ABSTRACT
This chapter explores some significant impediments to the incorporation of Wild Law principles into Australian constitutional law. A Wild Law perspective requires us to interrogate existing constitutional provisions which protect trade and property and to question whether such provisions should be read subject to considerations of environmental impact and the rights of other species. The Forsyte clan's fascination with property might explain why trade, commerce and property were considered worthy of constitutional protection by our Founding Fathers while human rights and environmental values were not. Wild Law storytelling or retelling legal narratives from a Wild Law perspective, shares many similarities with this feminist project. The judicial acceptance of direct action as a persuasive form of political communication constitutes an important milestone for environmental activists. The court acknowledged that the Regulations had a restrictive impact on political communication and prevented Levy and his colleagues from communicating their message in the most effective way possible.
