Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T13:31:20.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Centralisation of Judicial Power within the Australian Federal System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

James Stellios
James Stellios*
Affiliation:
ANU College of Law; Barrister, NSW Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the patterns of centralisation within the federal judicial system. While centralisation of legislative, executive and fiscal power within the federal system has been well documented, the architecture of judicial federalism has been the subject of less attention. The article, first, seeks to show that principles derived from Chapter III of the Constitution have, on the whole, exhibited broadly similar centralising characteristics and exerted centralising effects, and, secondly, offers explanations for this centralisation.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 357 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

My thanks to Professor Peter Cane for his valuable comments and to the anonymous referees for their very helpful suggestions. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the ANU College of Law, the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, Melbourne, and the Attorney-General's Department Constitutional Law Symposium, Canberra. I am very grateful for the comments of participants at those events, particularly the commentators in Melbourne, Kristen Walker and Charles Parkinson. The work in this article is part of a larger project supported under the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme: DP140101218.

References

1 Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1; New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1 (‘Work Choices’).

2 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 (‘Engineers Case’).

3 See generally Zines, Leslie, ‘Changing Attitudes to Federalism and its Purpose’ in French, Robert, Lindell, Geoffrey and Saunders, Cheryl (eds), Reflections on the Australian Constitution (Federation Press, 2003) 86Google Scholar; Allan, James and Aroney, Nicholas, ‘An Uncommon Court: How the High Court of Australia has Undermined Australian Federalism’ (2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 245Google Scholar; Aroney, Nicholas, ‘Constitutional Choices in the Work Choices Case, or What Exactly is Wrong with the Reserved Powers Doctrine’ (2008) 32 Melbourne University Law Review 1Google Scholar; Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, Parliament of Australia, Australia's Federation: An Agenda for Reform (2011).

4 Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘Tasmanian Dam Case’); Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1.

5 Actors and Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; Work Choices (2006) 229 CLR 1.

6 Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168.

7 Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 114 CLR 1; Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 555; Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2011) 244 CLR 97.

8 See Twomey, Anne, ‘Pushing the Boundaries of Executive Power — Pape, the Prerogative and Nationhood Powers’ (2010) 34 Melbourne University Law Review 313.Google Scholar

9 See the collection of essays in Kildea, Paul, Lynch, Andrew and Williams, George, Tomorrow's Federation: Reforming Australian Government (Federation Press, 2012).Google Scholar

10 Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 555.

11 South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373 (‘First Uniform Tax Case’); Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) 99 CLR 575 (‘Second Uniform Tax Case’).

12 Ha v New South Wales (2007) 189 CLR 465.

13 Twomey, Anne, ‘The Future of Australian Federalism — Following the Money’ (2009) 24 Australasian Parliamentary Review 11Google Scholar; Fenna, Alan, ‘Commonwealth Fiscal Powers and Australian Federalism’ (2008) 31 University of New South Wales Law Journal 509.Google Scholar

14 Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1; Saunders, Cheryl, ‘The Sources and Scope of Commonwealth Power to Spend — Case Note; Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation’ (2009) 20 Public Law Review 256Google Scholar; Twomey, above n 13; McLeod, Andrew, ‘The Executive and Financial Powers of the Commonwealth: Pape v Commissioner of Taxation’ (2010) 32 Sydney Law Review 123.Google Scholar

15 Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 248 CLR 156; Williams v Commonwealth (2014) 88 ALJR 701.

16 An expression that I have adopted from Griffith, Gavan and Kennett, Geoffrey, ‘Judicial Federalism’ in Opeskin, Brian and Wheeler, Fiona (eds), The Australian Federal Judicial System (Melbourne University Press, 2000) 37.Google Scholar

17 See, for example, the collection of essays in Opeskin, Brian R and Wheeler, Fiona (eds), The Australian Federal Judicial System (Melbourne University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Wheeler, Fiona, ‘The Rise and Rise of Judicial Power under Chapter III of the Constitution: A Decade in Overview’ (2001) 20 Australian Bar Review 283.Google Scholar

18 Recent collections on Australian federalism consider the judicial system sparingly: see, Kildea, Lynch and Williams, above n 9; Appleby, Gabrielle, Aroney, Nicholas and John, Thomas (eds), The Future of Australian Federalism: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar During the inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, the Attorney-General for Western Australia highlighted the centralisation of judicial power, but the matter was not explored by the Committee nor made the subject of a specific recommendation: see Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, above n 3, 14 [1.49].

