Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:51:39.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Extract

That such a power now exists is indisputable. Its ambit alone must yet be resolved. Its restrictions, that is, activities denied to an exercise of the power, must be those that apply generally to legislative powers. A noncoercive power is no power – an absurd proposition – and no reason exists to confine the power to one extending only to permit Commonwealth funds to be drawn from its Treasury. The true rule is stated by Mason J.

Every implied power arises from constitutional language, history or political reality. Thus, in the United States, powers over aliens, the Indian tribes, foreign relations and the compulsory requisition of private property derive from implication based on history and political reality. This is explained in the Curtiss-Wright case. Australia differs from the United States in three relevant respects: it is not a union of states; Commonwealth powers were not granted to it by the States; and there is, and there never was, dual Commonwealth-State citizenship.

Type
Article Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Commonweulth v Tasmania (1983) 57 ALJR 450, 478 per Gibbs CJ, 511 per Murphy J, 520 per Wilson J, 542 per Deane J, 572 per Dawson J.

2 Ibid 487, 492-493.

3 United States of America v Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936) 299 US 304, 315-318.

4 Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31.