No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
This article explores the effect of treaty withdrawal on domestic legislation implementing a treaty in the Australian constitutional context. In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (‘Miller’), the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the executive cannot exercise its prerogative power to withdraw from a treaty where that withdrawal would frustrate or invalidate domestic law. This article contends that treaty withdrawal would be unlikely to have this effect on a law implementing a treaty in the Australian context. The article ultimately draws two conclusions. First, a law implementing a treaty would likely survive treaty withdrawal in most cases due to the law’s enduring nexus with Australia’s foreign relations, enabling its continued characterisation as a law ‘with respect to’ s 51(xxix) of the Constitution. Secondly, in the event that withdrawal does lead to a loss of constitutional support, the law would likely become prospectively invalid from the date of effective withdrawal (an outcome identical to legislative repeal in its effect). The article contends that this outcome would not, however, engage the constraint on executive power so emphatically reasserted in Miller. This is because the law’s invalidity is consistent with the implied will of the legislature and thus reinforces, rather than contravenes, the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty which the constraint on executive power protects.
I thank Professor Peter Cane, Luke Chircop, Tim Higgins, Chris Tran, Kevin Roche and Will Kennedy for their invaluable contributions to this article.
1. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] 2 WLR 583 (‘Miller’).
2. Mark Elliott, ‘The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller: In Search of Constitutional Principle’ (2017) 76(2) Cambridge Law Journal 257, 281.
3. Miller, above n 1, 611 [86], 616 [94] (the majority).
4. Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation (83145/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 53 (22 February 2017) (‘Democratic Alliance’).
5. Ibid [56] (Mojapelo DJP, Makgoka and Mothle JJ). The decision was not appealed: see Max du Plessis and Guénaël Mettraux, ‘South Africa’s Failed Withdrawal From the Rome Statute’ (2017) 15(2) Journal of International Criminal Justice 361.
6. See, eg, The Zamora [1916] 2 AC 77; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513; Miller, above n 1; Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) (2012) 248 CLR 156; Port of Portland Pty Ltd v Victoria (2010) 242 CLR 348 (‘Port of Portland’).
7. Anne Twomey, ‘Miller and the Prerogative’ in Mark Elliott, Jack Williams and Alison L Young (eds), The UK Constitution After Miller: Brexit and Beyond (Hart Publishing, 2018) 69, 83–4; Anne Twomey, ‘Relevance to Australia of the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s Brexit Decision’ (2017) 91 Australian Law Journal 177, 178.
8. The Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479, 517 [95] (Kirby J) (‘The Grain Pool’).
9. See, eg, Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416, 488 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ) (‘Industrial Relations Act Case’).
10. See Part IV.
11. XYZ v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 532, 608 [218] (Callinan and Heydon JJ) (‘XYZ’).
12. Australian Textiles Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 161, 180–1 (Dixon J) (‘Australian Textiles Pty Ltd’). See below Part V.
13. Hume v Higgins (1949) 78 CLR 116, 134 (Dixon J) (‘Higgins’).
14. Philip Sales and Joanne Clement, ‘International Law in Domestic Courts: The Developing Framework’ (2008) 124 Law Quarterly Review 388, 399.
15. Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, 75.
16. Laurence R Helfer, ‘Exiting Treaties’ (2005) 91(7) Virginia Law Review 1579, 1588.
17. See, eg, Elliott, above n 2, 265; Alison L Young, ‘Brexit, Miller and the Regulation of Treaty Withdrawal: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?’ (2017) 111 AJIL Unbound 434.
18. Gavin Phillipson and Alison L Young, ‘Would the Use of the Prerogative to Denounce the ECHR ”Frustrate” the Human Rights Act? Lessons from Miller’ (2017) (November Supp) Public Law 150.
19. Democratic Alliance, above n 4.
20. White House Press Secretary, ‘Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord’ (Briefing Statement, 1 June 2017) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/>.
21. James Crawford, ‘The Current Political Discourse Concerning International Law’ (2018) 81(1) Modern Law Review 1, 22.
22. Helfer, above n 16.
23. See below Part II(B).
24. See European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (UK).
25. Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing (eds), Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice (Department of the Senate Canberra, 13th ed, 2012) 13.
26. Jamie Smyth, ‘Australia Pulls Back from China Extradition Treaty’, The Financial Times (online), 28 March 2017 <https://www.ft.com/content/7d70f358-1347-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c>. The regulations would have declared China an ‘extradition country’ for the purposes of s 5 of the Extradition Act 1998 (Cth).
