I think any reading of the Australian Constitution clearly shows that our founding fathers did not foresee a situation where the Government of Australia would cede sovereignty to a foreign court. The Queen yes, it makes it clear the Queen is our head of State and has ultimate authority, but that is not what we are talking about here. Lets look at the relevant sections of the constitution:

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

71. The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction...which means it can invest jurisdiction in a Court, but the Waterside Workers case clearly stated the Court must be duly constituted (sometimes called a section 111 court). The Kangaroo Court in the ISDS would not be allowed.

72. The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament--

(i.) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council: and the Justices are appointed by the Governor General, not the Multinationals. Again this has been strongly defended by the High COurt in the Wheat and Waterside Workers cases.

A reference in this section to the appointment of a Justice of the High Court or of a court created by the Parliament shall be read as including a reference to the appointment of a person who holds office as a Justice of the High Court or of a court created by the Parliament to another office of Justice of the same court having a different status or designation. ie if it looks like a Court and smells like a Court - it is a Court and 72(i) applies - see the Waterside Workers case for a very strong defence of this section.

75. In all matters--

(i.) Arising under any treaty:

(ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

(iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

(iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:

(v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. (ED - my bold)

SCORE - The Parliament is NOT higher authority here, it clearly says the High Court is the highest Authority wherever the Commonwealth is being sued, and specifically and in the first reference mentions Treaties. I cant see how they get around this - anyone?

76. The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter--

(i.) Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation:

(ii.) Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:

(iii.) Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

(iv.) Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States. This says the Parliament can give the High Court additional powers, but does not modify their rights under Section 75.

77. With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make laws--

(i.) Defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court: "other than the High Court", the Parliament cannot interfere with the rights granted to the High Court under Section 75

78. The Parliament may make laws conferring rights to proceed against the Commonwealth or a State in respect of matters within the limits of the judicial power. This is generally read as being subject to the limits set in Section 75, but we should look at Legal Precedent on this issue:

ref: http://www.aph.gov.au/~/~/~/link.aspx?_id=1A4B10F0E0C645D68D16DC6953E7CE52&_z=z or read the whole thing: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/

OK so lets look at some relevant High Court Precedent

BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS