Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013

Request mechanism under section 51(xxxviii). This is the central constitutional concept. The Australian Constitution confers on the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws “with respect to the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia.” Royal succession is not listed in the Commonwealth’s ordinary legislative powers; before federation it was a matter solely for the UK Parliament. To enable the Commonwealth to validly amend succession law for Australia, the states must each request the legislation. This Act is Victoria’s request. Without it, any Commonwealth Act on succession would be constitutionally invalid for exceeding legislative power. The concept is unusual in modern Australian practice; cooperative federalism usually operates through referral of powers under section 51(xxxvii) (which requires a state to refer a matter to the Commonwealth) or through uniform complementary legislation. Section 51(xxxviii) is rarely used. The Act also binds the Commonwealth Act to the terms set out in Schedule 1, or substantially those terms, meaning the Commonwealth cannot go beyond what the states requested.

Gender-neutral succession. The core substantive change is that succession to the Crown no longer depends on gender for persons born after 28 October 2011 (by UK time). Previously, male children took precedence over female children in the line of succession (male primogeniture). This concept, sometimes called absolute primogeniture, means that the eldest child, regardless of sex, inherits the throne. The Act itself does not enact this rule; it requests the Commonwealth to do so (section 6 of the Commonwealth Act in Schedule 1). But the Victorian Act’s purpose (section 1) and object (section 3) explicitly embrace the change.

Removal of disqualification for marrying a Roman Catholic. The old rule, derived from the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, provided that any person who married a Roman Catholic was disqualified from succession. That disqualification is removed by the requested Commonwealth Act (section 7). The removal applies retrospectively to marriages before commencement if the person is still alive at that commencement. The Victorian Act’s consequential amendments (Schedule 2) remove references to “marrying a papist” from the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 and from the Crimes Act 1958 reference to treason.

Repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and validation of void marriages. That old Act required descendants of George II to obtain the Sovereign’s consent to marry, or else the marriage was void. The requested Commonwealth Act (Schedule 1, Part 2) repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772 as part of Australian law. It also validates marriages that were void under that Act, but only where: (a) neither party was one of the six persons next in line to the Crown at the time; (b) no consent was sought or notice given; (c) it was reasonable for the person not to have known the Act applied; and (d) no person had acted on the basis the marriage was void before commencement. Importantly, this validation operates for all purposes except succession to the Crown. So a validated marriage may confer property or inheritance rights but cannot affect the line of succession.

Continuity of the Sovereign. The Victorian Act and the requested Commonwealth Act both contain provisions stating that they do not affect the relationship between the Sovereign and the respective polities. This concept preserves the constitutional position of the Crown as head of state and the existing reservation of powers, and ensures that the changes are limited to succession rules only.

This Act directly affects only a very small number of persons: those in the line of succession to the Australian Crown, and persons who married under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and whose marriages were voided. However, because the line of succession is identical for all Commonwealth realms, the practical effect is on the entire British royal family and their descendants. The Act does not affect ordinary citizens, businesses, or public officers in their daily functions.

Persons who were born before 28 October 2011 are not affected by the gender-neutral rule; their succession rights remain unchanged. Persons born after that date benefit from the removal of male preference. The Act also affects persons who had previously been disqualified by marrying a Roman Catholic. For living persons, that disqualification is retroactively removed. The number of such individuals is small (historically, the disqualification was rarely triggered).

Those who contracted a marriage void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and who meet the four conditions for validation (section 9 of the Commonwealth Act schedule) are affected in their property and family law rights, but not for succession purposes. For example, a marriage that was void may now be treated as valid for inheritance and spousal entitlements, but it does not alter who is in line for the throne.

The Victorian Act also affects anyone who relies on the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 or the Crimes Act 1958 treason provisions, because it removes gender-specific language and references to papist disqualifications. In practice, those provisions are rarely litigated, but the amendment ensures consistency with the new succession rules.

Importantly, the Act does not affect the relationship between the Sovereign and the State of Victoria. It does not change the Sovereign’s powers, prerogatives, or constitutional role. It does not affect the appointment of the Governor, the exercise of royal assent, or the operation of reserve powers. The Act is not intended to alter the constitutional fabric, only the method of determining who occupies the throne.

