{"id":1041,"date":"2020-03-03T22:39:57","date_gmt":"2020-03-03T14:39:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth"},"modified":"2023-03-06T06:45:11","modified_gmt":"2023-03-05T22:45:11","slug":"aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered ‘aliens’ within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution<\/em> and are therefore beyond Parliament\u2019s legislative competence under that section. <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs, Mr Thoms and Mr Love, who are of Aboriginal\ndescent, were born overseas and lived in Australia as non-citizens. They were\nboth convicted of violent assaults and subject to visa cancellation by the\nDepartment of Home Affairs for failing the character test under s 501 of\nthe Migration Act 1958 <\/em>(Cth). Mr Thoms was found to be an indigenous\nAustralian under the law and was released from immigration detention whereas\nthe question of Mr Love\u2019s indigeneity was referred to the Federal Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision is evidently contentious, with every judge of the High Court espousing distinct reasoning for their conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the outcome of Love v Commonwealth<\/em> receiving significant coverage in the media, Thomson Reuters sat down with Justice Geoffrey Flick of the Federal Court and Senior Lawyer Allan Flick, joint authors of High Court Practice<\/a><\/em>, and Alexander Flecknoe-Brown, Barrister and author of the Federal Circuit Court Guidebook<\/a><\/em>, to discuss the implications and potential effects of Love v Commonwealth<\/em> [2020] HCA 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practitioners most affected by Love v Commonwealth<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Justice Flick and Allan, who are subjects matter experts on Constitutional\nlaw, consider that the immediate consequences of the decision are likely to arise\nin migration law, and stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe immediate practical consequence of the judgment is that s 51(xix)\ndoes not provide a basis for an exercise of legislative power that purports to\napply to non-citizen Aboriginal Australians by virtue of their lack of\ncitizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That question will most immediately arise in decisions made under the Migration Act 1958<\/em> (Cth). But the manner in which the decision may be sought to be applied in other legislative contexts remains uncertain.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alexander Flecknoe-Brown pointed out that there are also implications for native title practitioners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo doubt native title practitioners will also be aware of the decision, but less because of the specific issue (ability to deport persons who are Aboriginal in law) than with the High Court\u2019s consideration of the 3-part Mabo<\/em> test\u2026One consequence of that consideration is to return attention to how best to describe the composition of a native title claim group (or holders)\u201d<\/p>– Alexander Flecknoe-Brown, Barrister and author of the Federal Circuit Court Guidebook<\/a><\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Principles of constitutional interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The decision of Love v Commonwealth<\/em> is primarily concerned with constitutional limits<\/a> on legislative power. Justice Flick and Allan observe that the case serves to clarify the limit of the \u201caliens\u201d power with regard to Aboriginal Australians:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs Chief Justice Kiefel states at [5], it is now regarded as settled that it is for Parliament, relying on s 51(xix), to create and define the concept of Australian citizenship and its antonym, alienage. The decision does not alter that position, save as to provide clarity that Aboriginal Australians are not aliens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, both authors added that that while the High\nCourt appears to accept that legislative power under s 51(xix) is not\nunqualified, as a consequence of the differing judgments, the limits thereto\nremain uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is a tension between two\nsettled principles \u2026 [first], that the power conferred by s 51(xix) is a\nwide power enabling Parliament to determine who will be admitted to formal\nmembership of the Australian community, and [secondly, that] Parliament\u2019s power\nto decide who will be an alien must be exercised within the limits of that\nconcept.