In typical law western legal systems, there is an expectation that the protections of basic rights of citizens is to be broad, efficient and enforceable. This expectation in all probability comes from the United States Constitution and representations of it in well-liked culture. Even so, in the Australian Constitution as in lots of of its counterparts in the Western program such as the United Kingdom Constitution which is not basically codified the protection of rights is pretty restricted.

The United States Constitution confidently and comprehensively asserts a series of rights such as the appropriate to vote, the appropriate to trial by jury, the appropriate against self-incrimination, the appropriate to ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and the appropriate to bear arms amongst other people. In the Australian Constitution there are only 3 express rights which are the appropriate to vote, the appropriate that the state shall not legislation to institute a certain religion and the appropriate to freedom from discrimination by the citizens of an additional state in the Australian Federal program. In comparison with the American protection of constitutional rights, this is a comparatively weak entrenchment of the notion of rights in the Australian legal program.

This paucity of rights protection has lead to the have to have for courts in Australia to create jurisprudential justifications for the expansion of the scope of rights protected by the Australian Constitution by way of the doctrine of implied rights. This has been held to exist in Australia Constitutional law as a consequence of the functioning of the judiciary and the implementation of the rule of law below Chapter III of the Constitution. Some of the rights which have been held to exist consist of the appropriate not to be topic to retrospective legislation as in the case of Polyukovich v R. Some judges have also discussed the have to have for an implied appropriate of legal equality as in the matter of Leeth v Commonwealth and the Stolen Generation Case of 1997. The appropriate to a fair trial has also been the topic of judicial debate as in the case of Dietrich v The Queen (1992). Nonetheless, in spite of some attempts to expand the scope of rights protected below the Australian Constitution, this scope at present remains restricted.