Abstract
This article suggests that the decision of the framers of the Australian Constitution to consciously reject American notions of formal rights guarantees has not, ultimately, proven decisive. In the absence of a constitutional (or statutory) bill of rights, the High Court has filled the lacuna in formal rights protection in Australia. The emergence of new species of (constitutionally valid) legislation, openly hostile to fundamental rights, has sparked this judicial evolution (or counter-revolution). The Court has used the method of clear statement required by the principle of legality to construct a common law bill of rights that is now, arguably, quasi-constitutional in strength.
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.
