Abstract
Three decades ago, in Cole v Whitfield, the High Court of Australia opted for a discrimination-based standard with the argument that s 92 of the Australian Constitution targets solely protectionist measures. This article demonstrates, with the use of comparative law analysis, that, in contrast with this teleology, the High Court has built a lacunose definition of discrimination that is incapable of covering the whole spectrum of protectionist measures. It argues that measures having an asymmetric impact should be considered discriminatory and countenanced only if they are justified by a local legitimate end and are proportionate, even if they rely on distinctions that are not based on out-of-state origin.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
