SUEVHILLEXTRACTS

Themeaningof"theCrown"inconstitutionaltheory
Accordingly,itisnecessarytosayalittleastothesensesinwhichthe
expression"theCrown"isusedinconstitutionaltheoryderivedfromthe
UnitedKingdom.Initsoldestandmostspecificmeaning,"theCrown"is
partoftheregaliawhichis"necessarytosupportthesplendourand
dignityoftheSovereignforthetimebeing",isnotdevisableand
descendsfromonesovereigntothenext[98].Thewritingsof
constitutionallawyersatthetimeshowthatitwaswellunderstoodin
1900,atthetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitution,thattheterm"the
Crown"wasusedinseveralmetaphoricalsenses."Weallknow",Lord
Penzancehadsaidin1876,"thattheCrownisanabstraction"[99],and
Maitland,HarrisonMoore,InglisClarkandPittCobbett,amongstmany
distinguishedconstitutionallawyers,tookupthepoint.
Thefirstuseoftheexpression"theCrown"wastoidentifythebody
politic.Writingin1903,ProfessorPittCobbett[100]identifiedthisas
involvinga"defectiveconception"whichwas"theoutcomeofan
attemptonthepartofEnglishlawtodispensewiththerecognitionofthe
Stateasajuristicperson,andtomaketheCrowndoserviceinitsstead".
TheConstitution,inidentifyingthenewbodypoliticwhichit
established,didnotusetheterm"theCrown"inthisway.After
consideringearlierusagesoftheterminEnglandandintheformer
Americancolonies,Maitlandrejoicedinthereturnoftheterm"the
Commonwealth"tothestatutebook.Hewrotein1901[101]:
"Thereisnocausefordespairwhen'thepeopleofNewSouth
Wales,Victoria,SouthAustralia,QueenslandandTasmania,
humblyrelyingontheblessingofAlmightyGod,haveagreedto
uniteinoneindissolubleFederalCommonwealthundertheCrown
oftheUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandIreland'.Wemay
misstheoldwordsthatwereusedofConnecticutandRhode
Island:'onebodycorporateandpoliticinfactandname';but
'unitedinaFederalCommonwealthunderthenameofthe
CommonwealthofAustralia'seemsamplytofilltheirplace.And
abodypoliticmaybeamemberofanotherbodypolitic."
Thesecondusageof"theCrown"isrelatedtothefirstandidentifiesthat
office,theholderofwhichforthetimebeingistheincarnationofthe
internationalpersonalityofabodypolitic,bywhomandtowhom

diplomaticrepresentativesareaccreditedandbywhomandwithwhom
treatiesareconcluded.TheCommonwealthofAustralia,assuch,had
assumedinternationalpersonalityatsomedatewellbeforetheenactment
oftheAustraliaAct.Differingviewshavebeenexpressedastothe
identificationofthatdate[102]butnothingturnsuponthequestionfor
presentpurposes.Since1987,theExecutivebranchoftheAustralian
Governmenthasapplieds61oftheConstitution(whichextendstothe
maintenanceoftheConstitution)consistentlywiththeviewsofInglis
Clarkexpressedover80yearsbefore[103]andtheGovernorGeneralhas
exercisedtheprerogativepowersoftheQueeninregardtothe
appointmentandacceptance,orrecall,ofdiplomaticrepresentativesand
theexecutionofallinstrumentsrelatingthereto[104].
InStateAuthoritiesSuperannuationBoardvCommissionerofState
Taxation(WA),McHughandGummowJJsaid[105]:
"QuestionsofforeignstateimmunityandofwhetheranAustralian
law,uponitstrueconstruction,purportstobindaforeignstate
nowshouldbeapproachednodifferentlyasregardsthoseforeign
stateswhichsharethesameheadofstatethanitisforthose
foreignstateswhichdonot[106].Thisisconsistentwiththe
reasoningandoutcomeinNolanvMinisterforImmigrationand
EthnicAffairs[107]."
Thirdly,theterm"theCrown"identifieswhatLordPenzance
inDixoncalled"theGovernment"[108],beingtheexecutiveasdistinct
fromthelegislativebranchofgovernment,representedbytheMinistry
andtheadministrativebureaucracywhichattendstoitsbusiness.Ashas
beenindicated,undertheConstitutiontheexecutivefunctionsbestowed
upon"theQueen"areexerciseduponAustralianadvice.
Thefourthuseoftheterm"theCrown"aroseduringthecourseof
colonialdevelopmentinthenineteenthcentury.Itidentifiedthe
paramountpowersoftheUnitedKingdom,theparentstate,inrelationto
itsdependencies.AtthetimeoftheestablishmentoftheCommonwealth,
thematterwasexplainedasfollowsbyProfessorPittCobbettina
passagewhich,giventheargumentspresentedinthepresentmatters,
meritsfullrepetition[109]:
"InEnglandtheprerogativepowersoftheCrownwereatonetime
personalpowersoftheSovereign;anditwasonlybyslowdegrees
thattheywereconvertedtotheuseoftherealexecutivebody,and
sobroughtundercontrolofParliament.InAustralia,however,