27. Katharine Murphy, ‘Senate Blocks Government’s Changes to Section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act’, The Guardian (online), 30 March 2017 <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/30/senate-blocks-governments-changes-to-section-18c-of-racial-discrimination-act>.
28. See, eg, Rustomejee v The Queen (1876) 2 QBD 69, 74 (Lord Coleridge CJ); JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, 500 (Lord Oliver) (‘International Tin Council’); Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, 286–7 (Mason CJ and Deane J) (‘Teoh’).
29. International Tin Council, above n 28, 499–500; Sales and Clement, above n 14, 397; Crawford, above n 21, 63.
30. See, eg, A-G for Canada v A-G for Ontario [1937] AC 326.
31. Case of Proclamations, above n 15, 75.
32. Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) art 1.
33. Miller, above n 1, 596 [26] (the majority).
34. International Tin Council, above n 28. See also Walker v Baird [1892] AC 491; A-G for Canada v A-G for Ontario, above n 30.
35. International Tin Council, above n 28, 500 (Lord Oliver).
36. R v Lyons [2001] 1 AC 976, 992 [27] (Lord Hoffman).
37. Miller, above n 1, 635 [55] (the majority).
38. Ibid 634 [51].
39. Ibid 635 [53].
40. Ibid.
41. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168, 212 (Stephen J) (‘Koowarta’).
42. Teoh, above n 28, 286–7 (Mason CJ and Deane J).
43. Port of Portland, above n 6, 359 [13] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
44. Ibid 359–60 [13], quoting Fitzgerald v Muldoon [1976] 2 NZLR 615, 622 (Wild CJ).
45. See, eg, The Grain Pool, above n 8, 492 [16].
46. Koowarta, above n 41, 189 (Gibbs CJ).
47. Ibid.
48. See, eg, Stephen Donaghue, ‘Balancing Federalism and International Law: The Domestic Impact of International Law in Australia’ (1995) 17 Adelaide Law Review 213; David Feldman, ‘Monism, Dualism and Constitutional Legitimacy’ (1999) 20 Australian Yearbook of International Law 105.
49. Constitution s 109.
50. Koowarta, above n 41.
51. Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘Tasmanian Dam Case’); Richardson v Forestry Commission (1988) 164 CLR 261.
52. Koowarta, above n 41, 198 (Gibbs CJ).
53. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969) (‘CERD’).
54. Despite a reference in the preamble of the Convention to both the external affairs power and the power to make special laws with respect to the people of any race (s 51(xxvi)), the Court in Koowarta held that a law applying equally to people of all races, as the RDA does, cannot be supported by the race power: Koowarta, above n 41, 187 (Gibbs CJ), 261 (Brennan J).
55. Koowarta, above n 41, 199 (Gibbs CJ).
56. Ibid 192.
57. Ibid 220 (Stephen J), 234 (Mason J), 241–2 (Murphy J), 260–1 (Brennan J).
58. Tasmanian Dam Case, above n 51.
59. Amelia Simpson, ‘Parliaments’ in Cheryl Saunders and Adrienne Stone (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2018) 666. See Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 (‘Engineers’ Case’).
60. New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1 (‘Work Choices Case’).
61. Simpson, above n 59, 666.
62. For a detailed discussion of these limitations, see James Stellios, Zines’s The High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 6th ed, 2015) 421–7.
63. See, eg, Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 257 CLR 42 (‘Plaintiff M68’). Gordon J in dissent held that a provision implementing a MOU between Australia and Nauru that would otherwise have been supported by s 51(xxix) was invalid by reason of incompatibility with ch III.
64. Industrial Relations Act Case, above n 9, 487 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
65. Tasmanian Dam Case, above n 51, 260 (Deane J).
66. R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608, 642 (Latham CJ), 658 (Starke J), 669 (Dixon J), 687 (Evatt and McTiernan JJ) (‘Ex parte Henry’).
67. Industrial Relations Act Case, above n 9, 486 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
68. R v Sharkey (1949) 79 CLR 121, 136–7 (Latham CJ), 149 (Dixon J), 157 (McTiernan J) (‘Sharkey’); XYZ, above n 11, 543 (Gleeson CJ), 593 (Callinan and Heydon JJ).
