Misplaced Pages

#760239

106-413: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an act of the Parliament of Australia , the other an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom . In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by

212-598: A British law which purported to be binding in Canada just as invalid in Canada "as a law enacted for Canada by Portugal ." Paul Romney argued in 1999 that, regardless of what the British authorities did, the constitutional principle of responsible government in Canada denied them the right to ever again legislate for Canada; he stated: "[T]he constitutional convention known as responsible government entailed legal as well as political sovereignty. Responsible government meant that

318-478: A certificate, Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon said: "experience shows – and that experience was anticipated when s. 74 was enacted – that it is only those who dwell under a Federal Constitution who can become adequately qualified to interpret and apply its provisions". In 1985, the High Court unanimously observed that the power to grant such a certificate "has long since been spent" and

424-419: A different six-to-three majority, the court said that the constitution was made up as much of convention as written law and ruled that a unilateral patriation was not in accordance with constitutional convention. Although the courts enforce laws, not constitutional conventions, the court's decision stated that agreement by a "substantial" number of premiers would be required to abide by the convention. This number

530-453: A general opening toward the provincial proposal, though Trudeau declared the charter was non-negotiable. On November 3, a compromise put to Trudeau involving amending the Group of Eight's proposal with a limited charter was met with a blunt refusal, with federal officials declining a "gutted charter", while Lévesque and Trudeau argued on the language provisions of the charter. On November 4,

636-509: A handful. Nonetheless, by the 1980s the possibility of appeal from a state supreme court was seen as outdated. In addition, in 1978 confusion over the relative precedential value of High Court and Privy Council decisions had been introduced when the High Court ruled that it would no longer be bound by Privy Council decisions. Disagreement existed as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had sufficient authority to enact

742-468: A national referendum could be seen as "conventionalizing" the charter without the need for provincial approval. Further, Canadians nationwide were mostly in agreement with Trudeau on the issue and were tired of the constant constitutional talks; The draft text of the Federal proposal was later revealed to involve the approval of Trudeau's reforms, with referendums being only if provinces representing 80% of

848-562: A new constitutional agreement if the majority of Quebecers voted "No". As the referendum did result in a majority rejecting separation, Trudeau approached his British counterpart, Margaret Thatcher , to inform her the Canadian government wanted to patriate the constitution. Thatcher's reply was that the British Parliament would allow this, with provincial approval or not. After a number of days of negotiation between Trudeau and

954-401: A number of stages before it can become law. In theory, this allows the bill's provisions to be debated in detail, and for amendments to the original bill to also be introduced, debated, and agreed to. In bicameral parliaments, a bill that has been approved by the chamber into which it was introduced then sends the bill to the other chamber. Broadly speaking, each chamber must separately agree to

1060-466: A private member's bill). In Australia, the bill passes through the following stages: In Canada, the bill passes through the following stages: The committee considers each clause of the bill, and may make amendments to it. Significant amendments may be made at the committee stage. In some cases, whole groups of clauses are inserted or removed. However, if the Government holds a majority, almost all

1166-467: A proposal brought to the meeting by the Newfoundland delegation. Efforts were made to reach the other provinces, including Quebec, but to no avail. Peckford further asserted that Chrétien was not contacted and he had no knowledge of the "so-called kitchen meetings". The proposal agreed upon that night was essentially the same as the Newfoundland delegation's, except for minor alterations to wording and

SECTION 10

#1732765658761

1272-716: A question in Parliament: "We intend to do everything we can to have the constitution of Canada repatriated, or patriated." From 1867, the constitution of Canada was primarily contained in the British North America Act, 1867 and other British North America Acts , which were passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom . Several Canadian prime ministers , starting with William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1927, had made attempts to domesticize

1378-673: A result of this decision in London, no action was taken in Canberra or Perth . In the 1980s, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all began the process of severing their last constitutional links to the United Kingdom. Canada began by patriating its constitution in the Constitution Act, 1982 , which was enacted by the British Parliament in the Canada Act 1982 . New Zealand experienced a constitutional crisis in 1984 , leading to

1484-460: A review of New Zealand's constitution. Australia was experiencing the same desire for constitutional modernisation. At federation in 1901, the supreme court of each colony became the supreme court of that state. In 1903, a High Court of Australia was established, one of whose functions was to hear appeals from the state supreme courts. The draft of the Constitution, that was put to voters in

