on the use of united states case law, from which the doctrine had largely been drawn, the court acknowledged that decisions of the supreme court of the united states were of course not binding in australia, but given the similarities between the american and australian constitutions, such decisions "may well be regarded... not as an infallible guide, but as a most welcome aid and assistance." the court went on to discuss the method by which the constitution was formed, at the constitutional conventions, and said that "we think... we are entitled to assume – what, after all, is a fact of public notoriety – that some, if not all, of the framers of the constitution were familiar, not only with the constitution of the united states, but with that of the canadian dominion and those of the british colonies", and that when provisions of the australian constitution are in substance the same as those in other constitutions, and those other provisions have been interpreted by courts in a certain way, "it is not an unreasonable inference that [the australian constitution's] framers intended that like provisions should receive like interpretation." griffith cj , barton and o'connor jj were capable of speaking for at least some of the framers of the constitution, having each "assisted in the actual drafting of the constitutional documents."