From an economic standpoint, there is no compliance burden on any industry. No regulatory filings are required. No costs are imposed on private enterprise. The Act does not create new rights or duties for ordinary persons. It is a rare example of legislation that has negligible economic impact while being constitutionally significant.

The Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013 does not impose any duties on individuals. It is an Act addressed to the Commonwealth Parliament (the request) and to the courts and officials who apply Victorian law (interpretive and consequential provisions). There are no obligations to register, report, or act.

The rights created are indirect. By facilitating the removal of gender-based precedence, the Act grants persons born after 28 October 2011 the right to succeed in order of birth rather than by sex. Similarly, by removing the disqualification for marrying a Roman Catholic, it grants persons otherwise eligible the right to succeed despite such a marriage. However, these rights are conferred by the Commonwealth Act, not by this Victorian Act. The Victorian Act only creates the constitutional conditions for those rights to be validly established.

The consequential amendments in Schedule 2 create a duty on anyone interpreting or applying Victorian law to read references to “son” in the treason provision (Crimes Act s 9A) as “child”. That is not a duty on citizens but on legal interpreters. The amendment to the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 effectively removes outdated text from the statutory book, again a matter for legislative drafters and courts.

Section 7 of the Act creates a mandatory rule of interpretation: all references in Victorian law to the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement provisions on succession must be read as including references to this Act and the Commonwealth Succession to the Crown Act 2013. That is a duty on courts and tribunals to construe the law in that way, but it imposes no burden on private parties.

The validation provision (Schedule 1, item 9 of the Commonwealth Act) gives a right to persons whose marriages were void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 to have those marriages treated as never void, subject to the four conditions. That right is limited: it does not extend to succession matters. So a person whose marriage is validated under this provision may, for example, inherit property as a spouse, but cannot rely on the marriage to claim a position in the line of succession.

The Act also confirms that the Sovereign’s relationship with Victoria is unaffected. That is a declaratory provision, not a right that can be enforced by any individual.

No criminal or civil duties flow from this Act. It is a constitutional and machinery Act with no direct enforcement mechanisms.

There are no penalties under the Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013. It creates no offences. It does not establish any enforcement agency. The Act is entirely permissive and facilitative.

The lack of penalties is consistent with its nature as a request statute. It does not command anyone to do or refrain from doing anything. The only possible enforcement would be if someone acted contrary to the interpretive rule in section 7, but that would be a matter of statutory construction for a court, not a breach attracting a penalty. If a court misapplied the rule, the decision could be appealed, but there is no sanction.

The consequential amendments in Schedule 2 amend the Crimes Act 1958. The Crimes Act contains penalties for treason and other offences, but the amendments made here (substituting “child” for “son” in the definition of certain treason liability) do not create new penalties. They merely update the language to be gender-neutral.

The validation provision in Schedule 1 operates automatically; no enforcement is needed. If a marriage is treated as never void under that provision, it is for the parties to rely on that status in legal proceedings. There is no penalty for failing to recognise the validation.

From an economic perspective, the absence of penalties means zero compliance costs. There is no need for businesses to train staff, update manuals, or retain lawyers to ensure compliance. This is a significant cost-saving feature compared to most legislation.

However, the Act does interact with the Succession to the Crown 2013 (Cth) and the UK Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Section 8 of the Commonwealth Act (in the schedule) disqualifies from succession anyone who is disqualified by the UK Act’s subsection 3(3) (which relates to marriage-related disqualifications). If a person were to breach the UK marriage consent rules (modified by the UK Act), that could result in disqualification from the Australian succession. But the enforcement mechanism is constitutional and political, not legal: succession is determined by the Sovereign’s entitlement, not by court order. The penalty is loss of succession rights, but this is inherent in the law of succession, not a sanction imposed by this Act.

In summary, there are no penalties to enforce and no enforcement body created. The Act is purely facilitative.

