原文：

Australia Act 1986

The Australia Act 1986 is the name given to a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. While each Act gives its short title as "Australia Act 1986", 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 the two parliaments, to come into effect simultaneously, because of uncertainty as to which of the two parliaments had the ultimate authority to do so.

The Australia Act (Cth and UK) eliminated the remaining possibilities for the UK 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.

UK and Australian legislation

The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 by federation of six British colonies, each of which became a State. The Commonwealth Constitution provided for a Commonwealth Parliament, with legislative power on a range of specified topics, leaving the residue of legislative power to the States. That constitution was (and still is) contained in a British statute. Australia remained a self-governing colony; the United Kingdom Parliament retained full, ultimate legislative power with regard to Australia.

The UK Parliament's power to legislate with effect for the Commonwealth itself was mostly ended with the Statute of Westminster 1931, when adopted by Australia in 1942. 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. 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.

The Australia Act ended all power of 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 the State (s 3). State laws would no longer be subject to disallowance or suspension by the Queen (s 8) – a power that, anomalously, remains for Commonwealth legislation (Constitution ss 59 and 60).

Government in Australian states

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 the Queen on appointment or removal of a State Governor. Nonetheless, the Queen could still exercise any of her powers with respect to the State if she was "personally present" in the State.

Appeals to the Privy Council

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 presented to the British government for embodiment in UK legislation had provided that the High Court would be Australia's final court of appeal. However, the British obtained a compromise. Constitution s 74 provided two possibilities of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council. There could be an appeal if the High Court issued a certificate that the matter was "inter se", i.e. that it concerned constitutional relations between the Commonwealth and one more States or between one or more States. And there could be an appeal with permission of 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 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 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 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.

Constitution s 74 has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation. 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.

Passage and proclamation of the Act

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 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 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. Queen Elizabeth II assented to the Australia Act 1986 (UK) on 7 February 1986. 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 5 am Greenwich Mean Time on the following day. She presented Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke with the signed copy of the proclamation, as well as the Assent original of the UK Act .

At the time, the Commonwealth, State and UK Acts were known as the "Australia Acts". However, the State Acts have performed their function and the expression "Australia Act(s)" is now used to refer only to the Commonwealth and UK Acts.

The Act and Australian independence

The principal difference between the Commonwealth and UK versions of the Australia Act lies in 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". While this might be understood as a declaration of independence, it can also be understood as an acknowledgement that Australia was already independent, leaving open the question of when independence had been attained. There is no earlier declaration or grant of independence.

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 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.

That view was taken in Sue v Hill by three members of the 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 the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) was invalid. Constitution s 106 guarantees that a State constitution may be altered only in accordance with its own provisions, hence not by 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's view in Marquet (2003), this was inconsistent with Constitution s 106, so that the Australia Act (Cth) was not a valid exercise of Commonwealth legislative power. A majority, however, thought that it was sufficient that 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.

Soon afterwards, however, in Shaw (2003), the whole Court (including Kirby) took a more comprehensive view: that the Australia Act in its two versions, together with the State request and consent legislation, amounted to establishing Australian independence at the date when the Australia Act (Cth) came into operation, 3 March 1986.

译文：

澳洲法案

澳洲法案指的是一对分开但又相联系的法律法规：第一个是澳大利亚联邦议会法案，另一个是英国议会法案。尽管两者都将自己简称为“澳洲法案”，但是在澳大利亚，它们分别被叫做澳洲法案(Cth)和澳洲法案(UK)。这两个几乎相同的法案由两个议会通过，并同时生效，因为不知道哪个议会有最终的决定权。

澳洲法案消除了一些残留的可能性，如英国的立法还对澳大利亚有影响，如英国和澳大利亚政府还有牵连以及从澳大利亚法庭到英国法庭的上诉。

英国和澳大利亚的立法

澳大利亚联邦于1901年成立，由英国的6个殖民地组成，每个殖民地为一个州。联邦宪法为联邦议会所用，其法律效应涵盖一系列特定的话题，其余的法律权力留给各州自己。该宪法目前仍包含于英国的法律规章内。澳大利亚则保持为一个自治区；英国议会对澳大利亚有着最终的立法权。

1942年，澳大利亚采纳了1931威斯敏斯特法案，至此，英国议会不再对联邦有立法权。该法案支持英国的法案不再对其自治领域生效，除非法案中显示声明该自治区要求并服从它。然而这个法案只对适用于澳大利亚联邦的部分法案有效，而对澳大利亚各州的法案则无约束力。

澳洲法案终结了英国议会对澳大利亚的所有立法权-即各州各区服从于澳大利亚联邦法律。反过来说即未来没有哪个州的法律因为违法英国的法律而变得无效；各州有权废止或修订现今英国在该州的法律。女王如今也无法干涉各州的法律了-女王在联邦立法中的权力是反常的。