1590-539: A scenario in which the provinces would agree to the charter and disallowing opting-out with compensation, while Chrétien agreed to the Vancouver amending formula and reluctantly offered to include the notwithstanding clause in the constitution. Chrétien, who had been deeply involved in supporting the "no" side of the Quebec referendum and abhorred the possibility of another one, recommended the compromise to Trudeau, but

1696-526: A specific chamber. For example, bills imposing a tax , or involving public expenditure , are introduced into the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, Canada's House of Commons , Lok Sabha of India and Ireland's Dáil as a matter of law. Conversely, bills proposed by the Law Commission and consolidation bills traditionally start in the House of Lords . Once introduced, a bill must go through

1802-524: A state. The Constitution of Australia provided for a Commonwealth Parliament, with legislative power on a range of specified topics. Some of these topics are exclusive to the Commonwealth, either expressly or by judicial implication; the others are exercised concurrently by the Commonwealth and the states, a relationship that since Federation the High Court of Australia has tended to interpret to

1908-409: A unilateral amendment. Faced with Premier of Manitoba Sterling Lyon 's charge that it would "tear the country apart", Trudeau responded that, if Canada could not have control of its own constitution and a charter when most provinces had their own, the country would deserve to be torn apart. This led Thatcher to take a less certain view of how things might proceed through the British legislature, sensing

2014-480: Is "obsolete". Although the path of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council had been effectively blocked, the High Court could not block appeals from state supreme courts directly to the Privy Council. Nor did the Constitution limit, or provide for legislation to limit, such appeals. The expense of any appeal to the Privy Council in London had been a deterrent: in any year, there had never been more than

2120-609: Is presented to the Governor General , who gives it royal assent . Although the Governor General can refuse to assent a bill, this power has never been exercised. Bills being reviewed by Parliament are assigned numbers: 2 to 200 for government bills, 201 to 1000 for private member's bills , and 1001 up for private bills . They are preceded by C- if they originate in the House of Commons, or S- if they originate in

2226-626: The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 of New South Wales ) was "An Act to enable the constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States to be brought into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation". The body of each state Act set out the state's "request and consent" as to both the Australian and the UK versions of

SECTION 20

#1732765658761

2332-583: The British Empire , but with the adoption of the Statute became a (mostly) sovereign state. However, s 4 of the Statute only affected UK laws that were to apply as part of Australian Commonwealth law, not UK laws that were to apply as part of the law of any Australian state . Thus, the Parliament of the United Kingdom still had the power to legislate for the states. In practice, however, this power

2438-592: The Statute of Westminster by removing the "request and consent" provision. Elizabeth II then, as Queen of Canada , proclaimed the patriated constitution in Ottawa on April 17, 1982. Today I have proclaimed this new constitution [...] There could be no better moment for me, as Queen of Canada, to declare again my unbounded confidence in the future of this wonderful country. Elizabeth II , Queen of Canada , Ottawa , Ontario, April 17, 1982 Canada had established

2544-463: The Act had been passed in reliance on Constitution s 51(xxxviii), which gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to legislate at the request of the state parliaments. In Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003), the High Court held that the act "gave voice to the completion of Australia's evolutionary independence ... it was a formal declaration that the Commonwealth of Australia and

2650-611: The Australia Act under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, or whether an additional Act of the UK Parliament would be required. To put the legal status of the Australia Act beyond doubt, the Australian and British parliaments would each enact the Australia Act in substantially similar forms. The plan to revamp both federal and state constitutional arrangements required each state parliament to pass its own enabling legislation. The long title of these state acts (such as

2756-411: The Australia Act. The Governor-General of Australia , Sir Ninian Stephen , assented to the Australia Act (Cth) "In the name of Her Majesty" on 4 December 1985. However, Queen Elizabeth II was to visit Australia early in 1986 and, in acknowledgement of Australian sensibilities, it was arranged that she would assent to both versions of the Act and then proclaim them so that they would come into force at

2862-415: The Australian states were completely constitutionally independent of the United Kingdom". Act of Parliament A draft act of parliament is known as a bill . In other words, a bill is a proposed law that needs to be discussed in the parliament before it can become a law. In territories with a Westminster system , most bills that have any possibility of becoming law are introduced into parliament by

2968-567: The British Parliament the necessary legislation to patriate the constitution. The resolution contained the text of what was to become the Canada Act, 1982 , which included the Constitution Act, 1982 . Though certain British parliamentarians continued to oppose the bill based on concerns about the rights of Canada's Indigenous peoples, the Parliament at Westminster passed the Canada Act, 1982 , and Queen Elizabeth II , as Queen of

