2007
DOI: 10.1080/10361140701595817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High Court Review 2006: Australian Federalism—Implications of theWorkChoicesDecision

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two notable decisions (Attorney-General (Vic) v Andrews 15 and Thomas v Mowbray 16 ) continued the trend towards an expansive reading of Commonwealth powers at the expense of the States (previously documented in this Journal by Kildea and Gelber 2007), again with potentially significant implications for the distribution of powers in the Australian federation. Although the Commonwealth government has been successful in the Court on matters concerning the interpretation of the Commonwealth's legislative powers (section 51 of the Constitution), the Court has been more reluctant to rule for the benefit of the Commonwealth in cases where it attempts to impose procedural limits on matters before it (see Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 17 ) or attempts to limit the democratic rights of individuals (Roach v Electoral Commissioner 18 ), as discussed below.…”
Section: Significant Decisions Of the High Courtmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Two notable decisions (Attorney-General (Vic) v Andrews 15 and Thomas v Mowbray 16 ) continued the trend towards an expansive reading of Commonwealth powers at the expense of the States (previously documented in this Journal by Kildea and Gelber 2007), again with potentially significant implications for the distribution of powers in the Australian federation. Although the Commonwealth government has been successful in the Court on matters concerning the interpretation of the Commonwealth's legislative powers (section 51 of the Constitution), the Court has been more reluctant to rule for the benefit of the Commonwealth in cases where it attempts to impose procedural limits on matters before it (see Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 17 ) or attempts to limit the democratic rights of individuals (Roach v Electoral Commissioner 18 ), as discussed below.…”
Section: Significant Decisions Of the High Courtmentioning
confidence: 94%