19 McLeish, Stephen SC, ‘The Nationalisation of the State Court System’ (2013) 24 Public Law Review 252, 252.Google Scholar

20 Lim, Brendan, ‘Attributes and Attribution of State Courts — Federalism and the Kable Principle’ (2012) 40 Federal Law Review 31, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Gabrielle Appleby, ‘State Law and Order Regimes and the High Court: A Study in Federalism and Rights Protection’ (2014) Monash University Law Review (forthcoming).

22 Aroney, Nicholas, The Constitution of a Federal Commonwealth: The Making and Meaning of the Australian Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2009) 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid 21–2. Other markers identified by Aroney are the ‘formative basis of the Constitution’ (that is, ‘the process by which the Constitution was drafted’) and the amendment process. This project has nothing to add in that respect. As Aroney explains, these federal markers were highlighted by James Madison in Federalist No 39 when defending the proposed US Constitution (at 21–2).

25 Ibid 22.

26 Ibid 22–4.

27 And the formative basis for the Australian federal system and the amendment process, neither of which is particularly relevant to the judiciary.

28 (2009) 239 CLR 230, 237. See also Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 574 (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

29 (2001) 204 CLR 559, 570.

30 See Williams, John M, The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History (Melbourne University Press, 2005) 88, 127.Google Scholar

31 That the content of federal jurisdiction reflected the subjects assigned to the federal judiciary in art III of the United States Constitution was made clear by Inglis Clark when he explained his draft clauses in the following way: ‘The matters I have placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Judicatory are the same as those placed by the Constitution of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the American union’ (ibid 69).

32 Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) 166 CLR 518, 575 (Brennan and Toohey JJ); see also at 547 (Mason CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ).

33 (1916) 22 CLR 437, 452.

34 (1929) 42 CLR 481, 495.

35 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 268.

36 See La Nauze, John A, The Making of the Australian Constitution (Melbourne University Press, 1974) 130–1Google Scholar; Bailey, Kenneth H, ‘The Federal Jurisdiction of State Courts’ (1939–41) 2 Res Judicatae 109.Google Scholar

37 Alfred Deakin suggested that state courts be ‘federalised’ during the Official Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference, Melbourne, 10 February 1890, 26.

38 See Bennett, John M, Keystone of the Federal Arch (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1980) 3–6.Google Scholar

39 John Quick and Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Constitution (1901) 725.

40 See Stellios, James, The Federal Judicature — Chapter III of the Constitution: Commentary and Cases (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2010) 9–33.Google Scholar

41 Phillips Morris Incorporated v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457; Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 261.

42 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 603 (Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ).

43 See, eg, Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, 585 (Gummow and Hayne JJ); Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 607–8.

44 (1983) 158 CLR 1.

45 (1939) 61 CLR 665.

46 See also Carter v Egg & Egg Pulp Marketing Board (Vic) (1942) 66 CLR 557; Parton v Milk Board (Vic) (1949) 80 CLR 229.

47 (1925) 36 CLR 170, 198 (‘Pirrie’).

48 (1981) 148 CLR 457.

49 Ibid 512–13.

50 (1999) 198 CLR 511 (‘Re Wakim’).

51 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39(2).

52 MZXOT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 233 CLR 601; Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367.

53 Ibid.

54 (2005) 223 CLR 251, 262.

55 See, eg, Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367.

56 See, eg, John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503.

57 See, eg, Collins v Charles Marshall Pty Ltd (1955) 92 CLR 529.

58 See, eg, R v Carter; Ex parte Kisch (1934) 52 CLR 221, 224 (Evatt J); R v Bevan; Ex parte Elias & Gordon (1942) 66 CLR 452, 466 (Starke J), 480 (Williams J).