3074-496: The Canada Bill was constitutional. Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan remained neutral. At the insistence of British Columbia, the premiers who opposed unilateral patriation drafted an alternative proposal to showcase the disagreement between the sides and to counter the federal government's charges of obstructionism if the document were to proceed to Westminster. The idea was for patriation to take place with no charter of rights and

3180-533: The Commonwealth Parliament. However, both versions of the Australia Act contain amendments to the constitutions of Queensland (s 13) and Western Australia (s 14). In Kirby J's view in Marquet (2003), this was inconsistent with Constitution s 106, so that section 6 of the Australia Act (Cth) was not a valid exercise of Commonwealth legislative power. A majority, however, thought that it was sufficient that

3286-578: The Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation". The Australia Act (Cth and UK) eliminated the remaining possibilities for the United Kingdom to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court. This act formally severed all legal ties between Australia and

Australia Act 1986 - Misplaced Pages Continue

3392-528: The Commonwealth itself was mostly ended with the Statute of Westminster 1931 , when adopted by Australia in 1942 retroactive to 1939. The Statute provided (s 4) that no future UK Act would apply to a dominion (of which Australia was one) as part of its law unless the Act expressly declared that the Dominion had requested and consented to it. Until then, Australia had legally been a self-governing dominion of

3498-568: The Constitution as enacted by the Imperial Parliament provided two possibilities of appeal. There could be an appeal if the High Court issued a certificate that it was appropriate for the Privy Council to determine an inter se matter, i.e. a matter that concerned the constitutional relations between the Commonwealth and one or more states or between two or more states. Furthermore, there could be an appeal with permission of

3604-419: The Constitution has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation alone. Nonetheless, s 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter. Thus, for practical purposes, the Australia Act has eliminated the remaining methods of appeal to the Privy Council. The principal difference between the Commonwealth and UK versions of the Australia Act lies in

3710-670: The Irish Parliament, the Oireachtas , bills pass through the following stages. Bills may be initiated in either the Dáil or the Seanad, and must pass both houses. In New Zealand, the bill passes through the following stages: A draft piece of legislation is called a bill ; when this is passed by Parliament it becomes an act and part of statute law. There are two types of bill and act, public and private . Public acts apply to

3816-584: The Magistrate's Court Act 1980 (c. 43). Until the 1980s, acts of the Australian state of Victoria were numbered in a continuous sequence from 1857; thus the Age of Majority Act 1977 was No. 9075 of 1977. Patriation [REDACTED] Canada portal Patriation is the political process that led to full Canadian sovereignty , culminating with the Constitution Act, 1982 . The process

3922-484: The Parliament of the United Kingdom, as requested by the Parliament of Canada . A proclamation bringing the Constitution Act, 1982 , into effect was signed by Elizabeth II , as Queen of Canada , Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau , and Minister of Justice Jean Chrétien on April 17, 1982, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa . The patriation process saw the provinces granted influence in constitutional matters and resulted in

4028-463: The Prime Minister felt, given the previous chaos, it would still be impossible to obtain the agreement of his provincial counterparts and demurred. In the evening, Davis, however, agreed in principle to the compromise and told Trudeau that he should do so as well, informing him he would not be on his side if he proceeded unilaterally at that point. Trudeau, who knew that his position in London

4134-417: The Privy Council. The Commonwealth Parliament was empowered to legislate to limit the latter path and it did so in 1968 and 1975; but legislation could only limit, not abolish. Predictably, the High Court proved reluctant to grant certificates for appeal to the Privy Council. The discretion was exercised only once, in 1912. In 1961, delivering on behalf of the whole Court a brief dismissal of an application for

4240-579: The Queen having signed the Constitution Act, 1982 . As constitutional scholar Robin White has noted, some might think that, since the Canada Act, 1982 , is British as well as Canadian law, the United Kingdom could theoretically repeal it and declare its laws to be binding in Canada. Peter Hogg, however, disputes this view, noting that since Canada is now sovereign, the Supreme Court of Canada would find

4346-589: The Senate. For example, Bill C-250 was a private member's bill introduced in the House. Bills C-1 and S-1 are pro forma bills, and are introduced at the beginning of each session in order to assert the right of each Chamber to manage its own affairs. They are introduced and read a first time, and then are dropped from the Order Paper . In the Parliament of India , every bill passes through following stages before it becomes an Act of Parliament of India : In