\u201d (citing Gleeson CJ and Heydon J in Koroitamana v\nCommonwealth of Australia<\/em> (2006) 227 CLR 31; 80 ALJR 1146; [2006] HCA 28 at\n[11])<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court has resolved this tension with respect to Aboriginal Australians for the purposes of s 51(xix). The tension is unresolved in other areas,\u201d said Justice Flick and Allan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alexander maintains that there may be broader effects on future constitutional interpretation<\/a>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe decision identifies one kind of case in which a constitutional concept, although generally susceptible of legislative definition, contains an \u2018irreducible minimum\u2019 (or perhaps an insuperable maximum) which Parliament cannot alter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the practice of defining\nan irreducible minimum is well-established, Love <\/em>may signify a greater\nwillingness by the Court as currently composed to give positive content to\nconstitutional expressions, where the current Justices\u2019 predecessors preferred\na more elusive incremental approach,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Race-based limitation\u2019 on legislative power<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Alexander recognises that in one view the case may be interpreted as creating a “race-based limitation on legislative power” but dismisses this as invalid legal criticism:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is concerning that the\nexpression \u2018race-based limitation on legislative power\u2019 might be used in some\nquarters as a pejorative expression, implicitly denigrating the decision as \u2018reverse\nracism\u2019\u2026 as well as presupposing that more legislative power is necessarily\nbetter. Both of those points represent political perspectives, but not a valid\ncritique of the legal reasoning in Love<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also observed that Love v Commonwealth<\/em> has raised\nquestions regarding the status of indigenous Australians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is clear enough that not\neveryone agrees that people who are in law indigenous (in the Mabo <\/em>sense)\nought to be immune from deportation. But clearly enough, further consideration\nis warranted in relation to how indigeneity intersects with Australian\ncitizenship, and how it should be taken into account in the exercise of a wider\nrange of governmental powers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Flick and Allan\nconsider that the decision itself does not lead to a race-based limitation on\nlegislative power and note the call of the Chief Justice as to the proper role\nof the judiciary. However, they accept that there may be a possibility of\nfuture litigation founded on such an argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhilst the decision may have far-reaching consequences for constitutional interpretation and may not result in a race-based limitation on legislative power on the approach pursued by the majority, the prospect of future litigation founded upon such a limitation cannot be summarily discounted. This is not, however, to say that the decision provides the basis for such hypothetical litigation”<\/p>– Justice Geoffrey Flick of the Federal Court and Senior Lawyer Allan Flick, joint authors of High Court Practice<\/a><\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Effecting deportations under a separate head of power<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Attorney-General Christian Porter has discussed the\npossibility of effecting deportations of indigenous Australians under a\nseparate head of legislative power. Alexander maintains that Love v\nCommonwealth <\/em>may still apply in such a context:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cGageler J (dissenting)\nsuggested that Parliament might revert \u2018to the approach of relying on the power\nconferred by s 51(xxvii) to make laws with respect to \u2018immigration and\nemigration\u2019. Alternatively, the Commonwealth Parliament might consider itself\nobliged to address them through racially targeted legislation enacted under s 51(xxvi)\u2019\n(at [140]). Nettle J (at [256]) and Gordon J (at [325]) made some\noblique references to the same power, although the sense one gathers from their\nHonours\u2019 reasons might be that the same limitation would apply to that power as\nwell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Love<\/em> will have created a \u2018negative\nimplication\u2019 operating as a freestanding constitutional guarantee, rather like\nthe guarantee of just terms for acquisitions of property under s 51(xxxi)\n(see Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally<\/em> (1999) 198 CLR 511; 73 ALJR 839; [1999]\nHCA 27 at [124]),\u201d he explained. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The future of Love v Commonwealth<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Alexander stressed\nto Legal Insight<\/em> that there is no telling whether the decision will be\nupheld or departed from if ever revisited by the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt may well depend on the composition of the Court at the time\n(noting that two members of the majority, Bell and Nettle JJ, will retire\nwithin the next two years). However, as with Al-Kateb v Godwin<\/em> (2004) 219\nCLR 562; 78 ALJR 1099; [2004] HCA 37, it may well be that there is no future\nopportunity to reopen and overturn the decision as such; it may simply be\nrefined or distinguished, thereby progressively diminishing in relevance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Flick and Allan\nhighlighted the potential for further complexity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhilst it is trite to acknowledge the differences between the\nreasons published by each member of the High Court, those differences in\nreasoning, and the lack of a single unified approach to resolving the\naforementioned tension [between the principles that Parliament has power to\ndetermine who is an alien, and that such power needs to be exercised within the\nlimits of the concept of “alien”], may have significant and\nfar-reaching consequences from the perspective of constitutional interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Justice Geoffrey Flick<\/strong>: The Hon Geoffrey A Flick is a\nJudge of the Federal Court of Australia and has an extensive background in all\nareas of federal law. He was admitted to the bar in 1974 and took silk in 1993.