Proportionality in Australian Public Law

doi:10.1017/9781108605991.008

7 - Proportionality in Australian Public Law

from Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2019

Colin Campbell and

H. P. Lee

Edited by

Vito Breda

Show author details

Vito Breda: Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Andrew Harding, in his excursus on ‘legal transplantation’, observed: ‘[W]e do live in a world of legal connectivity in which we share common problems which can only be addressed by a limited range of solutions which are unlikely not to have been tried before’. This prescient remark is apt in the context of the growing importance of the proportionality concept in the Australian public law arena. The proportionality concept attained particular prominence when the High Court of Australia found a freedom of political communication impliedly embedded in the Constitution. It was inevitable that with the establishment of such an implied fundamental constitutional guarantee, the High Court had to craft a principle to enable the saving or invalidation of legislation claimed to be in violation of the implied freedom.

Type: Chapter
Information: Legal Transplants in East Asia and Oceania , pp. 158 - 182

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605991.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

XI Bibliography

Allan, T. R. S., Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law 1st edn (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Allan, T. R. S.,Law, Liberty, and Justice: The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism (Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Allars, M., Introduction to Australian Administrative Law (Butterworths, 1990).Google Scholar

Appleby, G., ’Proportionality and Federalism: Can Australia Learn from the European Community, the US and Canada?’ University of Tasmania Law Review 26, no. 1 (2007), 1–33.Google Scholar

Aronson, M., Groves, M. and Weeks, G., Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability 6th edn (Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, 2017).Google Scholar

Aharon, B., Proportionality Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Boughey, J., ‘The Reasonableness of Proportionality in the Australian Administrative Law Context’ Federal Law Review 43, no. 1 (2015), 59.Google Scholar

Carter, A., ‘McCloy v. New South Wales: Political Donations, Political Communication and the Place of Proportionality Analysis’ Public Law Review 26, no. 4 (2015), 245–54.Google Scholar

Carter, A.,‘Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law: Towards Transnationalism?’, Heidelberg Journal of International Law 76 (2016), 951.Google Scholar

Carter, A.,‘Brown v Tasmania: Proportionality and the Reformulation of the Lange Test’, Public Law Review 29 (3) (2018), 14.Google Scholar

Chordia, S., ‘The Trajectory of Structured Proportionality in Implied Freedom of Political Communication cases: Brown v Tasmania’ (2017) AusPubLaw https://auspublaw.org/2017/11/the-trajectory-of-structured-proportionality/ accessed 21 January 2019.Google Scholar

Craig, P., ‘Proportionality, Rationality and Review’ New Zealand Law Review no. 2 (2010), 265–301.Google Scholar

Craig, P.,‘Unreasonableness and Proportionality in UK Law’ in The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, edited by Ellis, E. (Hart Publishing, 1999), 85–102.Google Scholar

Daly, P., ‘Wednesbury’s Reason and Structure’, Public Law April issue (n.d.) 2011, 238–59.Google Scholar

Elliott, M. and Varuhas, J. N. E., Administrative Law: Text and Materials 5th edn (Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Ellis, Evelyn, ed. The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Hart Publishing, 1999).Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, B., ‘Proportionality and Australian Constitutionalism’ University of Tasmania Law Review 16, no. 3 (n.d.), 263.Google Scholar

Groves, M., ed. Law and Government in Australia(Federation Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Groves, M., and Weeks, G., ‘Substantive (Procedural) Review in Australia’ in The Scope and Intensity of Substantive Review: Traversing Taggart’s Rainbow, edited by Wilberg, H. and Elliott, M. Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law, volume 8 (Hart Publishing, 2015), 154–70.Google Scholar

Henckels, C., ‘Proportionality and the Separation of Powers in Constitutional Review: Examining the Role of Judicial Deference’ Federal Law Review 45, no. 2 (2017), 181–97.Google Scholar

Hickman, T., ‘Problems for Proportionality’, New Zealand Law Review, no. 2 (2010), 303.Google Scholar

Jowell, J., and Lester, A., ‘Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law’, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 14, no. 2 (1988), 858–70 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050718.1988.9985971.Google Scholar

Kiefel, S., ‘Proportionality: A Rule of Reason (Australia)’ Public Law Review 23, no. 2 (2012), 85–93.Google Scholar

Kiefel, S.,’Section 92: Markets, Protectionism and Proportionality – Australian and European Perspectives’, Monash University Law Review 36, no. 2 (2010), 1–15.Google Scholar

Kirk, J., ‘Constitutional Guarantees, Characterisation and the Concept of Proportionality’, Melbourne University Law Review 21, no. 1 (June 1997), 1.Google Scholar

Lee, H. P., ‘Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Adjudication’ in Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law edited by Lindell, G. (Federation Press, 1994) 126.Google Scholar

Lee, H. P.,‘The “Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted’ in Law and Government in Australia, edited by Groves, M. (Sydney: Federation Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Loftus, P., ‘Proportionality, Australian Constitutionalism and Governmental Theory: Changing the Grundnorm’ Southern Cross University Law Review, no. 3 (1999), 30–84.Google Scholar

Mason, A., ‘The Use of Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law’ Public Law Review 27, no. 2 (2016), 109–23.Google Scholar

Mcdonald, S., ‘Involuntary Detention and the Separation of Judicial Power (Australia)’ Federal Law Review 35, no. 1 (2007), 25–79. https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.35.1.2.Google Scholar

Mason, A., ‘The Use of Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law’, Public Law Review 27 (2016), 109.Google Scholar

Meagher, D., ‘The Brennan Conception of the Implied Freedom: Theory, Proportionality and Deference’ University of Queensland Law Journal 30, no. 1 (2011), 119–33.Google Scholar

Quirk, P., ‘An Australian Looks at German “Proportionality”’ University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review 1 (1999), 39.Google Scholar

Stone, A., ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure Revisited (Freedom of Speech: Contemporary Issues)’, University of New South Wales Law Journal 28, no. 3 (2005), 842–51.Google Scholar

Stone, A.‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure: Standards of Review and the Freedom of Political Communication (Australia)’, Melbourne University Law Review 23, no. 3 (1999), 668–708.Google Scholar

Stone, A.and Evans, S. ‘Australia: Freedom of Speech and Insult in the High Court of Australia’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 4, no. 4 (2006,), 677–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mol030.Google Scholar

Villalta Puig, G., The High Court of Australia and Section 92 of the Australian Constitution: A Critique of the Cole v Whitfield Test (Thomson/Lawbook Co, 2008) https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/44567726.Google Scholar

Wilberg, H., and Elliott, M. (eds.). The Scope and Intensity of Substantive Review: Traversing Taggart’s Rainbow. Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law, volume 8 (Hart Publishing, 2015).Google Scholar

Case Law

Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 1.

Brown v. Tasmania [2017] HCA 43.

Commonwealth v. Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1,

Davis v. Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79.

Marcus Clark & Co Ltd v. Commonwealth (1952) 87 CLR 177.

McCulloch v. Maryland 7 US 316 (1819).

McCloy v. NSW [2015] HCA 34.

Metropolitan Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 6.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24.

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li 362 (2013) 249 CLR 332, 362 [63].

Minister for Resources v. Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 54,

Monis v. The Queen [2013] 249 CLR 92.

Mulholland v. Australian electoral Commission (2004) 220 CLR 181.

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) 177 CLR 1

Re Fares Rural Meat and Livestock Corporation Pty Ltd v. Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation (1990) 96 ALR 153.

R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Everett [1989] 1 QB

Tajjour v. NSW [2014] HCA 35.