Australia Act 1986 - Misplaced Pages Continue

4452-548: The UK Parliament to legislate with effect in Australia ;– that is, "as part of the law of" the Commonwealth, a state or a territory (s 1). Conversely, no future law of a state would be void for inconsistency with (being "repugnant to") any UK law applying with "paramount force" in Australia; a state (like the Commonwealth) would have power to repeal or amend such an existing UK law so far as it applied to

4558-537: The United Kingdom , granted royal assent on March 29, 1982, 115 years to the day when Queen Victoria gave assent to the British North America Act, 1867 . The Constitution Act, 1982 , included an amending formula involving only the federal House of Commons and Senate and provincial legislative assemblies. Section 2 of the Canada Act states that no subsequent UK law "shall extend to Canada as part of its law", while item 17 of its schedule also amends

4664-419: The United Kingdom to enact the proposals regardless of the provincial opposition. The Courts of Appeal in Newfoundland, Quebec, and Manitoba delivered their opinions on the reference questions in the second quarter of 1981. The Manitoba and Quebec Courts of Appeal answered the questions posed by their provincial governments in favour of the federal government, ruling that there was no constitutional objection to

4770-430: The United Kingdom. At the time, the Commonwealth, state and UK acts were known as the "Australia Acts". However, in discussions of contemporary law (as opposed to legal history), the state Acts have performed their function, and thus the expression "Australia Act(s)" refers only to the Commonwealth and UK Acts. The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 by the federation of six British colonies, each of which became

4876-482: The addition of a new section, and the final draft was to go to all the provinces for approval the following morning. Peckford's assertions have, in turn, been challenged by Howard Leeson, who was then the Saskatchewan Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and present during all of the negotiations that night. He claimed that, while the officials did work from Newfoundland's draft, it

4982-557: The amending formula would permit amendment with the approval of seven provinces consisting of 50% of the population, referred to as the Vancouver Formula . The premiers' innovation was a clause allowing for dissenting provinces to "opt out" of new amendments that superseded provincial jurisdiction and receive equivalent funding to run a substitute programme if two-thirds of the members of the provincial legislature acquiesced. Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan approved of this, prompting

5088-415: The amending formula, but could not obtain agreement with the provincial governments as to how such a formula would work. Thus, even after the Statute of Westminster granted Canada and other Commonwealth nations full legislative independence in 1931, Canada requested that the British North America Act, 1867 , be excluded from the laws that were now within Canada's complete control to amend; until 1949,

5194-412: The amendments which are agreed to in committee will have been tabled by the Government to correct deficiencies in the bill or to enact changes to policy made since the bill was introduced (or, in some cases, to import material which was not ready when the bill was presented). The debate on each stage is actually debate on a specific motion. For the first reading, there is no debate. For the second reading,

5300-440: The benefit of the Commonwealth; while the residue of legislative power is left to the states, although all of the states’ legislative power is to be exercised consistently with Commonwealth legislation in the same field. That constitution was (and still is) contained in a British statute. The United Kingdom Parliament retained ultimate legislative power in relation to Australia. The UK Parliament's power to legislate with effect for

5406-423: The calendar year, with the first act passed being chapter 1, and so on. In the United Kingdom, legislation has referenced by year and chapter number since 1963 ( Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation Act 1962 ). Each act is numbered consecutively based on the date it received royal assent, for example the 43rd act passed in 1980 would be 1980 chapter 43. The full reference includes the (short) title and would be

SECTION 50

#1732765658761

5512-470: The charter, which the premiers of six provinces (Lyon, René Lévesque of Quebec, Bill Bennett of British Columbia , Angus MacLean of Prince Edward Island , Peter Lougheed of Alberta , and Brian Peckford of Newfoundland ) opposed as encroachments on their power; the press dubbed this the Gang of Six . Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Quebec launched references to their respective Courts of Appeal asking if

5618-805: The common front." Chrétien's role in the negotiations made him reviled among sovereigntists . Until the Quebec Liberals came to power in 1985, every law passed in Quebec used the notwithstanding clause. Further, Peckford rebuked in an article in The Globe and Mail claims the events that night resembled anything akin to the Kitchen Accord or Night of the Long Knives. According to Peckford, four premiers—from Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia—and senior representatives from Alberta and British Columbia, worked from

