Advanced search
Publication Cover
Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal Volume 12, 2012 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
2,170
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

The Executive Power of the Commonwealth of Australia: Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution, ‘nationhood’ and the Future of the Prerogative

Peter Gerangelos Professor of Constitutional Law in the University of Sydney and formerly Principal Solicitor in the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor. It is noted that the most recent decision of the High Court relevant to the issues discussed herein, Williams v Cth [2012] HCA 23, was handed down very recently. As it was not possible to include a detailed discussion of that case in the main body of the article prior to publication, the case is nevertheless discussed in a supplementary note which follows. In relation to the import of Williams, the writer acknowledges the very valuable assistance provided by Professor Geoffrey Lindell and Ms Gabrielle Appleby of the University of Adelaide.
Pages 97-131 | Published online: 07 May 2015

  • Leslie Zines, ‘Commentary’ in HV Evatt, The Royal Prerogative (The Law Book Co 1987) ch 5.
  • [2009] HCA 23 (High Court of Australia (HCA)).
  • See Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1997] HCA 25 in relation to the former and, in relation to the latter, R v Kirby, exp Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 (HCA) 275 (Boilermakers' case), affd Attorney-General for Australia v The Queen and The Boilermakers' Society of Australia [1957] AC 288 (Privy Council (PC)) 315.
  • G Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General: A Constitutional Analysis (Melbourne University Press 1983) 94–101; L Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (5th edn, The Federation Press 2008) 359–76.
  • See ss 53, 57, 63, 64; Lange (n 3); G Lindell, Responsible Government and the Australian Constitution— Conventions Transformed into Law? (Australian National University Centre for International and Public Law, Law and Policy Paper 24, Federation Press 2004); Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 35; G Winterton, ‘The Relationship Between Commonwealth Legislative and Executive Power’ (2004) 25 Adelaide Law Review 21, 35. See also Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 (House of Lords (HL)).
  • L Zines, ‘The Inherent Executive Power of the Commonwealth’ (2005) 16 Public Law Review 279, 280.
  • (1975) 134 CLR 338 (HCA) 405–06 (AAP case).
  • AAP case (n 7) 397 (emphasis added).
  • (1988) 83 ALR 265 (Federal Court of Australia (FCA)) 285.
  • [2001] FCA 1329. See S Evans, ‘The Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and the MV Tampa' (2002) 13 Public Law Review 94.
  • Boilermakers' (n 3).
  • Boilermakers' (n 3).
  • See Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 97; Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 38; Zines, High Court (n 4) 373.
  • This was noted in The Report of the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission on Executive Government 1987, ch 4, 59.
  • See Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 23; M Cromellin, ‘The Executive’ in G Craven (ed), The Convention Debates 1891–1898: Commentaries, Indices and Guide (Legal Books 1986) 127, 131–32.
  • R v Hughes [2000] HCA 22 [39] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan J J).
  • Commonwealth v The Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd (1922) 31 CLR 421 (HCA) 447–48 (Wooltops case).
  • (1988) 166 CLR 79 (HCA) 92.
  • Davis (n 18) 107.
  • Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1 (HCA) 230 (Williams J, adopting Gavan Duffy CJ and Knox J in Wooltops (n 17) 432). This was adopted in relation to ‘execution and maintenance’ of Commonwealth laws by Gummow J in Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW), ex p Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410 (HCA) 464.
  • Brown v West (1990) 169 CLR 195 (HCA) 201 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey J J).
  • See Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 31.
  • Communist Party (n 20) 230.
  • Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2010] HCA 27 [31] (French CJ) and cases referred to in Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 286–90; HP Lee, Emergency Powers (The Law Book Co 1984) ch 3.
  • See Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 26.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 302.
  • See Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 279; WMC Gummow, ‘The Constitution: Ultimate Foundation of Australian Law?’ (2005) 79 Australian Law Journal 167; Zines, High Court (n 4) 358.
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 35.
  • Gummow, ‘The Constitution’ (n 27) 178.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 292.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 292. See also Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 97, 48–49; Zines, ‘Commentary’ (n 1) ch 1.
