, and the Constitutional Right to Stand for Parliament’ (2020) 48(3) Federal Law Review 299; Kirk (n 197) 58.
201. McCloy (n 15) 257 [216] (Nettle J).
202. Re Gallagher (2018) 263 CLR 460, 471 [23] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ) (emphasis added). See also Re Canavan (2017) 263 CLR 284, 313 [72] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ).
203. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).
204. Zines (n 9) 589.
205. Love (n 1) 206 [118] (Gageler J), 287 [392] (Edelman J). See also John Quick and Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, 1901) 369–70.
206. Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579; Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328.
207. Unions NSW (No 1) (n 15).
208. Farm Transparency International Ltd v New South Wales (2022) 96 ALJR 655.
209. Kirk (n 197) 57; R v Smithers (n 198) 108–9 (Griffith CJ), 109–10 (Barton J).
210. Reynolds (n 199).
211. Thwaites and Irving (n 200); Kirk (n 197) 58.
212. McCloy (n 15) 257 [216] (Nettle J).
213. Alexander (n 2) 578–9 [74] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ).
214. Ibid [208] (Edelman J) (emphasis added); see also [45] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ).
215. Kent v Dulles, 357 US 116, (1958); Zemel v Rusk 381 US 1, (1965).
216. United States Constitution amend V.
217. Jeffrey Kahn, ‘International Travel and the Constitution’ (2008) 56(2) UCLA Law Review 271, 335.
218. Aptheker v Secretary of State 378 US 500, 520 (1964) (Douglas J).
219. McGinty (n 160) 231–2 (McHugh J).
220. Minister for Home Affairs v Benbrika (2021) 272 CLR 68, 164 [216] (Edelman J) (‘Benbrika (No 1)’).
221. Aptheker (n 218) 520 (Douglas J) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
222. Lange (n 21) 560 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Kirby JJ); Stellios (n 157) 635–41.
223. Alexander (n 2) [78] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ), citing Kennedy v Mendoza-Mertinez 372 US 144, 168 (1963).
224. Bryan Mercurio and George Williams, ‘The Australian Diaspora and the Right to Vote’ (2004) 32(1) University of Western Australia Law Review 1.
225. Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27 [165] (Steward J) (citations omitted).
226. Justice Patrick Keane, ‘The People and the Constitution’ (2016) 42(3) Monash University Law Review 529, 540.
227. See Part IV.B for certain exceptions to this principle.
228. Harrison Moore (n 156) 219 cited in ACTV (n 160) 139–40 (Gleeson CJ), McCloy (n 15) 202 [27] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ), 226 [110] (Gageler J), 258 [219] (Nettle J).
229. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).
230. Temporary Exclusion Orders (n 19) s 10(2)(a)(iv), s 10(6)(d).
231. Brown (n 206); Levy (n 206).
232. Kirk (n 197) 57.
233. Reynolds (n 199).
234. This, of course, says nothing of whether the law is appropriate and adapted which, as outlined above, would render the law valid, even if burdening the freedom.
235. McCloy (n 15) 257 [216] (Nettle J), 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).
236. Kirk (n 10) 345.
237. Any argument was inapplicable in Alexander, where citizenship-stripping would have denied the plaintiff’s status as one of ‘the people’: Alexander (n 2) [44] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ); see also Postscript for further developments in recent High Court jurisprudence on this topic.
238. (2020) 271 CLR 1.
239. Ibid 86 [212] (citations omitted, emphasis added).
240. Ibid.
241. Ibid, citing Lange (n 22), Roach (n 22); Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1.
242. Love (n 1).
243. Part II.A.1.
244. Love (n 1) 200 [101].
245. Love (n 1) 200 [101].
246. Ibid (citations omitted, emphasis added).
247. Ibid, citing McGinty (n 161), Roach (n 21); Rowe (n 241). See also Stellios (n 31) 316–17.
248. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).
249. See Love (n 1) 200 [101] (Gageler J).
250. See introduction.
251. Unions NSW (No 1) (n 15) 554 [38] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
252. See, eg, Biosecurity Determination (n 16).
253. Air Caledonie (n 65).
254. Rangiah (n 27) 12–19; Elisa Arcioni, ‘The Core of the Australian Constitutional People’ (2016) 39(1) UNSW Law Journal 421, 422–7.
255. Alexander (n 2) [44] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ), citing Love (n 1) 197–8 [94] (Gageler J).
256. See Part III.B.1.
257. See Part III.A.2 for possible other incidents.
258. Ibid.
259. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
260. Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed, 2022) ‘opportunity’ (def 1).
261. McCloy (n 15) 207 [45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
262. Part III.B.
263. Roach (n 21) 176 [11] (Gleeson CJ); 200 [89] (Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ).
264. Gerner (n 151) 423 [15] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ) (citations omitted).
265. Children seem to be another exceptional category: Roach (n 21) 176 [11] (Gleeson CJ).
266. See also Lim (n 67) 27 (Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ) for further detention exceptions.
267. Roach (n 21) 177 [14] (Gleeson CJ) (emphasis added), citing Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Offıcer) [2002] 3 SCR 519, 585 [119] (Gothier J); see also Ex Parte Te (n 81) 229 [227] (Callinan J).
268. Though an argument may be relevant concerning terrorism-related activity: Temporary Exclusion Orders (n 20); see, eg, Benbrika (No 1) (n 220) at [36] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Steward JJ).
269. Roach (n 21) 176 [12] (Gleeson CJ).
270. Quick and Garran (n 205) 599.
271. Stoker and Beardow (n 11) 8–9.
272. Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 68 (Dawson J), 155 (McHugh J).
273. See Kirk (n 200); Goldsworthy (n 133).
274. Irving (n 13) 146.
275. Potter (n 7) 294 (Barton J).
276. Roach (n 21) 174 [7] (Gleeson CJ), citing McGinty (n 164) 286–7 (Gummow J).
277. Ibid 225–6 (Heydon J).
278. Justice Patrick Keane, ‘Silencing the Sovereign People’ (Spigelman Public Law Oration, 30 October 2019) 2.
279. See, eg, Reynolds (n 199) 230.
280. Jeffries, McAdam and Pillai (n 12) 211–14.
281. [2023] HCA 33 (‘Benbrika (No 2)’).
282. Ibid [1] and [15] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ).
283. [2023] HCA 34 (‘Jones’).
284. Ibid [14] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ).
285. Benbrika (No 2) (n 281) [82] (emphasis added), citing Roach (n 21).
286. Jones (n 283) [133] citing Zines (n 149) 91 (emphasis added) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
287. Ibid; Jones (n 283) [133].
288. Benbrika (No 2) (n 281) [82].
289. Benbrika (No 2) (n 281) [82].
290. See Roach (n 21).
291. See above Part III.