59 Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield (2005) 223 CLR 251, 262–3.

60 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 CLR 141, 154 (Latham CJ), affirmed in LNC Industries v BMW (1983) 151 CLR 575, 581.

61 Attorney-General (NSW) v Commonwealth Savings Bank (1986) 160 CLR 315, 327.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid, quoting Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [No 4] (1953) 88 CLR 529, 541.

64 (1983) 154 CLR 261.

65 The Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434.

66 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 (‘Boilermakers’).

67 See, eg, Boilermakers (1956) 94 CLR 254, 270.

68 APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 322, 406, citing Northern Territory v GPAO (1999) 196 CLR 553, 575, 628; Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins (2000) 202 CLR 629, 642; Solomons v District Court (NSW) (2002) 211 CLR 119, 134; referring also to s 68 of the Judiciary Act and R v Gee (2003) 212 CLR 230, 255–6.

69 The primary — although not the only — vehicles for picking up state laws in federal jurisdiction are ss 68(1) and 79(1) of the Judiciary Act. There may be some dispute about Commonwealth power to regulate substantive rights and duties within federal jurisdiction, but it is clear that powers used in the exercise of federal jurisdiction can be prescribed or picked up by Commonwealth law: see Hill, Graeme and Beech, Andrew, ‘”Picking up” State and Territory Laws under s 79 of the Judiciary Act — Three Questions’ (2005) 27 Australian Bar Review 25, 31–5.Google Scholar

70 Solomons v District Court (NSW) (2002) 211 CLR 119, 135.

71 (2011) 245 CLR 1.

72 The Chief Justice of the High Court indicated a preparedness to revisit the way in which some state laws are applied in federal jurisdiction. However, there is no indication that there is wider appetite on the Court to revise these principles. See Bateman, Will and Stellios, James, ‘Chapter III of the Constitution, Federal Jurisdiction and Dialogue Models of Human Rights’ (2012) 36 Melbourne University Law Review 1, 36–9Google Scholar; Irving, Helen, ‘State Jurisdictional Residue: What Remains to a State Court when its Chapter III Functions are Exhausted?’ (2014) 42 Federal Law Review 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Subject to valid exceptions and regulations.

74 (1996) 189 CLR 51 (‘Kable’).

75 See recently, eg, Appleby, Gabrielle and Williams, John, ‘A New Coat of Paint: Law and Order and the Refurbishment of Kable’ (2012) 40 Federal Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lim, above n 20.

76 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 295 ALR 638; Pollentine v Bleijie [2014] HCA 30.

77 International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319, 367 (Gummow and Bell JJ), 385 (Heydon J): where NSW legislation prevented an affected party from challenging the making of a court order, the High Court held that incompatibility with Commonwealth judicial power arose. Although comments in Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 295 ALR 638 may suggest that this test has fallen out of favour with a majority of the Court: [138], [169] (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

78 K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501, 544 (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

79 (2010) 239 CLR 531 (‘Kirk’).

80 (2003) 211 CLR 476.

81 (2011) 243 CLR 181.

82 Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348; Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57; Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1.

83 Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513; Silbert v DPP (WA) (2004) 217 CLR 181; HA Bachrach Pty Limited v Queensland (1998) 195 CLR 547.

84 International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319, 352–6 (French CJ); South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 20, 50 (French CJ), 63–5 (Gummow J), 82–90 (Hayne J), 155–9 (Crennan and Bell JJ), 162–3, 170 (Kiefel J); Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506, 551 (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ); Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1, 95 (Gummow J, with Hayne J agreeing), 185 (Heydon J). Although, the High Court has more recently emphasised the importance of keeping the principles separate: Pompano (2013) 295 ALR 638, [125] (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ); Pollentine v Bleijie [2014] HCA 30, [42].

85 McLeish, above n 19, 255 (emphasis in original).

86 (2008) 169 FCR 85.