  • Pape (n 2) [129] (French CJ).
  • ‘Prerogative’ is subject to different usages. The broader Diceyan view is adopted herein as opposed to the discerning usage preferred by Blackstone, Sir William Wade and Professor Zines, ie, the powers and immunities uniquely the Crown's as distinct from the subject (also used by Brennan J in Davis (n 18) 108); those common law powers shared with subjects are ‘capacities’. In relation to the broader usage see HWR Wade, ‘Procedure and Prerogative in Public Law’ (1985) 101 Law Quarterly Review 180, 194; Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477 (HCA) 498 (Mason J, ‘common law’); Commonwealth v Western Australia [1999] HCA 5 [106]; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 (HL) 573 (Lord Nicholls, who referred to ‘the residue of discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the Crown’). For the narrower usage see HWR Wade, ‘The Crown, Ministers and Offcials: Legal Status and Liability' in M Sunkin and S Payne (eds), The Nature of the Crown (OUP 1999) 23, 31; Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 280. Zines has noted the important difference between ‘capacities’ and ‘prerogatives’ in that the latter ‘are capable of interfering with what would otherwise be the legal rights of others. In the case of capacities, their exercise cannot override legal rights and duties', in Zines, High Court (n 4) 345.
  • AAP (n 7) 362 (Barwick CJ), 379 (Gibbs J), 396–97 (Mason J), 405–06 (Jacobs J).
  • AAP (n 7) 396 (per Mason J).
  • See Zines, High Court (n 4) 410–17.
  • Davis (n 18) 101, 102, 103 (Wilson and Dawson J J) 118 (Toohey J). See Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 268.
  • Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Offcial Liquidator of E O Farley Ltd(in liq) (1940) 63 CLR 278 (HCA) 320–22 (Evatt J); AAP (n 7) 362 (Barwick CJ), 379 (Gibbs J), 396–97 (Mason J).
  • This was originally set out in Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 33–34, expanded upon in chs 2 and 3.
  • See text with n 8.
  • See AAP (n 7) 396–98.
  • Zines, High Court (n 4) 410–17.
  • AAP (n 7) 397.
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 27–28.
  • (1983) 158 CLR 535 (HCA) 560, apparently adopted in R v Hughes (2000) 202 CLR 535 (HCA) [38] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan J J).
  • AAP (n 7) 412–13.
  • AAP (n 7) 405–06.
  • AAP (n 7) 412–13.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 29.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 29–30, 40–44; Evans (n 10).
  • See text with n 9.
  • (1975) 132 CLR 164 (HCA).
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 34.
  • Johnson (n 52) 170.
  • WH Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (2nd edn, Legal Books 1997) 297–98.
  • Barton (n 33).
  • It is noted that the AAP case (n 7) was concerned with the validity of legislation appropriating funds for the Australian Assistance Plan pursuant to s 81. As Gibbs J noted ((1975) 134 CLR 338, 379), the principal concern was with breadth.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 34. For a more complete exposition see 29–30, 40–44 and G Winterton (ed), We, the People (Allen and Unwin 1994) 31–34.
  • E Campbell, ‘Parliament and the Executive’ in L Zines (ed) Commentaries on the Australian Constitution (Butterworths 1977) 88–89 (emphasis added).
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 281.
  • Zines, High Court (n 4) 359. See also Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 66–68.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 279.
  • Zines, High Court (n 4) 358.
  • See the fine summation In Anne Twomey, ‘Pushing the Boundaries of Executive Power—Pape, the Prerogative and Nationhood Powers' (2010) 34 Melbourne University Law Review 313, nn 45–51 and accompanying text with relevant authority.
  • Zines, High Court (n 4) 359.
  • Gummow, ‘The Constitution’ (n 26) 178.
  • For a more detailed examination of this point, see Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 120–22; G Winterton, ‘The Prerogative in Novel Situations’ (1983) 99 Law Quarterly Review 407.
  • Vadarlis (n 10).