5724-410: The constitution being amendable by Canada only and according to its amending formula , with no role for the United Kingdom. The monarch's constitutional powers over Canada were not affected by the act. Canada has complete sovereignty as an independent country; the role of the monarch of Canada is distinct from that of the monarch of the UK or any other Commonwealth realm . The word patriation

5830-454: The constitution could only be changed by a further act at Westminster . The British North America (No.2) Act, 1949 , granted the Parliament of Canada limited power to amend the constitution in many areas of its own jurisdiction, without involvement of the United Kingdom. The constitution was amended in this manner five times: in 1952, 1965, 1974, and twice in 1975. Negotiations continued sporadically between federal and provincial governments on

5936-410: The constitutional debate and the three found the monarch "better informed on both the substance and politics of Canada's constitutional case than any of the British politicians or bureaucrats." Trudeau commented in his memoirs: "I always said it was thanks to three women that we were eventually able to reform our Constitution[, including] The Queen, who was favourable... I was always impressed not only by

6042-408: The court as saying "that patriation was legal, but not nice". Both the United Kingdom and Canada undertook contingency preparations: Margaret Thatcher 's British cabinet explored simply unilaterally patriating the constitution to Canada with an amending formula requiring unanimous approval of the provinces. Trudeau began to plan for a referendum proposing a unilateral declaration of independence in

6148-539: The date when the Act came into operation, Britain had become a "foreign power" within the meaning of Constitution section 44(i) , so that a parliamentary candidate who had British nationality was ineligible to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament . (Several more cases of British citizenship, as well as citizenship of other countries, in the Commonwealth Parliament came to light in the 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis .) That view

6254-516: The deal as the English-speaking premiers betraying Quebec, which prompted use of the term Nuit des longs couteaux , or "Night of the Long Knives". In English Canada, Lévesque was seen as having tried to do the same to the English-speaking premiers by accepting the referendum. Among those was Brian Mulroney , who said that by "accepting Mr. Trudeau's referendum idea, Mr. Levesque [sic] himself abandoned, without notice, his colleagues of

6360-533: The decisions of the Courts of Appeal in those provinces and the federal government appealed from the decision of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. On September 28, 1981, the court ruled (on live television, for the first time) that the federal government had the right, by letter of the law, to proceed with the unilateral patriation of the constitution (the decision was seven to two in favour). However, by

6466-523: The development of a new amending formula in which the United Kingdom would have no part. In the 1960s, efforts by the governments of Prime Ministers John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson , including the Confederation of Tomorrow conference in Canada's centennial year , culminated in the Fulton–Favreau formula , but without Quebec 's endorsement, the patriation attempt failed. In 1968, Pearson

SECTION 60

#1732765658761

6572-528: The entrenchment of a charter of rights, and would call for a referendum to be held within two years on the amending formula for the new constitution, which would be a choice between the Victoria Charter veto formula and any joint proposal by the provinces that could be approved by provinces totalling 80% of the population. In the same month, the attorneys general of six provinces launched suits in three provincial courts, seeking clarity on whether or not

6678-401: The event of a United Kingdom refusal. The decision set the stage for a meeting amongst all premiers and Trudeau in Ottawa , on November 2, 1981. The conference opened with Trudeau announcing an openness to a new amending formula, Davis postulating that his cabinet could accept an agreement without an Ontario veto, and Hatfield proposing deferral of some elements of a charter. This was seen as

6784-488: The federal Cabinet could request the British Parliament pass legislation that would alter the balance of power between the provincial and federal crowns without the support of provincial governments. The British government became adverse to introducing any bill that might be found to be unconstitutional. Trudeau found new allies in Premiers Bill Davis ( Ontario ) and Richard Hatfield ( New Brunswick ) and

6890-412: The federal New Democratic Party, under Ed Broadbent, announced its support after persuading Trudeau to devolve some resource powers to the provinces. The Prime Minister's proposal in the House of Commons, which would be tabled as the Canada Bill, invited Aboriginal, feminist, and other groups to Ottawa for their input on the charter of rights in legislative committees. However, there was disagreement over

6996-533: The federal government proceeding unilaterally. The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland, however, ruled in favour of the provincial government. It held that both as a matter of constitutional law and constitutional convention, the federal government could not request the proposed amendments from the British Parliament without the consent of the provinces. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada . The governments of Manitoba and Quebec appealed from