The Act interacts with several layers of law: the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth Succession to the Crown Act 2013, UK succession legislation, and various Victorian statutes.

Constitution. The Act is explicitly premised on section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, which requires a request from all state parliaments. Without that, the Commonwealth Act would be invalid. The Act’s validity turns on whether it constitutes a sufficient “request” for the purposes of that head of power. The Act also contains section 4, stating it does not affect the Sovereign‑State relationship, which may be relevant to any argument that the Act impliedly alters the Crown’s position in the federal compact.

Commonwealth Succession to the Crown Act 2013. The Act requests that Commonwealth Act and gives it constitutional legitimacy. It also incorporates the Commonwealth Act by reference for interpretive purposes in section 7. The Commonwealth Act itself has provisions that affect Victorian law: it amends the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701 as they form part of Australian law (including state law), repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772, and validates certain marriages. Those changes have direct effect in Victoria because they form part of the law of the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Victorian Act’s section 7 reinforces that by directing that references in state law to the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement succession provisions are to be read as including the Commonwealth Act.

UK Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Section 8 of the Commonwealth Act (in Schedule 1) disqualifies from succession any person disqualified by subsection 3(3) of the UK Act. This creates a cross-reference to UK law that changes from time to time only if the UK Act is amended. That is a potential source of future interaction: if the UK Parliament amends its marriage disqualifications, Victoria’s succession law would automatically change without further state legislation, provided the Commonwealth Act remains unchanged. This could raise concerns about parliamentary sovereignty and the ability of Victoria to control its own succession law.

Victorian statutes amended directly. Schedule 2 amends two Acts. The Crimes Act 1958 section 9A(1)(b) previously referred to “heir … whether … son”; the amendment replaces “son” with “child”. That affects the definition of persons who may be guilty of treason by killing or harming the heir. The Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 is amended to remove references to disqualification for marrying a papist from the text of the Bill of Rights as preserved in Victoria, and to repeal entirely the Royal Marriages Act 1772 as a received Imperial Act. These amendments ensure Victorian statute law is consistent with the new succession rules.

Other Victorian laws. Through section 7, any Victorian Act that references the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement provisions on succession (for example, older Acts dealing with the Crown) is now to be read as including the Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013 and the Commonwealth Act. This is a general interpretive rule that avoids the need to amend each piece of legislation individually. It may create interpretive questions if a Victorian Act uses references to the old disqualification provisions in a context beyond pure succession.

Imperial Acts. The Union with Scotland Act 1706, Union with England Act 1707, Union with Ireland Act 1800, and Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 are made subject to the Commonwealth Act (section 11 of the Commonwealth Act schedule). This ensures that Union provisions that might otherwise conflict with the new succession rules are overridden.

The interaction is largely harmonious. There is no conflict with federal or state anti-discrimination law because the succession rules are a constitutional exception (the Crown is exempt from many anti-discrimination provisions). The Act does not interact with contract, property, or commercial law in any meaningful way.

The Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013 has no amendment history. Version 002 (the current version) incorporates amendments as at 26 March 2015, but the Table of Amendments in the endnotes states: “There are no amendments made to the Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013 by Acts and subordinate instruments.” The only changes that occurred between the original enactment and version 002 are the commencement of certain provisions: sections 1-6 and Schedule 1 commenced on 22 October 2013 (Royal Assent), section 7 commenced on 24 March 2015, and Schedule 2 commenced on 26 March 2015. These are not amendments to the Act but rather the Act coming into operation in stages as per its own commencement provisions.

The absence of amendments is striking but understandable. The Act’s function is to request Commonwealth legislation and make consequential updates. Once the Commonwealth Act passed and the amendments took effect, there was little reason to revisit this Act. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (Cth) has also not been amended. The Perth Agreement of 2011, which gave rise to these changes, was implemented cooperatively across Commonwealth realms, and there has been no subsequent political driver to alter the rules further.

Had an amendment occurred, it would likely involve a change to the cross-reference to UK law in section 8 of the Commonwealth Act (Schedule 1), or a further update to Victorian statute references if the Commonwealth Act were amended. But to date, none has occurred.