thesepowerswereneverpersonalpowersoftheKing;theywere
evenimportedatatimewhentheyhadalreadytoagreatextent
passedoutofthehandsoftheKing;andyettheyloomherelarger
thaninthecountryoftheirorigin.Theexplanationwouldseemto
bethat,intheschemeofcolonialgovernment,thepowersofthe
CrownandthePrerogativereallyrepresent,notanypersonal
powersonthepartoftheSovereign,butthoseparamountpowers
whichwouldnaturallybelongtoaparentStateinrelationtothe
governmentofitsdependencies;althoughowingtothefailureof
thecommonlawtorecognisethepersonalityoftheBritish'State'
thesepowershadtobeassertedinthenameandthroughthe
mediumoftheCrown.This,too,mayservetoexplainthe
distinction,subsequentlyreferredto,betweenthe'general'
prerogativeoftheCrown,whichisstillwieldedbyMinisterswho
representtheBritishState,andwhoareresponsibletotheBritish
Parliament,andwhatwemaycallthe'colonial'prerogativeof
theCrown,which,althoughconsistingoriginallyofpowers
reservedtotheparentState,haswiththeevolutionofresponsible
government,beengraduallyconvertedtotheuseofthelocal
executive,andsobroughtunderthecontrolofthelocal
Legislature,exceptonsomefewpointswherethe
Governor[110]isstillrequiredtoactnotasalocalconstitutional
Sovereignbutasanimperialofficerandsubjecttoanimmediate
responsibilitytohisimperialmasters.[111]"
WhatIsaacsJcalledthe"HomeGovernment"ceasedbefore1850to
contributetotheexpensesofthecolonialgovernmentofNewSouth
Wales[112].Onthegrantofresponsiblegovernment,certain
prerogativesoftheCrowninthecolony,eventhoseofaproprietary
nature,becamevested"intheCrowninrightofthecolony",asJacobsJ
putitinNewSouthWalesvTheCommonwealth[113].Debtsmightbe
payabletotheexchequerofonegovernmentbutnottothatofanother
andquestionsofdisputedprioritycouldarise[114].HarrisonMoore,
writingin1904,observed[115]:
"Sofarasconcernsthepublicdebtsoftheseveralpartsofthe
King'sdominions,theyareincurredinamannerwhichindicates
therevenuesoutofwhichalonetheyarepayable,generallythe
ConsolidatedRevenueoftheborrowinggovernment;andthe
severalColonialStatutesdealingwithsuitsagainstthe
governmentgenerallylimitthejurisdictionoftheCourtto'claims
againsttheColonialGovernment,'ortosuchclaimsasarepayable
outoftherevenueofthecolonyconcerned..."