69. XYZ, above n 11, 576 [128] (Kirby J).
70. Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, 364 [151] (Gummow and Crennan JJ) (‘Mowbray’).
71. Peter Hanks, Graeme Hill and Frances Gordon, Constitutional Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4th ed, 2018) 539 [8.164].
72. Stellios, above n 62, 437.
73. Sharkey, above n 68, 134 (Latham CJ).
74. Ibid 136–7 (Latham CJ).
75. Mowbray, above n 70, 364 [151]–[152] (Gummow and Crennan JJ).
76. XYZ, above n 11, 578 [138] (Kirby J).
77. Ibid 543 [18] (Gleeson CJ).
78. Stellios, above n 62, 438.
79. Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501, 603 (Deane J) (‘Polyukhovich’); Industrial Relations Act Case, above n 9, 485 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
80. Polyukhovich, above n 79.
81. XYZ, above n 11.
82. Horta v Commonwealth (1994) 181 CLR 183 (‘Horta’).
83. Alqudsi v Commonwealth (2015) 91 NSWLR 92 (‘Alqudsi’).
84. Ibid 116 (Leeming JA).
85. Mowbray, above n 70, 365 [153] (Gummow and Crennan JJ).
86. Koowarta, above n 41, 217.
87. Tasmanian Dam Case, above n 51, 131 (Mason J), 220 (Brennan J), 258 (Deane J).
88. XYZ, above n 11, 611 [223] (Callinan and Heydon JJ).
89. Ibid 607–12 [217]–[225]. See also Alqudsi, above n 83, 122 (Leeming JA).
90. XYZ, above n 11, 607–8 [217].
91. Ibid 612 [225].
92. Stellios, above n 62, 440–1.
93. Horta, above n 82, 194 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
94. Industrial Relations Act Case, above n 9, 487 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
95. Ibid 486–7 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
96. Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1, 127 [371] (Heydon J, dissenting but not on this point).
97. Ex parte Henry, above n 66, 687 (Evatt and McTiernan JJ).
98. R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235, 243 (Mason J, Gibbs, Stephen, Jacobs and Murphy JJ agreeing).
99. Donald R Rothwell, ‘The High Court and the External Affairs Power: A Consideration of Its Outer and Inner Limits’ (1993) 15 Adelaide Law Review 209, 226.
100. Stellios, above n 62, 428.
101. XYZ, above n 11, 543 [18].
102. Tasmanian Dam Case, above n 51, 219.
103. Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes (1971) 124 CLR 468, 510 (Menzies J).
104. G P J McGinley, ‘The Status of Treaties in Australian Municipal Law: The Principle of Walker v Baird Reconsidered’ (1990) 12(4) Adelaide Law Review 367, 382.
105. Tasmanian Dam Case, above n 51, 172 (Murphy J); XYZ, above n 11, 581–2 [146] (Kirby J); Alqudsi, above n 83, 118 (Leeming JA).
106. XYZ, above n 11, 569 [106] (Kirby J).
107. Bill Campbell, ‘The Implementation of Treaties in Australia’ in Brian R Opeskin and Donald R Rothwell (eds), International Law and Australian Federalism (Melbourne University Press, 1997) 147.
108. Horta, above n 82, 194 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
109. Tasmanian Dam Case, above n 51, 172.
110. XYZ, above n 11, 579–80 [141]–[142].
111. Ibid 581–2 [146].
112. Plaintiff M68, above n 63.
113. Alqudsi, above n 83.
114. Stellios, above n 62, 441. See Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1.
115. European Communities Act 1972 (UK), s 2(1) (‘ECA’).
116. Miller, above n 1, 634 [51] (the majority).
117. See, eg, Elliott, above n 2, 258.
118. Miller, above n 1, 643 [82] (the majority).
119. Donald R Rothwell, ‘Australia’ in David Sloss (ed), The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study (Cambridge University Press, 2009) 120, 138.
120. Ibid.
121. Campbell, above n 107, 146.
122. Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 (Cth) 10 (emphasis added).
123. Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 3(a).
124. Ibid s 7AA.
125. Ibid pt V.
126. Phillipson and Young, above n 18.
127. Ibid 156 (emphasis in original).
128. Federal Commissioner of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd (2011) 193 FCR 149, 186 [119] (The Court) (‘SNF (Australia)’).
129. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) s 8.
130. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 8(1) (‘RDA’).