For practitioners, the stable amendment history means that the law as enacted remains the law. There is no need to track successive versions. The only relevant temporal factor is the commencement date of each provision. The Act’s long title and preamble, along with the second reading speeches mentioned in the endnotes (28 June 2013 in the Legislative Assembly, 5 September 2013 in the Legislative Council), may be used in interpretation to confirm the uniform object across states.

There is no reported litigation concerning the Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013. This is unsurprising given its limited function. The Act itself is a procedural step; any legal challenge would more likely target the Commonwealth Succession to the Crown Act 2013 or the constitutional validity of using section 51(xxxviii). However, even that Commonwealth Act has not been litigated in Australia.

Potential grounds for challenge could have included: (1) the sufficiency of the state request under section 51(xxxviii) - whether a request can be made in such general terms incorporating a future Commonwealth Act; (2) whether the Act impermissibly affects the Sovereign’s relationship with Victoria despite section 4; (3) whether the gender-neutral rule amounts to a change to the constitutional position of the Crown requiring a referendum under section 128 of the Constitution. None of these arguments have been tested in court.

The absence of litigation is also attributable to the political consensus behind the changes - all Australian states passed a request act in identical terms, and the Commonwealth Act was passed with bipartisan support. The British Parliament also enacted corresponding legislation. There was no organised opposition to the changes.

For Australian lawyers, the Act remains a textbook example of cooperative federalism under an unusual head of power. If future litigation arises, it might involve the interpretation of section 7 or the validation provisions in Schedule 1, but such cases are improbable unless a succession dispute arises. The Act itself is not justiciable in the ordinary sense because it does not create rights enforceable by individuals.

From an economic perspective, the lack of litigation represents substantial savings. No public or private resources have been spent on disputing the Act. There are no class actions, no regulatory investigations, and no court costs. This is a significant benefit for a piece of legislation that touches the constitution and the Crown.

Several features of the Act could trap the unwary.

The validation provision does not affect succession. Item 9 of Schedule 1 to the Commonwealth Act validates marriages that were void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 for all purposes except succession to the Crown. This means a person whose marriage is validated cannot rely on that marriage to claim a place in the line of succession. For example, if a royal descendant married without consent and had a child, the child might be legitimate for inheritance of property but cannot inherit the throne. This is a critical carve-out. Practitioners dealing with succession trusts or estates should check whether a marriage was originally void and now validated - but must separately assess the succession implications. The validation may produce unexpected results for property rights while leaving succession untouched.

Cross-reference to UK law. Section 8 of the Commonwealth Act disqualifies from succession anyone disqualified by subsection 3(3) of the UK Succession to the Crown Act 2013. That UK subsection relates to persons who marry without the Sovereign’s consent if they are within the first six persons in line (the new limited marriage consent rules). This incorporates future changes to UK law only if the UK Act is amended, but any change to the UK disqualification rules would automatically apply in Australia without further state or Commonwealth legislation, because the Commonwealth Act refers to the UK Act as in force at the commencement of the section (i.e., fixed in time). Wait - the language: “as in force at the commencement of this section”. That means it is a static reference to the UK Act as originally enacted, not to future amendments. So if the UK later changes its disqualification rules, Australian law would not automatically follow. That is a gotcha: practitioners must be aware that the reference is frozen at 2013. If the UK amends subsection 3(3), Australia would need a new request and Commonwealth Act to adopt the change, unless the existing Commonwealth Act is itself amended.

The interpretive rule in section 7 may have unintended reach. It states that references in any law that is part of the law of Victoria to the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement provisions relating to succession are to be read as including references to this Act and the Commonwealth Act. This could sweep in references that were not originally about succession but happen to be located in those instruments. For example, the Bill of Rights contains many provisions on rights of subjects, not just succession. A Victorian Act that incorporates the Bill of Rights by reference might now be read as including the new succession Acts, even if the context is about something like petitioning the Crown. Courts would need to apply the rule carefully.