Section105oftheConstitutionprovidedfortheParliamenttotake
overfromtheStatestheirpublicdebts"asexistingatthe
establishmentoftheCommonwealth"[116].
Theexpression"theCrowninrightof..."thegovernmentinquestion
wasusedtoidentifythesenewlycreatedandevolvingpolitical
units[117].WiththeformationoffederationsinCanadaandAustraliait
becamemoredifficulttocontinuetopress"theCrown"intoserviceto
describecomplexpoliticalstructures.HarrisonMooreidentified"the
doctrineofunityandindivisibilityoftheCrown"assomething"not
persistedintotheextentofignoringthattheseveralpartsoftheEmpire
aredistinctentities"[118].Hepointedtothe"inconvenienceand
mischief"whichwouldfollowfromrigidadherencetoanysuchdoctrine
wheretherewerefederalstructuresandcontinued[119]:
"TheConstitutionsthemselvesspeakplainlyenoughonthe
subject.BoththeBritishNorthAmericaActandthe
CommonwealthofAustraliaConstitutionActrecognizethat
'Canada'andthe'Provinces'inthefirstcase,the'Commonwealth'
andthe'States'inthesecond,arecapableoftheownershipof
property,ofenjoyingrightsandincurringobligations,ofsuingand
beingsued;andthisnotmerelyasbetweenthegovernmentand
privatepersons,butbyeachgovernmentasdistinguishedfrom
andasagainsttheotherthisinfactisthephaseoftheir
personalitywithwhichtheConstitutionsareprincipally
concerned.Parliamenthasunquestionablytreatedtheseentitiesas
distinctpersons,anditisonlybygoingbehind
theConstitutionthatanyconfusionofpersonalitiesarises."
Itmaybethoughtthatinthispassageliestheseedofthedoctrinelater
propoundedbyDixonJinBankofNewSouthWalesvThe
Commonwealth[120],andappliedinauthoritiesincludingCrouchv
CommissionerforRailways(Q)[121]andDeputyCommissionerof
TaxationvStateBank(NSW)[122],thattheConstitutiontreatsthe
CommonwealthandtheStatesasorganisationsorinstitutionsof
governmentpossessingdistinctindividuality.Whilstformallytheymay
notbejuristicpersons,theyareconceivedaspoliticallyorganisedbodies
havingmutuallegalrelationsandareamenabletothejurisdictionof
courtsexercisingfederaljurisdiction.Theemploymentoftheterm"the
Crown"todescribetherelationshipsintersebetweentheUnited
Kingdom,theCommonwealthandtheStateswasdescribedbyLatham
CJin1944[123]asinvolving"verballyimpressivemysticism".Itisofno
assistanceindeterminingtodaywhether,forthepurposesofthepresent

litigation,theUnitedKingdomisa"foreignpower"withinthemeaning
ofs44(i)oftheConstitution.
Nearlyacenturyago,HarrisonMooresaidthatitwaslikelythat
Australiandraftsmenwouldbelikelytoavoiduseoftheterm"Crown"
anduseinsteadtheterms"Commonwealth"and"State"[124].Such
optimismhasprovedmisplaced.Thatdifficultiescanarisefrom
continueduseoftheterm"theCrown"inStatelegislationisillustrated
byTheCommonwealthvWesternAustralia[125].However,nosuch
difficultiesneedariseintheconstructionoftheConstitution.
Thephrases"undertheCrown"inthepreambletotheConstitutionAct
and"heirsandsuccessorsinthesovereigntyoftheUnitedKingdom"in
coveringcl2involvetheuseoftheexpression"theCrown"andcognate
termsinwhatisthefifthsense.Thisidentifiestheterm"theQueen"used
intheprovisionsoftheConstitutionitself,towhichwehavereferred,as
thepersonoccupyingthehereditaryofficeofSovereignoftheUnited
KingdomunderrulesofsuccessionestablishedintheUnitedKingdom.
ThelawoftheUnitedKingdominthatrespectmightbechangedby
statute.ButwithoutAustralianlegislation,theeffectofs1of
theAustraliaActwouldbetodenytheextensionoftheUnitedKingdom
lawtotheCommonwealth,theStatesandtheTerritories.
Thereisnopreciseanalogybetweenthisstateofaffairsandtheearlier
developmentofthelawrespectingthemonarchyinEngland,Scotland
andGreatBritain.Ithasbeensuggested[126]:
"TheQueenasmonarchoftheUnitedKingdom,Canada,
AustraliaandNewZealandisinapositionresemblingthatofthe
KingofScotlandandofEnglandbetween1603and1707when
twoindependentcountrieshadacommonsovereign."
ButitwasestablishedthatapersonborninScotlandafterthe
accessionofKingJamesItotheEnglishthronein1603wasnot
analienandthuswasnotdisqualifiedfromholdinglandsin
England.ThatwastheoutcomeofCalvin'sCase[127].Nordoes
therelationshipbetweenBritainandHanoverbetween1714and
1837presentapreciseanalogy,ifonlybecausetherewaslacking
thelinkofacommonlawofsuccession[128].
IVCONCLUSIONS