87 The other members of the Full Court did not consider the question. Cf the contrary conclusion of Heerey J in Commonwealth v Wood (2006) 148 FCR 276. Similar issues have been considered with differing outcomes in Owen v Menzies [2013] 2 Qd R 327 and Sunol v Collier (2012) NSWLR 619. On these issues, see Rowe, David, ‘State Tribunals within and without the Integrated Federal Judicial System’ (2014) 25 Public Law Review 48Google Scholar; Kennett, Geoffrey, ‘Fault Lines in the Autochthonous Expedient: The Problem of State Tribunals’ (2009) 20 Public Law Review 152.Google Scholar

88 Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45, 75.

89 Le Mesurier v Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481, 404.

90 Commonwealth Constitution s 78.

91 See, eg, Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 CLR 305, where federal jurisdiction was required to be exercised by a police magistrate, not justices of the peace.

92 See especially ss 68(1) and 79(1) of the Judiciary Act.

93 See Stellios, above n 40, ch 1.

94 Official Report of the National Australasian Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, 2536.

95 La Nauze, above n 36, ch 16; Williams, above n 30, 1160–8.

96 La Nauze, above n 36, 267–8, 304.

97 See Stellios, above n 40, 34–47.

98 See Baxter v Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1907) 4 CLR 1087.

99 (1999) 200 CLR 485, 505.

100 Ibid (footnotes omitted). Gleeson CJ (at 24) and Kirby J (at 552) agreed that there is one common law in Australia. See also John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, 518; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520, 562–6.

101 See ‘Address by the Hon Sir Owen Dixon, KCMG to the Section of the American Bar Association for International and Comparative Law’ (1943) 17 Australian Law Journal 138Google Scholar and ‘The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation’ (1957) 31 Australian Law Journal 240.Google Scholar

102 Dixon, ‘Address by the Hon Sir Owen Dixon, KCMG to the Section of the American Bar Association for International and Comparative Law’, above n 101, 241.

103 Dixon, ‘The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation’, above n 101, 139.

104 Ibid 140.

105 Ibid.

106 Ibid.

107 For a review of this influence, see Leslie Zines, ‘The Common Law in Australia: Its Nature and Constitutional Significance’, (Law and Policy Paper No 13, Centre for International and Public Law, 1999), reprinted in (2004) 32 Federal Law Review 337.

108 Ibid 5.

109 Andrew Inglis Clark, Studies in Australian Constitutional Law (1901) 192.

110 Priestley, LJ, ‘A Federal Common Law in Australia?’ (1995) 6 Public Law Review 221, 232.Google Scholar The same view was expressed by Wynes, Anstey, Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia (Lawbook, 5th ed, 1976) 58–60.Google Scholar

111 (1999) 200 CLR 485, 576.

112 Ibid 583.

113 Ibid 582.

114 See Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967) 117 CLR 221, 238.

115 (2007) 230 CLR 89, 151–2.

116 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 (‘Pfeiffer’).

117 Ibid 535.

118 (1991) 174 CLR 1.

119 (1993) 176 CLR 433.

120 Where a court is exercising federal jurisdiction, state laws must be picked up and applied by federal provisions — notably ss 79 and 80 of the Judiciary Act. The uniformity in outcome was achieved by turning first to s 80 to pick up choice of law rules, and then to s 79 only if necessary (See Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 218 CLR 330, 338–9; Pfeiffer (2000) 203 CLR 503, 529–32). The High Court's choice to sequence the application of ss 79 and 80 in this way was of great significance. A reversal of the order of ss 79 and 80, as favoured by Brennan CJ in Commonwealth v Mewett (1997) 191 CLR 471, 492–3, would have resulted in forum favouritism and a lack of uniform outcomes. For a more detailed analysis of these issues, see Stellios, James, ‘Choice of Law and the Australian Constitution: Locating the Debate’ (2005) 33 Federal Law Review 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

121 Pfeiffer (2000) 203 CLR 503, 543.

122 (2006) 228 CLR 45, 75.

123 See, eg, Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495.

124 See, eg, Le Mesurier v Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481.

125 (1920) 28 CLR 129.