Commencement complexities. The Act has staged commencements. Sections 1-6 and Schedule 1 commenced on Royal Assent (22 October 2013). Section 7 commenced on 24 March 2015. Schedule 2 commenced on 26 March 2015. These dates are linked to the Commonwealth Act’s commencement. If someone relied on the removal of disqualification for marrying a Roman Catholic between October 2013 and March 2015, they might have had an expectation that the change was in effect, because Schedule 1 (the Commonwealth Act text) was already in the world as a request, but the actual Commonwealth Act did not commence fully until 2015. The Victorian Act’s own amendments to state law (Schedule 2) only came into operation after the Commonwealth provisions commenced. This staggered timing could cause confusion for succession planning. Anyone advising on succession between October 2013 and March 2015 needed to check which provisions were actually in force.

The Act does not affect the Sovereign’s relationship with the State - but does it implicitly alter it? Section 4 declares no intention to affect the relationship, but the very act of requesting a change to succession may be seen as a recognition that the Crown is divisible and that Australia can independently determine succession. This is not a legal gotcha but a constitutional one: some scholars argued that the Perth Agreement and the implementing legislation implicitly recognised that each Commonwealth realm has its own Crown. The Act’s saving clause cannot wholly prevent that implication.

No mechanism to reverse. The majority of the Act is self-executing or has been executed. But note that federal clause 12 of the Commonwealth Act in Schedule 1 provides that the Commonwealth Act can be repealed or amended only by an Act passed at the request or with the concurrence of all state parliaments. That means the request mechanism is permanent unless all states agree to change it. The Victorian Act does not contain a similar entrenchment for its own provisions, but the practical effect is that if someone wanted to reverse the gender-neutral rule or reinstate disqualifications, they would need unanimous state consent again. That is a high barrier.

Compliance with the Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013 is minimal to non-existent for most individuals and entities. The Act does not require anyone to do anything. However, for those who need to operate within the new succession framework, there are practical steps.

For advisers to the royal family or descendants of George II. Verify whether any marriage entered into before 26 March 2015 (the commencement of the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772) was void under that Act. If so, assess whether the validation conditions in item 9 of Schedule 1 to the Commonwealth Act are satisfied: (a) neither party was one of the six persons next in line at the time; (b) no consent sought or notice given; (c) it was reasonable not to be aware the Act applied; (d) no person acted on the basis the marriage was void before commencement. If conditions are met, the marriage is treated as never void for all purposes except succession. Advisers should document the analysis, particularly the reasonableness assessment, which could be disputed. For succession purposes, the validation does not affect the line, so ensure any succession planning does not rely on a validated marriage to claim the throne.

For anyone interpreting Victorian legislation that references the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement. Update your understanding: any such reference concerning succession must now be read as including the Succession to the Crown (Request) Act 2013 and the Commonwealth Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Check the specific context; it may not be limited to explicit succession provisions. Keep copies of both Acts for easy reference.

For legal researchers or historians. The Act may be relevant to understanding the Crown’s constitutional status. Note that section 7 of the Victorian Act amends the interpretive framework, so older case law on succession disqualifications is no longer good law.

For the general public and businesses. There are no compliance steps. No fees, forms, or filings. No impact on incorporation, property transactions, or commercial agreements. The Act does not require updating wills or trusts, except perhaps to reflect that gender is no longer relevant to the order of succession (but that only matters if a client is within the line of succession, an extremely rare scenario).

For state government departments. Check that any references in departmental manuals, forms, or guidance to the Bill of Rights or Act of Settlement are updated to reflect the interpretive rule. The amendments to the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 have already been made by Schedule 2; no further action is required.

For future amendments. If the Commonwealth Act were ever amended, Victoria would likely need to pass a new request Act. Anyone monitoring succession law should track any developments in the UK or Commonwealth Act.

Overall, compliance is a non-issue. The Act is one of the least burdensome pieces of legislation in Australian history. The principal cost was the time of the Parliament and the executive in preparing and passing it - a sunk cost. There are no ongoing compliance costs, no reporting obligations, and no enforcement risks. The Act achieves its purpose with negligible administrative burden, which is consistent with minimal government intervention in private affairs.