  • Victorian Council for Civil Liberties v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 110 FCR 452 (Federal Ct) [110]-[22].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [9]-[29].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [31].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [29].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [30].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [183] (Beaumont J concurring with French J) (emphasis added).
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [191].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [193] (emphasis added).
  • See text with n 9 above.
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [181] (emphasis added).
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [192].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [193].
  • Vadarlis (n 10) [31].
  • Residential Tenancies (n 20) 459 (emphasis added).
  • G Sawer, ‘The Executive Power of the Commonwealth and the Whitlam Government' (unpublished Octagon Lecture, University of Western Australia, 1976) 10 (emphasis added). See Winterton ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 33.
  • Winterton ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 31.
  • Davis (n 18) 93 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron J J); 103 (Wilson and Dawson J J); 111 (Brennan J); 119 (Toohey J).
  • AAP (n 7).
  • AAP (n 7).
  • Davis (n 18) 94 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron J J).
  • Davis (n 18) 104 (Wilson and Dawson J J); 114 (Brennan J); 119 (Toohey J).
  • Davis (n 18) 110.
  • Davis (n 18) 110.
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 32.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 281.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 281.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 291. See Twomey (n 64) 323–24 where there is succinct statement of respective views which arise with respect to the capacities of the Crown in a federal context.
  • See n 59 and the accompanying quotation from Professor Campbell's work.
  • Pape (n 2). Articles which have considered this case in detail are: C Saunders, ‘The Sources and Scope of the Commonwealth Power to Spend' (2009) 20 Public Law Review 256; A McLeod, ‘The Executive and Financial Powers of the Commonwealth: Pape v Commissioner of Taxation’ (2010) 32 Sydney Law Review 123; Twomey (n 63).
  • In AAP (n 7) and Attorney-General (Vic) v Commonwealth (Pharmaceutical Benefts Case) (1945) 71 CLR 237 discussed in Zines, High Court (n 4) 352–54.
  • Pape (n 2) [8]–[9], [133]–[34] (French CJ); [241]–[43] (Gummow, Crennan and Bell J J); [320] (Hayne and Kiefel J J); [601]–[02] (Heydon J).
  • Pape (n 2) [133].
  • Pape (n 2) [10].
  • Pape (n 2) [241].
  • Pape (n 2) [233].
  • Pape (n 2) [8]–[9], [133]–[34] (French CJ); [241]–[43] (Gummow, Crennan and Bell J J).
  • Saunders (n 97) 261–62 noted a confusion in the reasoning relating to breadth and depth.
  • Pape (n 2) [133].
  • Twomey (n 64) 327–30.
  • Pape (n 2) [127] (emphasis added).
  • Pape (n 2) [127].
  • Pape (n 2) [214] (emphasis added).
  • Pape (n 2) [220].
  • Twomey (n 64) 315.
  • Pape (n 2) [345] and using criteria along the lines suggested by the Mason test: [329]–[30].
  • Pape (n 2) [352]–[53].
  • Pape (n 2) [348].
  • Pape (n 2) [349]–[52].
  • Pape (n 2) [487]–[510].
  • Pape (n 2) [545].
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 28.
  • Pape (n 2) [551].
  • AAP (n 7) and accompanying text.
  • See Twomey (n 64) 330–35 for a more detailed examination of this point.
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 21.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 70.
  • DG Morgan, The Separation of Powers in the Irish Constitution (Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell 1997) 272, quoted in Zines, ‘The Inherent’ (n 6) 279.
  • See Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 33; Zines, ‘The Inherent’ (n 6).
  • As to the origins of the concept of executive power, see MJC Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (2nd edn, Liberty Fund 1998) 29–34.
  • PA Gerangelos, ‘Interpretational Methodology in Separation of Powers Jurisprudence: The Formalist/Functionalist Debate’ (2005) 7 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 1; PA Gerangelos, The Separation of Powers and Legislative Interference in Judicial Functions (Hart Publishing 2009) 14–57.
