Question 1

Even if the Regulations and the Order, apart from s. 92, are completely valid, they cannot be upheld if they are inconsistent with s. 92. All the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament by s. 51 of the Constitution are given expressly "subject to this Constitution." The defence power is no exception. Section 92 is a provision which introduces into the substantive law of both Commonwealth and States a provision that trade, commerce and intercourse among the States shall be absolutely free. No statute or regulation or order made under a statute, whether by the Commonwealth or by a State, can repeal or modify this provision. It is a constitutional prohibition which is a limitation upon all legislative power. I refer to what I have said with respect to this matter in South Australia v. The Commonwealth (Uniform Taxation Case) and cf. Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. v. The Commonwealth, with reference to the prohibition of interfering with the free exercise of any religion contained in s. 116 of the Constitution. A provision in any law which is inconsistent with the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse among the States which is protected by s. 92 must be held to be ineffectual and inoperative.

Latham CJ - Gratwick v Johnson (1943) 70 CLR 1, 13

In this case, how do the various judgments see liberty protected, if at all, through a written, federal constitution creating a Commonwealth government of limited powers?