\nHe has practised widely in most jurisdictions and extensively in the Federal\nCourt since its inception. Justice Flick has also written widely, particularly\non many aspects of administrative law, including Thomson Reuters\u2019 subscription\nservices High Court Practice<\/em> and Federal Court Practice<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allan Flick<\/strong>: Allan Flick is a Senior Lawyer at\nClayton Utz. He specialises in commercial dispute resolution, with experience\nin a diverse range of dispute processes under both international and local\nlaws, including complex commercial litigation, international arbitration and\nalternative dispute resolution, and extending to environmental and wildlife\nlaws. He has recently begun writing for Thomson Reuters\u2019 subscription service High\nCourt Practice<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alexander Flecknoe-Brown<\/strong>: Alexander Flecknoe-Brown is\na Barrister practicing in commercial and public law, having worked on numerous\nmatters raising constitutional issues, including on several occasions in the\nHigh Court. He is regularly briefed in judicial and merits review proceedings\nin the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit Court, the New South Wales Supreme\nCourt, and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. He writes for Thomson\nReuters\u2019 subscription service Federal Circuit Court Guidebook<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered ‘aliens’ within the meaning of s 51(xix) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"featured_media":1043,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[606,647,610],"tags":[],"insight_job_role":[569,572],"insight_practice_area":[584],"class_list":["entry","author-cindywyn","has-excerpt","post-1041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-legal-commentary-and-opinion","category-legal-research","category-legislation-and-case-law","insight_job_role-academic","insight_job_role-barrister","insight_practice_area-criminal-law","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered 'aliens'. We interviewed experts on the issue.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered 'aliens'. We interviewed experts on the issue.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"TR - Legal Insight Hong Kong\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-03-03T14:39:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-03-05T22:45:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2121\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1414\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#\/schema\/person\/5f66273977913ddd9c30e81be02dd9fb\"},\"headline\":\"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-03-03T14:39:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-03-05T22:45:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\"},\"wordCount\":1598,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Legal Commentary and Opinion\",\"Legal Research\",\"Legislation and Case Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\",\"name\":\"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-03-03T14:39:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-03-05T22:45:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#\/schema\/person\/5f66273977913ddd9c30e81be02dd9fb\"},\"description\":\"On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered 'aliens'. We interviewed experts on the issue.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg\",\"width\":2121,\"height\":1414,\"caption\":\"\u2018Aliens\u2019, indigenous Australians and the Constitution: experts discuss Love v Commonwealth\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/\",\"name\":\"TR - Legal Insight Hong Kong\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#\/schema\/person\/5f66273977913ddd9c30e81be02dd9fb\",\"name\":\"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7542a620cde3b3c805611388a9b29db656522d8cb01a1d6dca9f0660459ea25?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7542a620cde3b3c805611388a9b29db656522d8cb01a1d6dca9f0660459ea25?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7542a620cde3b3c805611388a9b29db656522d8cb01a1d6dca9f0660459ea25?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong\"},\"description\":\"Wyn is an experienced Senior Product Editor in the Analytical Law Team at Thomson Reuters with a long history of working in the information services industry. She holds a Bachelor of Media and a Postgraduate Certificate in TESOL from Macquarie University. In her years with Thomson Reuters, she has worked on numerous publications in both Primary Law and Secondary Sources and is at present, nurturing multiple subscription services including Uniform Evidence Law, Indictable Offences Queensland and Victorian Courts. Prior to joining Thomson Reuters, she worked for Pan Macmillan Australia at the Macquarie Dictionary and taught English as a Second Language and Academic English at Macquarie University. Cindy is a Legal Portfolio Editor in the Analytical Law Team at Thomson Reuters and manages a range of subscription products including High Court Practice and the Federal Circuit Court Guidebook. She holds Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts degrees from the Australian National University, having studied an English major and Chinese Language minor. She worked for two years as a Legal Consultant and subsequently as a Legal Copywriter prior to joining Thomson Reuters.