澳大利亚政府

类似的，澳洲法案移除了英国政府对澳大利亚政府在管理上的影响。特别的是，现在只有国家首相才可以建议女王对政府官员的任命和罢免。然而，只要女王地位还在，那么她就可以在尊重国家的情况下使用其相应的权力。

给枢密院的上诉

在1901年的联邦，各殖民地的最高法院组成了国家的最高法院。1903年，澳大利亚高级法院成立，它的作用之一就是倾听来自国家最高法院的上诉。在提交给英国政府嵌入英国法律中的宪法草案里，有说明高级法院将是澳大利亚上诉的最终法院。然而英国却达成了妥协。宪法第74章为上诉从高级法院转到枢密院提供了两种可能性。第一种是高级法院证明给案子是相互关联的，即在联邦和一个或多个国家之间有宪法关联。另一种是枢密院允许了的上诉。联邦议会有权立法来限制后者的范围，在1968年和1975年就曾这样做过，但立法仅仅是限制它，而不能废除。

一般高级法院是不情愿为那些提交给枢密院的上诉提供证据的。这只在1912年做过一次。1961年，首席法官Owen Dixon先生代表法庭判断一份证明申请表无效：“经验表明-当第74章制定的时候，这些经验是人们所预期的-只有那些在联邦宪法下行事的人才有资格来解释和应用其条款。”1985年，高级法院一致认为授权这样一个证书的权力使用的已经太久了，它已经过时了。

尽管从高级法院到枢密院的上诉途径受堵，但高级法院不能阻碍从国家最高法院直接到枢密院的上诉。宪法也没有进行限制或提供立法来限制这样的上诉。在伦敦任何花在到枢密院的上诉都是制止的：每年这样的花费都很少。然而到1980年，从国家最高法院来的上诉已经被认为是落伍了。

此外，1978年，高级法院宣布它不再受枢密院的约束，这引起了人们关于高级法院和枢密院先例性价值的一些困惑。

宪法第74章没有被修订，宪法也不能被立法所修订。但澳洲法案尽量朝着立法靠近，使得第74章成为一纸空文。因此，实际上澳洲法案已经消除了到枢密院上诉的途径。

法案的内容与声明

要想修改联邦和各国的宪法，那么各国的议会就得要先通过自己的立法。这些国家法案长长的标题就是“一个使得澳大利亚联邦受到影响的法案，它使得各州成为一个整体-澳大利亚联邦-是一个独立有主权的联邦国家。”各州法案的内容部分阐述了各州的义务与权力，在这两个版本的法案里都一样。

澳大利亚首席长官Ninian Stephen先生于1985年12月4号以女王陛下的名义同意了澳洲法案澳洲版的实施。伊丽莎白二世女王于1986年2月7号同意了澳洲法案英国版的实施。1986年3月2号，女王拜访澳大利亚，在堪培拉政府大厦举行了欢迎仪式，女王签署了一项声明-澳洲法案澳洲版将在第二天格林威治时间上午5点生效。她将该份声明的复印件及澳洲法案英国版允许书的原版交给了澳大利亚总理Bob Hawke。

从那时起，澳洲法案指代的就是联邦、州和英国法案。但，州法案有着自己的功能故澳洲法案用来指代联邦和英国法案。

法案与澳大利亚的独立

澳洲法案两个版本间的主要区别在于出现在两个法案里标题和序言的参考的不同，“澳大利亚作为一个有着独立主权的联邦国家”出现在澳洲版里，但不在英国版里。尽管这或许被理解为作为一种独立的声明，但它也会被当作一种承认-即澳大利亚已经独立，问题是独立是否已经取得了。没有更早的关于独立的声明和准予。

1999年高级法院在一件诉讼案子里并没有依赖其标题和序言，它们没有法律约束力。但它对澳洲法案有着这样的效果-从法案生效后，英国成为宪法规定中的外部力量，从而那些有着英国国籍的议员候选人就没有资格成为联邦议员的一名了。

这个观点在上述的案子里被法院的三个成员采用，另外一名成员则有所担忧。法官Michael Kirby是那些认为没必要基于上述观点表达看法的人中的一名，他在后来的一件案子里表达了他的不同意，他认为澳大利亚法案澳洲版是不合理的。宪法第106章保证一个州的宪法只有在服从自己的条款的情况才可以被修改，因此不能被联邦议会更改。然而，两种版本的澳洲法案都包含对昆士兰州和西澳大利亚宪法的修订。在Kirby看来，这是和宪法第106条不一致的，所以澳洲法案澳洲版并不是联邦立法权的一个合理运用。但大多数人认为它已经足够了，因为法案是按照宪法第51章通过的，这给了联邦议会可以根据州议会的要求进行立法的权力。

很快，在Shaw，所有的法院达成了一个更全面的认识：两个版本的澳洲法案和各州请求与同意的立法一起在1986年3月3号澳洲法案澳洲版生效这一天宣示了澳大利亚的独立。