131. See, eg, The Grain Pool, above n 8; Cunliffe v Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272, 294 (Mason CJ).
132. Roscoe Pound, Interpretations of Legal History (Cambridge University Press, 1923) 1.
133. Twomey, ‘Relevance to Australia of the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s Brexit Decision’, above n 7.
134. Twomey, ‘Miller and the Prerogative’, above n 7, 84.
135. Ibid.
136. Murphy v Electoral Commissioner (2016) 90 ALJR 1027, 1061 [194] (Keane J) (‘Murphy’).
137. See, eg, Andrews v Howell (1941) 65 CLR 255, 278 (Dixon J) (‘Howell’).
138. South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373, 408 (Latham CJ).
139. Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins (2000) 202 CLR 629, 653 [58] (Kirby J).
140. See, eg, Enid Campbell, ‘The Retrospectivity of Judicial Decisions and the Legality of Government Acts’ (2003) 29(1) Monash University Law Review 49; Will Bateman, ‘Legislating Against Constitutional Invalidity: Constitutional Deeming Legislation’ (2012) 34(4) Sydney Law Review 721.
141. XYZ, above n 11, 608 [218] (emphasis added).
142. See, eg, Sir John Laws, ‘The Constitution: Morals and Rights’ (1996) Public Law 622, 630; Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2009) 214.
143. Antonios Emmanouil Kouroutakis, The Constitutional Value of Sunset Clauses: An Historical and Normative Analysis (Routledge, 2017) 113, 111–36; Sofia Ranchordás, Constitutional Sunsets and Experimental Legislation: A Comparative Perspective (Edward Elgar, 2014).
144. Murphy, above n 136, 1060 [191].
145. Ibid 1061 [193] (Keane J).
146. Ibid 1040 [42] (French CJ and Bell J).
147. Ibid 1061 [196] (emphasis added).
148. Ibid 1062 [199].
149. Higgins, above n 13, 134 (Dixon J); Australian Textiles Pty Ltd, above n 12, 180–1 (Dixon J).
150. XYZ, above n 11, 605 [209].
151. Nashville, Chattanooga and St Louis Railway v Walters 294 US 405, 415 (1935).
152. Australian Textiles Pty Ltd, above n 12, 180–1.
153. Polyukhovich, above n 79, 555 (Brennan J).
154. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337, 367 [43] (Gaudron J) (‘Kartinyeri’).
155. Andrew Lynch, ‘After a Referral: The Amendment and Termination of Commonwealth Laws Relying on s 51(xxxvii)’ (2010) 32(3) Sydney Law Review 363; Robert S French, ‘The Referral of State Powers’ (2003) 31(1) University of Western Australia Law Review 19, 31; Graeme A R Johnson, ‘The Reference Power in the Australian Constitution’ (1973) 9(1) Melbourne University Law Review 42.
156. Stenhouse v Coleman (1944) 69 CLR 457, 472 (Dixon J) (‘Stenhouse’).
157. Farey v Burvett (1916) 21 CLR 433, 453 (Isaacs J).
158. R v Foster (1949) 79 CLR 43, 81 (Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb JJ) (‘Foster’); Mowbray, above n 70, 390–1 (Kirby J).
159. Australian Textiles Pty Ltd, above n 12, 178 (Dixon J).
160. Stenhouse, above n 156, 471–2 (Dixon J).
161. Howell, above n 137, 278 (Dixon J).
162. Foster, above n 158.
163. Ibid 87 (Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb JJ).
164. Ibid.
165. The wartime regulations had been held to be valid in several previous decisions of the High Court: see Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers v Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 347 (‘Chamber of Manufacturers’); Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 545 (‘Toowoomba’); Australian Textiles Pty Ltd, above n 12.
166. Foster, above n 158, 83 (Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb JJ).
167. McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140, 223 (Gaudron J).
168 Polyukhovich, above n 79, 555.
169. Koowarta, above n 41, 217 (citations omitted).
170. French, above n 155, 20.
171. Kartinyeri, above n 154, 367 [43].
172. Ibid.
173. See, eg, Johnson, above n 155; Lynch, above n 155.
174. Johnson, above n 155, 73.
175. Ibid 72.
176. Murphy, above n 136, 1062 [292] (Keane J).
177. Stenhouse, above n 156, 471 (Dixon J).
178. Mowbray, above n 70, 359 [135] (Gummow and Crennan JJ); Susan Kiefel, ‘Standards of Review in Constitutional Review of Legislation’ in Cheryl Saunders and Adrienne Stone (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2018) 488.