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/contributors\/cindywyn\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth","description":"On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered 'aliens'. We interviewed experts on the issue.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth","og_description":"On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered 'aliens'. We interviewed experts on the issue.","og_url":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth","og_site_name":"TR - Legal Insight Hong Kong","article_published_time":"2020-03-03T14:39:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-03-05T22:45:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2121,"height":1414,"url":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth"},"author":{"name":"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#\/schema\/person\/5f66273977913ddd9c30e81be02dd9fb"},"headline":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth","datePublished":"2020-03-03T14:39:57+00:00","dateModified":"2023-03-05T22:45:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth"},"wordCount":1598,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg","articleSection":["Legal Commentary and Opinion","Legal Research","Legislation and Case Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth","url":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth","name":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg","datePublished":"2020-03-03T14:39:57+00:00","dateModified":"2023-03-05T22:45:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#\/schema\/person\/5f66273977913ddd9c30e81be02dd9fb"},"description":"On 11 February, the High Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that indigenous Australians cannot be considered 'aliens'. We interviewed experts on the issue.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2\/files\/sites\/22\/2021\/03\/GettyImages-181071599.jpg","width":2121,"height":1414,"caption":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, indigenous Australians and the Constitution: experts discuss Love v Commonwealth"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/posts\/aliens-indigenous-australians-and-the-constitution-experts-discuss-love-v-commonwealth#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Aliens\u2019, Indigenous Australians and the Constitution: Examining Love v Commonwealth"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#website","url":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/","name":"TR - Legal Insight Hong Kong","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/#\/schema\/person\/5f66273977913ddd9c30e81be02dd9fb","name":"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7542a620cde3b3c805611388a9b29db656522d8cb01a1d6dca9f0660459ea25?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7542a620cde3b3c805611388a9b29db656522d8cb01a1d6dca9f0660459ea25?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7542a620cde3b3c805611388a9b29db656522d8cb01a1d6dca9f0660459ea25?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Cindy Cameronne and Wyn Diong"},"description":"Wyn is an experienced Senior Product Editor in the Analytical Law Team at Thomson Reuters with a long history of working in the information services industry. She holds a Bachelor of Media and a Postgraduate Certificate in TESOL from Macquarie University. In her years with Thomson Reuters, she has worked on numerous publications in both Primary Law and Secondary Sources and is at present, nurturing multiple subscription services including Uniform Evidence Law, Indictable Offences Queensland and Victorian Courts. Prior to joining Thomson Reuters, she worked for Pan Macmillan Australia at the Macquarie Dictionary and taught English as a Second Language and Academic English at Macquarie University. Cindy is a Legal Portfolio Editor in the Analytical Law Team at Thomson Reuters and manages a range of subscription products including High Court Practice and the Federal Circuit Court Guidebook. She holds Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts degrees from the Australian National University, having studied an English major and Chinese Language minor. She worked for two years as a Legal Consultant and subsequently as a Legal Copywriter prior to joining Thomson Reuters.","url":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/contributors\/cindywyn"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1041","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1041\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1043"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1041"},{"taxonomy":"insight_job_role","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight_job_role?post=1041"},{"taxonomy":"insight_practice_area","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.hk\/legal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight_practice_area?post=1041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}