Parliamentary Sovereignty or Supremacy in Australia

Abstract Ryan Goss has criticised the habit of Australian lawyers to use the terms “parliamentary sovereignty” or “parliamentary supremacy” when describing the nature of the legislative authority of their parliaments. He objects that, because no Australian parliament has unlimited authority, the use of these terms is incoherent or at least very confusing, and serves no useful purpose. This article aims to rebut his criticisms, by showing first, what Australian lawyers mean when they talk about their parliaments having sovereignty or supremacy within limits; secondly, what aspect of sovereignty or supremacy can meaningfully be said to exist, given the many limits to legislative power in Australia; and thirdly, why such talk continues to be useful. I will also show that such talk is not an odd Australian idiosyncrasy; it was first adopted by eminent British judges in the late Nineteenth Century, and can be found throughout the British Commonwealth and even in the United States.