7102-475: The federal powers of disallowance and reservation from the draft Constitution. At the end of this period of negotiations, René Lévesque left to sleep at Hull, a city on the other side of the Ottawa river, before leaving he asked the other premiers (who were all lodged in Ottawa) to call him if anything happened. Lévesque and his people, all in Quebec, remained ignorant of the agreement until Lévesque walked into

7208-464: The final step in complete sovereignty as an independent country, with the Queen's role as monarch of Canada separate from her role as the British monarch or the monarch of any of the other Commonwealth realms. Paul Martin Sr , who was in 1981 sent, along with John Roberts and Mark MacGuigan , to the UK to discuss the patriation project, noted that, during that time, the Queen had taken a great interest in

7314-475: The following stages: There are special procedures for emergency bills, member's bills (similar to private member's bills in the UK Parliament), committee bills, and private bills. In Singapore, the bill passes through these certain stages before becoming into an Act of Parliament. Acts passed by the Parliament of England did not originally have titles, and could only be formally cited by reference to

7420-534: The government. This will usually happen following the publication of a " white paper ", setting out the issues and the way in which the proposed new law is intended to deal with them. A bill may also be introduced into parliament without formal government backing; this is known as a private member's bill . In territories with a multicameral parliament, most bills may be first introduced in any chamber. However, certain types of legislation are required, either by constitutional convention or by law, to be introduced into

7526-402: The grace she displayed in public at all times, but by the wisdom she showed in private conversation." Being aware that this was the first time in Canadian history that a major constitutional change had been made without the Quebec government's agreement and Quebec's exclusion from the patriation agreement had caused a rift, the Queen privately conveyed to journalists her regret that the province

7632-426: The ideas be proposed to test Trudeau's negotiating position. In return, Trudeau launched a new federal initiative to the premiers: patriate the constitution as it was, but continue debates for two years and, if deadlock resulted, hold a national referendum on the amending formula and charter. Lévesque, fearing the alliance was crumbling and facing mocking remarks by Trudeau that as a "great democrat" (especially after

7738-470: The law of the Commonwealth, of a state or of a territory. Mirroring the procedure of Section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution of Australia that was used to enact the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), any amendment to these two pieces of legislation requires the Commonwealth Parliament to act at the request or concurrence of all the state parliaments. As of 2020, neither the Australia Act nor the Statute of Westminster has been amended in this manner. Section 74 of

7844-433: The monarch on appointment or removal of a state governor . Governors were vested with the ability to exercise all the powers of the monarch (except the power to appoint the governor), which the monarch was barred from exercising unless they were physically present within the state. Section 15 of the Australia Act sets out the procedure that the Act or the Statute of Westminster 1931 can be amended or repealed as part of

7950-465: The more province-friendly Progressive Conservatives would win the coming federal election . In that campaign, the Liberals ran on constitutional change, including a speech at Maple Leaf Gardens in which Trudeau promised unilateral action if the premiers did not agree to patriation. Patriation was given a new impetus after the 1980 referendum on Quebec independence , before which Trudeau promised

8056-559: The motion is "That this bill be now read a second time and be referred to [name of committee]" and for third reading "That this bill be now read a third time and pass." In the Committee stage, each clause is called and motions for amendments to these clauses, or that the clause stand part of the bill are made. In the Report stage, the debate is on the motions for specific amendments. Once a bill has passed both Houses in an identical form, it

8162-426: The parliamentary session in which they were passed, with each individual act being identified by year and chapter number. Descriptive titles began to be added to the enrolled acts by the official clerks, as a reference aid; over time, titles came to be included within the text of each bill. Since the mid-nineteenth century, it has also become common practice for acts to have a short title , as a convenient alternative to

8268-460: The population demanded them within the two years. This prompted Lévesque to back away from the referendum proposal, saying it looked as though it was "written in Chinese." The conference descended again into acrimony, with Trudeau and Lévesque angrily clashing over language rights. Trudeau announced that he would attend one final meeting at 9am the following day and head to Westminster if agreement

8374-533: The premiers and the leak of the Kirby Memo by an "internal federal source", which antagonized Quebec, the premiers consulted at the Chateau Laurier and drafted a list of 10 powers to be devolved to the provinces in exchange for consent to patriation. Trudeau, when presented with the document, refused to accept it and reiterated his threat that he would seek the House of Commons' approval to proceed with

