Ex parte Renaud is the only early case to rely specifically on the CLVA.
Certainly the view that the CLVA was the source of the power of judicial review rests on such an identification of the two doctrines, but this was rarely made explicit in early judicial pronouncements.
As it happened, the distinction between local and Imperial affairs suggested by counsel had no basis in the CLVA itself but there was no way of knowing this without looking at the Act itself since as the distinction was certainly a plausible one.
If the Imperial/local distinction had been found in the Act, as suggested by counsel, the CLVA would not apply to the B.
This is why the courts so rarely referred to the CLVA in cases on the division of powers; excess of jurisdiction was an independent doctrine which obviated any need to do so.
This means we must do what the early courts failed to do and look closely at the CLVA itself.
5 of the CLVA expressly grants full power to every "colonial legislature" over the establishment of courts of judicature, and further provides:
90) Academic commentators clearly believed that the CLVA could also serve the same purpose.
5 of the CLVA applies to the Constitutions of the Australian colonies.
Thus, we see that the Imperial Parliament can provide that a colonial legislature can repeal specified Imperial legislation, either by so providing in the affected Act itself, or by a separate authorizing Act, and further, that the text of the CLVA itself is consistent with such an interpretation.
There, the later Act must be taken to supersede the amending power given in the CLVA as the two are necessarily in conflict.
2 of the CLVA to conclude that "a law of the Queensland Parliament which is repugnant to any provision of the Queensland Constitution Act 1865 is, by virtue of the CLVA 1865, void and inoperative.