1. Detmold, Michael, ‘The New Constitutional Law’ (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 228, 248.Google Scholar

2. (1992) 177 CLR 106.

3. Detmold (n 1) 229: ‘We, the citizens, have a constitution. Granted that premise, we have it equally. And, having the Constitution equally, we have the power that it generates equally. The justification for the implied right of equality as a control on our equally held power is as simple as that’.

4. Stokes, Michael, ‘Constitutional Commitments not Original Intentions: Interpretation in the Freedom of Speech Cases’ (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 250, 268.Google Scholar

5. Coper, Michael, ‘The High Court and Free Speech: Visions of Democracy or Delusions of Grandeur?’ (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 185.Google Scholar

6. See Tucker, David, ‘Representation-Reinforcing Review: Arguments about Political Advertising in Australia and the United States’ (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 274Google Scholar, drawing on the American theorist John Hart Ely, but arguing that the Australian context warranted greater judicial constraint.

7. See Williams, George, ‘Sounding the Core of Representative Democracy: Implied Freedoms and Electoral Reform’ (1996) 20 Melbourne University Law Review 848.Google Scholar

8. Williams, George and Hume, David, Human Rights under the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2013).Google Scholar

9. Stone, Adrienne, ‘Australia’s Constitutional Rights and the Problem of Interpretive Disagreement’ (2005) 27 Sydney Law Review 29.Google Scholar

10. See, eg, Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328, 359–60 [88]–[90] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 407 [258] (Nettle J), 430 [313] (Gordon J), 503–4 [558]–[560] (Edelman J); Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373, 295 [20] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ), 441 [164] (Edelman J) (‘Banerji’). Clubb v Edwards (2019) 267 CLR 171, 306 [393].

11. Following in the footsteps of Justice Dawson who dissented in Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 104 are Justice Callinan in ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199, 338–339 [347]-[348], Justice Heydon in Monis v the Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92, 183–84 [249]-[251] and most recently Justice Steward in LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia (2021) 274 CLR 1, [300]–[204]; each of whom has expression scepticism of, or outright opposition to, the recognition of an implication protecting freedom of political communication.

12. Sawer, Geoffrey, Australian Federalism in the Courts (Melbourne University Press, 1967) 208.Google Scholar

13. The Hon Patrick Keane, In Celebration of the Constitution (Speech, National Archives Commission, 12 June 2008).

14. See, Adrienne Stone, ‘More than a Rulebook: Identity and the Australian Constitution’ (2024) 32 Public Law Review (forthcoming) and the sources cited therein.

15. Stephen Gageler, ‘The New Constitutional Scholarship in Australia’ (2024) 48(1) Melbourne University Law Review (forthcoming).

16. An especially important early contribution was written by Patrick Emerton. See Emerton, Patrick ‘Ideas’ in Saunders, Cheryl and Stone, Adrienne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2018) 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For my contributions along these lines, Stone (n 5) and Arcioni, Elisa and Stone, Adrienne, ‘The Small Brown Bird: Values, Aspirations and the Australian Constitution’ (2016) 14 International Journal of Constitutional Law 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Sawer, Marian, The Ethical State? Social Liberalism in Australia (Melbourne University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

18. Hirst, John, The Sentimental Nation: The Making of the Australian Commonwealth (Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

19. Irving, Helen, To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

20. New South Wales v Commonwealth (1908) 7 CLR 179.

21. Stone (n 14).

22. New South Wales v Commonwealth (1908) 7 CLR 179. See, Stephen McLeish, ‘Money’ in Saunders and Stone (n 16) 784.

23. Stone (n 14) noting that ‘[a]n expansion of the Constitution’s limiting … is potentially self-defeating. For it is in the absence of limits in the very commitment of some aspects of our electoral process to the political process that has allowed for Australia’s success’ as a democratic innovator.

24. Partlett (n 23).