  • MH Redish, The Constitution as Political Structure (OUP 1995) 117.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 70 (emphasis added).
  • Pape (n 2) [551].
  • Australian Communist Party (n 20) 187.
  • Lee (n 24) 209–11; Twomey (n 64) 381.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 33.
  • See G Sawer, ‘The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia’ (1976) 52 Current Affairs Bulletin 20, 25; J Richardson, ‘The Executive Power of the Commonwealth’ in Zines, Commentaries (n 59) 86–87.
  • See Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 33; Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 36.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 33.
  • Quoted in Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 34.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 292.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 292.
  • Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and (UK).
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 24, 48; Zines, ‘Commentary’ (n 1) ch1–ch10.
  • Gerangelos, Separation of Powers (n 128) 22–29.
  • Barton (n 33) 498 (Mason J).
  • Zines, High Court (n 4) 363–64.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 282.
  • Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462 (HCA), 495–96; Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 282; Zines, High Court (n 4) 364.
  • Twomey (n 64) 316.
  • 149 Lee (n 24) ch 3; Zines ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 287, 294.
  • See also Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 (HL); Zines ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 287.
  • AW Bradley and KD Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (13th ed, Longman 2003) 105, 246–47.
  • Airlines of NSW Pty Ltd v NSW (No 2) (1965) 113 CLR 54 (HCA); Attorney-General (WA), Ex Rel Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian National Airlines Commission (1976) 138 CLR 492 (HCA).
  • See Sir A Mason, ‘The Australian Constitution: 1901–1988' (1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 752, 755.
  • Zines, ‘Inherent’ (n 6) 290. For a more detailed consideration of how the common law might be applied to deal with the different scenarios raised in the Australian cases, see Twomey (n 64) 335–38.
  • See the fine summary in Twomey (n 64) 320 and cases referred to therein.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 120–22.
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 34–35.
  • See Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 49; Evatt, Royal Prerogative (n 1) ch 6; Twomey (n 64) 324, 335–38.
  • Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 34–35.
  • Lange (n 3) 561. See also De Keyser's Royal Hotel (n 5); Winterton, ‘Relationship’ (n 5) 35; Lindell (n 5).
  • See Evans, ‘The Rule of Law’ (n 10) 99.
  • RS French, ‘The Executive Power’ (2010) 12 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 5, 12.
  • Text accompanying n 9.
  • Text accompanying n 19–21.
  • See above n 106 and accompanying text.
  • Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 44.
  • (1998) 195 CLR 425 (HCA).
  • Egan (n 167) [41]. In relation to the issue of responsible government, the writer is indebted to the important article of Professor Geoffrey Lindell (n 5), especially 5; and also similar remarks in Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor (2000) 207 CLR 391 (HCA) [17] (Gleeson CJ) [212] (Gummow and Hayne J J) which were brought to the attention of the writer by Professor Lindell's work.
  • Pape (n 2) [10]. For the quotation from Sir Owen Dixon see text with n 132.
  • Vadarlis (n 10).
  • [2012] HCA 23.
  • Williams (n 171) [22] (French CJ), [138]–[46] (Gummow and Bell J J), [483]–[85] (Crennan J).
  • Hayne and Kiefel J J also held these to be invalid, though for different reasons which need not be discussed here. Heydon J was the only justice to hold the agreement and spending valid.
  • Williams (n 171) [382], and n 525 contained therein.
  • Williams (n 171) [22] (French CJ), [138]–[46] (Gummow and Bell J J), [483]–[85] (Crennan J).
  • Zines, High Court (n 4) 355; Winterton, Parliament (n 4) 122–23.
  • Williams (n 171) [151]–[52] (Gummow and Bell J J); [516]–[34] (Crennan J).
  • Williams (n 171) [37]–[38], [56]–[58], [60], [83] (French CJ).
  • Williams (n 171) [134]–[36].
  • Williams (n 171) [26]–[27].
  • Williams (n 171) [341].
  • Williams (n 171) [404].
  • Williams (n 171) [404].

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.