8480-535: The premiers' breakfast and was told the agreement had been reached. Lévesque refused to give his support to the deal and left the meeting; the government of Quebec subsequently announced on November 25, 1981, that it would veto the decision. However, both the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which issued its ruling on the matter on December 6, 1982, stated that Quebec had never held such veto powers. The events were divisive. Quebec nationalists saw

8586-476: The premiers' breakfast meeting saw two new proposals floated: The Premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney , would accept a charter without language rights and constitutional amendment by any seven provinces, regardless of population and the removal of financial compensation, while Bennett would allow Trudeau his language rights provisions in exchange for other considerations. Lyon and Lévesque were angered and refused to go along, with Lougheed successfully suggesting

8692-560: The presence in the National Archives of Canada of the Kitchen Accord leaves no doubt about its existence and it was one of several crucial linkages in the patriation negotiations. With the agreement of the majority of provincial governments, the federal government moved to implement the patriation package. Joint resolutions of the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate requested that the Queen cause to be introduced in

8798-509: The press to now call the opposition premiers the Gang of Eight . Trudeau rejected the proposed document out of hand and again threatened to take the case for patriation straight to the British Parliament "[without] bothering to ask one premier." The federal Cabinet and Crown counsel took the position that if the British Crown—in Council, in Parliament, and on the bench—was to exercise its residual sovereignty over Canada, it did so at

8904-402: The proposal to Cabinet, some ministers suggested using the manoeuvre to increase federal power over the economy, but Trudeau demurred, replying "we shouldn't upset the balance". On October 2, 1980, he announced on national television his intention to proceed with unilateral patriation in what he termed the "people's package". The proposal would request patriation from the UK Parliament, as well as

9010-472: The provincial opposition would make the legislation controversial in Parliament. Trudeau announced his belief that the premiers were dealing in bad faith and met with his caucus to propose a new course. After offering a wide range of options and proposing full reform, a Quebec MP shouted " Allons-y en Cadillac! " (translated by Trudeau to mean "let's go first class ... be liberal to the end ... not to temper our convictions with political expediency"). Taking

9116-420: The recent referendum he initiated on Quebec's independence), but confident he could ensure any referendum on a charter would fail, agreed in principle. Trudeau promptly announced a "Canada–Quebec alliance" on the issue to the press, stating " the cat is among the pigeons ." The other seven opposition premiers were startled: Campaigning against the protection of rights was generally seen as political suicide and

9222-457: The reference, appearing in the long title and preamble to the Commonwealth version but not present in the UK version, to Australia as "a sovereign, independent and federal nation". The High Court in Sue v Hill in 1999 did not rely upon the long title or the preamble, which conventionally do not have force of law. But it decided that the effect of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) was that, at least from

9328-513: The request of the federal ministers of the Crown only. Further, officials in the United Kingdom indicated that the British Parliament was under no obligation to fulfill any request for legal changes made by Trudeau, particularly if Canadian convention was not being followed. The British Commons Foreign Affairs Committee drafted a report in January 1981 stating it would be wrong for the Parliament of

9434-559: The same moment in both countries. She assented to the Australia Act 1986 (UK) on 17 February 1986 and on 24 February proclaimed that it would come into force at 05:00 Greenwich Mean Time ( Coordinated Universal Time ) on 3 March. Then, visiting Australia , at a ceremony held in Government House, Canberra , on 2 March 1986 the Queen signed a proclamation that the Australia Act (Cth) would come into force at 05:00 GMT on 3 March. Thus, according to both UK law and Australian law,

9540-477: The same version of the bill. Finally, the approved bill receives assent; in most territories this is merely a formality and is often a function exercised by the head of state . In some countries, such as in France, Belgium, Luxembourg , Spain and Portugal, the term for a bill differs depending on whether it is initiated by the government (when it is known as a "draft"), or by the parliament (a "proposition", i.e.,

9646-477: The sometimes lengthy main titles. The Short Titles Act 1892 , and its replacement the Short Titles Act 1896 , gave short titles to many acts which previously lacked them. The numerical citation of acts has also changed over time. The original method was based on the regnal year (or years) in which the relevant parliamentary session met. This has been replaced in most territories by simple reference to

9752-422: The state (s 3). State laws would no longer be subject to disallowance and reservation by the monarch (s 8) – a power that, anomalously, remains for Commonwealth legislation (Constitution ss 59 and 60). Similarly, the Australia Act removed the power of the British government to be involved in the governing of an Australian state (ss 7 and 10). Specifically, only the state premier could now advise