126 (1947) 74 CLR 31.

127 (1929) 42 CLR 481.

128 Ibid 512.

129 Lim, above n 20, 36, citing the state immunity case of Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185.

130 (1999) 198 CLR 511.

131 Leaving aside instances where federal jurisdiction was attracted in some way other than s 76(ii) of the Constitution.

132 Kotsis v Kotsis (1970) 122 CLR 69; Knight v Knight (1971) 122 CLR 114.

133 (1982) 150 CLR 49 (‘Hospital Contribution Fund’).

134 Kotsis v Kotsis (1970) 122 CLR 69, 110.

135 (1982) 150 CLR 49, 62.

136 Ibid.

137 (1991) 172 CLR 84.

138 Ibid 93 (Mason CJ and Deane J), 122 (Dawson J), 151 (Gaudron J). While generally supportive of the majority view, McHugh J disapproved of the analogy (at 157).

139 (1925) 36 CLR 170, 198.

140 R v Maryborough Licensing Court; Ex parte Webster & Co Ltd (1919) 27 CLR 249.

141 James v South Australia (1927) 40 CLR 1, 40.

142 Attorney-General (NSW) v Commonwealth Savings Bank (1986) 160 CLR 315, 326.

143 Ibid 327, referring to Lansell v Lansell (1964) 110 CLR 353, 357–9; Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris (1980) 145 CLR 457, 476–7.

144 Lansell v Lansell (1964) 110 CLR 353, 358.

145 (1980) 145 CLR 457.

146 Ibid 477.

147 Ibid 476.

148 (1983) 151 CLR 575.

149 (1971) 124 CLR 367.

150 (1986) 160 CLR 315, 327.

151 Re Wakim (1999) 198 CLR 511, 574 (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

152 McLeish, above n 19, 263.

153 (1991) 173 CLR 289 (‘Mellifont’).

154 Swiss Aluminium Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 163 CLR 421, 425 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ).

155 O’Toole v Charles David Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 232, 268 (Brennan J); see also at 283–4 (Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

156 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 193.

157 In Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, 342, Gummow and Crennan JJ said that ‘[i]t has been well said that Ch III gives practical effect to the assumption of the rule of law upon which the Constitution depends for its efficacy’, citing APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 322, 351–2 (Gleeson CJ and Heydon J). See also South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 62–3 (Gummow J); 156 (Crennan and Bell JJ).

158 (1981) 148 CLR 457, 514.

159 Ibid 548.

160 Dixon, ‘Address by the Hon Sir Owen Dixon, KCMG to the Section of the American Bar Association for International and Comparative Law’, above n 101, 140.

161 Ibid. See also the evidence he gave to the Royal Commission on the Constitution: Commonwealth of Australia, Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution (1929) 110–11.

162 Pfeiffer (2000) 203 CLR 503, 536–9.

163 Ibid 536–7, 538, 540.

164 Ibid 528.

165 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 103.

166 Ibid 115.

167 Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 295 ALR 638, [123]; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 209 (French CJ and Kiefel J), 228–9 (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ). See also Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, 617–8 and South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 37–39.

168 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 629 (Dawson J).

169 Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 261, 293–4.

170 See, eg, Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 609; Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 261, 293.

171 Indeed, Brendan Lim has argued that the Commonwealth has largely taken the position in Kable cases supportive of the maintenance of these minimum requirements: above n 20, 59–67.

172 (2009) 237 CLR 501, 544.

173 (1982) 150 CLR 49, 62. His Honour also expressed concern that a strict requirement that federal jurisdiction be exercised by state court judges would ‘constrain the States’ freedom of action in the organization of their courts’ (at 62).

174 See, eg, Gordon v Tolcher [2005] HCATrans 843; The Hon Gummow, Justice WMC, ‘Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia Third Edition, The Federation Press (2002)’ (2004) 32 Federal Law Review 163 (Book Review).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

175 To adopt the comments from Gummow, above n 174, 168.

176 Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 218 CLR 330, 346.

177 See Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, above n 3.