AlmostacenturyhaspassedsincetheenactmentoftheConstitutionAct
inthelastyearofthereignofQueenVictoria.In1922,theLord
Chancellor[129]observedthatdoctrinesrespectingtheCrownoften
representedtheresultsofaconstitutionalstruggleinpastcenturies,
ratherthanstatementsofalegaldoctrine.Thestateofaffairsidentifiedin
SectionIIIofthesereasonsistothecontrary.Itis,asGibbsJputit[130],
"theresultofanorderlydevelopmentnot...theresultofarevolution".
Further,thedevelopmentculminatingintheenactmentoftheAustralia
Act(theoperationofwhichcommencedon3March1986[131])has
followedpathsunderstoodbyconstitutionalscholarswritingatthetime
oftheestablishmentoftheCommonwealth.
Thepointofimmediatesignificanceisthatthecircumstancethatthe
samemonarchexercisesregalfunctionsundertheconstitutional
arrangementsintheUnitedKingdomandAustraliadoesnotdenythe
propositionthattheUnitedKingdomisaforeignpowerwithinthe
meaningofs44(i)oftheConstitution.AustraliaandtheUnited
Kingdomhavetheirownlawsastonationality[132]sothattheircitizens
owedifferentallegiances.TheUnitedKingdomhasadistinctlegal
personalityanditsexercisesofsovereignty,forexampleinentering
militaryalliances,participatinginarmedconflictsandaccedingto
treatiessuchastheTreatyofRome[133],themselveshavenolegal
consequencesforthiscountry.Nor,aswehavesoughttodemonstratein
SectionIII,doestheUnitedKingdomexerciseanyfunctionwithrespect
tothegovernmentalstructuresoftheCommonwealthortheStates.
Asindicatedearlierinthesereasons,wewouldgiveanaffirmative
answertothequestionineachstatedcasewhichaskswhetherMrs

Hill ,atthedateofhernomination,wasasubjectorcitizenofa
foreignpowerwithinthemeaningofs44(i)oftheConstitution.
GAUDRONJ.Ineachofthesemattersacasehasbeenstatedforthe
considerationoftheFullCourtpursuanttos18oftheJudiciaryAct
1903(Cth)[134].Eachmatterarisesoutofthe1998electionforthe
returnofsixSenatorsfortheStateofQueenslandtoserveinthe
ParliamentoftheCommonwealth.Thewritfortheelectionwasissued
on31August1998.Pursuanttothewrit,nominationsweremadeonor
before10Septemberandtheelectionwasheldon3October1998.
Followingthecountingofvotes,theGovernorofQueenslandcertified,
on26October1998,thatMrsHeather Hill ,thefirstrespondentin
eachmatter,wasdulyelectedasthethirdSenator.MessrsLudwig,

MasonandWoodleywerecertifiedasdulyelectedasthefourth,fifth
andsixthSenatorsrespectively.
Thecaseshavebeenstatedinseparateproceedingscommencedbythe
petitioners,Mr Sue andMrSharples.Theyinvokethejurisdiction
purportedlyconferredonthisCourtbys354oftheCommonwealth
ElectoralAct1918(Cth)("theAct").Isay"purportedlyconferred"
becausequestion(a)ineachofthecasesstatedasks:
"Doess354oftheActvalidlyconferupontheCourtofDisputed
ReturnsjurisdictiontodeterminetheissuesraisedinthePetition?"