9858-433: The two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state . The acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986. According to the long title of the Australian act, its purpose was "to bring constitutional arrangements affecting

9964-535: The two versions of the Australia Act would commence simultaneously—the UK version at 05:00 GMT in the UK and, according to the time difference, the Australian version at 16:00 AEDT in Canberra. The ceremony was presided over by the Australian prime minister, Bob Hawke , to whom the Queen presented the signed copy of the proclamation, along with the assent original of the UK Act. The Australia Act ended all power of

10070-482: The various colonies and presented to the British government for embodiment in UK legislation, was that there was to be no appeal from the High Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution or of the constitution of a state, unless it involved the interests of some other dominion. However, the British insisted on a compromise. Section 74 of

10176-573: The whole of the UK or a number of its constituent countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Private acts are local and personal in their effect, giving special powers to bodies such as local authorities or making exceptions to the law in particular geographic areas. In the United Kingdom Parliament, each bill passes through the following stages: In the Scottish Parliament, bills pass through

10282-531: Was almost never exercised. For example, in a referendum on secession in Western Australia in April 1933, 68% of voters favoured seceding from Australia and becoming a separate dominion. The state government sent a delegation to Westminster to request that this result be enacted into law, but the British government refused to intervene on the grounds that this was a matter for the Australian government. As

10388-467: Was coined in Canada as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to one's country). Prior to 1982, power to amend the Canadian constitution was held by the Parliament of the United Kingdom (subject in some respects to request and consent from Canada); hence some have felt that the term patriation was more suitable than the term repatriation (returning something). The term was first used in 1966 by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in response to

10494-565: Was growing tenuous, even with the support he had, accepted. Thus, working with the draft proposal created by the Newfoundland delegation, the six groups worked through the night to prepare the compromise proposal. This period would be called the Kitchen Accord ; the men at the table that night became known as the Kitchen Cabinet . In exchange for agreeing to the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause, Trudeau declined to remove

10600-470: Was necessary because, at the time, under the Statute of Westminster, 1931 , and with Canada's agreement, the British Parliament retained the power to amend Canada's British North America Acts and to enact, more generally, for Canada at the request and with the consent of the Dominion. That authority was removed from the UK by the enactment of the Canada Act, 1982 , on March 29, 1982, by

10706-403: Was not defined and commentators later criticized the court's failure to rule that the approval of all provinces was required. The decision was controversial and a loss for the premiers. Lévesque would later remark, "in other words, Trudeau's goals might be unconstitutional, illegitimate, and even 'go against the principles of federalism', but they were legal!" Trudeau, in his memoirs, paraphrased

10812-612: Was not part of the settlement. Quebec sovereigntists have, since 1982, demanded that the Queen or another member of the Canadian Royal Family apologize for the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 , calling the event a part of a "cultural genocide of francophones in North America over the last 400 years". In 2002, Premier of Quebec Bernard Landry directed the executive council and lieutenant governor not to recognise Elizabeth's golden jubilee in protest of

10918-558: Was not reached. Peckford announced that Newfoundland would forward a proposal the next day. Lévesque and the Quebec delegation went to sleep in Hull, Quebec , for the night. That afternoon—November 4, 1981—the Minister of Justice , Jean Chrétien , met with Attorney General of Saskatchewan Roy Romanow and Attorney General of Ontario Roy McMurtry in the kitchen of Ottawa's Government Conference Centre . The attorneys general discussed

11024-458: Was only because it was largely similar to the Kitchen Accord, which had already been developed and agreed to by the governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan and was known to the federal government. Further, Peckford played only a minor role that evening, entering later, with the majority of the negotiating being done by Blakeney and Davis. Leeson concluded that Davis and Lougheed were the most important players in securing an agreement. In his opinion,

11130-514: Was succeeded by Pierre Trudeau , who also advocated patriation. He made several attempts, including the Victoria Charter in 1971 and more proposed amendments in 1978. At the 1978–1979 conference, Trudeau prepared for the first time to provide some federal concessions with regard to the division of powers, including family law, fisheries, and resources. However, the other premiers balked, which led to speculation they were waiting to see if

11236-524: Was taken in Sue v Hill by three members of the High Court, supported with misgivings by one other member. One of those who did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this point, Justice Michael Kirby , was in a later case to deliver a dissent in which he argued that section 6 of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) was invalid. Section 106 of the Constitution guarantees that a state constitution may be altered only in accordance with its own provisions, hence not by

#760239