Abstract
On 13 August 2020, the WA Parliament enacted the Mineralogy Act to address damages claims arising from proposals for mining projects submitted by Clive Palmer, Mineralogy Pty Ltd and International Minerals Pty Ltd. The constitutionality of the Mineralogy Act was challenged in the High Court on various grounds in Mineralogy and Palmer. This article considers one of these grounds: that the Mineralogy Act was invalid for its failure to comply with the rule of law, understood as an implied constraint on State legislative competence arising under the Commonwealth Constitution. This submission was unsuccessful, as were the other grounds of challenge. However, the High Court’s consideration of this issue and the legislative process leading to the enactment of the Mineralogy Act provide a useful backdrop to reflect upon the concept of the rule of law, the circumstances in which departures from the rule of law are justifiable, and the status of the rule of law in Australian constitutional law. The rule of law is rightly protected primarily through parliamentary as opposed to judicial processes, although the Mineralogy Act also reveals clear weaknesses in Australia’s political constitution.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 310 |
Number of pages | 338 |
Journal | Adelaide Law Review |
Volume | 45 |
Issue number | 2 |
Publication status | Published - 2024 |