179. Mowbray, above n 70.
180. Though the ‘reasonably appropriate and adapted’ test used to determine the validity of laws made under purposive heads of power is less stringent than that used to assess whether a law burdening a constitutionally guaranteed freedom is within power, it is nonetheless a form of proportionality testing: see Kiefel, above n 178, 498. Kiefel notes that the test of ‘capable of being reasonably considered to be appropriate and adapted’ has been described as a ‘high threshold proportionality test’: see A-G (SA) v Adelaide City Corporation (2013) 249 CLR 1, 38–9 [57] (French CJ).
181. Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge University Press, 2012) 312.
182. Ibid 313 (emphasis added).
183. Stellios, above n 62, 682–7.
184. Ex parte Dunne (1875) 13 SCR (NSW) 210, cited in D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2014) 326.
185. Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 7(3)(b).
186. Ibid s 7(2)(c).
187. P H Lane, Lane’s Commentary on the Australian Constitution (LBC Information Services, 2nd ed, 1997) 198.
188. Stellios, above n 62, 687.
189. Foster, above n 158, 87 (Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb JJ) (emphasis added).
190. The wartime regulations had been held to be valid in several previous decisions of the High Court: see Chamber of Manufacturers, above n 165; Toowoomba, above n 165); Australian Textiles Pty Ltd, above n 12).
191. Higgins, above n 13.
192. Ibid 134 (Dixon J) (emphasis added).
193. CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ).
194 North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory (2015) 256 CLR 569, 581 (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
195. Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225, 230–1 (emphasis added).
196. SNF (Australia), above n 128, 186 [119] (The Court) (emphasis added).
197. John Finnis, ‘Terminating Treaty-Based UK Rights’, UK Constitutional Law Association Blog (26 October 2016) <https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/10/26/john-finnis-terminating-treaty-based-uk-rights/>.
198. Miller, above n 1, 668 [177].
199. Ibid 671 [187].
200. Ibid 668 [177].
201. Young, above n 17, 434, 435.
202. Elliott, above n 2, 266.
203. Miller, above n 1, 609 [81]–[83]. Twomey, ‘Relevance to Australia of the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s Brexit Decision’, above n 7, 85.
204. Higgins, above n 13, 133 (Dixon J).
205. Ibid citing Chastleton Corporation v Sinclair 264 US 543, 547 (Holmes J) (1923).
206. Bearing in mind that it is not the purpose of the article to provide a comprehensive overview of the circumstances in which the prerogative may be displaced by statute, about which much has been said: see, eg, Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 (‘De Keyser’s’); Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477 (‘Barton’); Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491 (‘Vadarlis’); Paul Craig, ‘Prerogative, Precedent and Power’ in Christopher Forsyth and Ivan Hare (eds), The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord: Essays in Honour of Sir William Wade QC (Oxford University Press, 1998) 65; Benjamin B Saunders, ‘Democracy, Liberty and the Prerogative: The Displacement of Inherent Executive Power by Statute’ (2013) 41(2) Federal Law Review 363.
207. De Keyser’s, above n 206, 576 (Lord Parmoor); Barton, above n 206, 488 (Barwick CJ), 491 (McTiernan and Menzies JJ), 501 (Mason J), 508 (Jacobs J); Vadarlis, above n 206, 501 [33] (Black CJ), 540 [184] (French J); Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2010) 242 CLR 195, 204 [14] (French CJ).
208. See, eg, Saunders, above n 206, 375; Neil Parpworth, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 7th ed, 2012) 57.
209. CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 255 CLR 514, 600 [277]–[279].
210. This phrase was used by Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King, ‘Pulling the Article 50 “Trigger”: Parliament’s Indispensable Role’, UK Constitutional Law Association Blog (27 June 2016) <https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/>.
211. Saunders, above n 206, 375.
212. Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Parliamentary Sovereignty (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 226.
213. Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424.
214. Port of Portland, above n 6.
215. Paul Craig, ‘Miller, Structural Constitutional Review and the Limits of Prerogative Power’ (2017) (November Supp) Public Law 48, 56.
216. See, eg, Paul Daly, ‘Miller: Legal and Political Fault Lines’ (2017) (November Supp) Public Law 73; Phillipson and Young, above n 18.