Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:28:11.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Separation of Powers — A Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Harry Gibbs
Harry Gibbs*
Affiliation:
High Court of Australia 1981-87
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a great privilege for me to be here today at this College, which had become distinguished as a seat of learning long before my own country had first been settled by English-speaking people. The occasion for my presence is to deliver one of a series of lectures given in honour of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, who was Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966 and who, more relevantly for today’s occasion, was both a distinguished constitutional lawyer and a lover of Virginia.

The theory of Montesquieu, that to secure liberty it is necessary to separate the three main functions of the state — the legislative, the executive and the judicial — has had a profound and lasting influence on political thought. James Madison, who expounded the theory with such effect in No. 47 of The Federalist papers, regarded the separation of powers as the most sacred principle of the United States Constitution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1987 , pp. 151 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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 Cited in Tribe, L, Constitutional Choices (1985) 309Google Scholar.

2 Cummins, “The General Principles of Law, Separation of Powers and Theories of Judicial Decision in France” (1986) 35 ICLQ 594-628CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The Queen v Trade Practices Tribunal; ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 361, 392.

4 War Damage Act 1965 overruling Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 195.

5 Cf Liyanage v The Queen [1967] I AC 259.

6 Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195.

7 Phillips, O Hood “A Constitutional Myth: Separation of Powers” (1977) 93 LQR 11Google Scholar.

8 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129, 147; The Queen v Kirby; ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 275.

9 Eg The Queen v Kirby; ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 273;Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia v The Queen (1951) 95 CLR 529, 539-540.

10 This was suggested by Sawyer, G: “The Separation of Powers in Australian Federalism” (1961) 35 ALJ 177, 184Google Scholar.

11 See Cobb & Co Ltd v Kropp [1967] AC 141 and cases there cited.

12 US v Chicago Milwaukee St Paul & Pacific Railroad Co 282 US 311, 324 (1931 );Panama Refining Co v Ryan 293 US 388, 421 (1934); Schechter Poultry Corporation v US 295 US 495, 530 (1935).

13 (1931) 46 CLR 73.

14 Ibid 100.

15 Ibid 101-102.

16 Radio Corporation Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1938) 59 CLR 170; Wishart v Fraser (1941) 64 CLR 470.

17 Cf Victoria v The Commonwealth and Hayden (1975) 134 CLR 338.

18 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952); cf Dames & Moore v Regan 453 US 654 (1981).

19 462 US 919 (1983); Process Gas Consumer Group v Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 463 us 1216 (1983).

20 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (as amended), s 48.

21 Huddart Parker Ltd v The Commonwealth (1931) 44 CLR 492, 506.

22 (1986) 54 US Law Week 5064.

23 The Queen v Quinn; ex parte Consolidated Food Corporation (1977) 138 CLR I, II.

24 Huddart Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330; New South Wales v The Commonwealth (1915) 20 CLR 54.

25 Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v JW Alexander Ltd (1918) 25 CLR 434.

26 458 us 50 (1982).

27 (1956) 94 CLR 254.

28 (1918) 25 CLR 434.

29 (1956) 94 CLR 254.

30 Ibid 289.

31 The Queen v Spicer; ex parte Australian Builders' Labourers' Federation (1957) 100 CLR 277; The Queen v Spicer; ex parte Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia (1957) 100 CLR 312.

32 The Queen v Gallagher; ex parte Aberdare Collieries Pry Ltd (1963) 37 AUR 40; The Queen v Austin; ex parte Farmers and Graziers Co-operative Company Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 6l9; The Queen v Gough; ex parte Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia (1969) 122 CLR 237.

33 Reg v Joske; ex parte Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation (1973) 130 CLR 87, 90, 102; The Queen v Joske; ex parte Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (1976) 135 CLR 194, 201-202, 222.

34 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Munro (1926) 38 CLR 153, 175-176; Queen VictoriaMemorial Hospital v Thornton (1953) 87 CLR 144, 151; The Queen v Davison (1954) 90 CLR 353,368-370.

35 Compare the decision in The Queen v Spicer; ex parte Australian Builders' Labourers' Federation with those in Reg v Joske; ex parte Australian Builders' .Labourers' Federation (1973) 130 CLR 87; Mikasa (NSW) Pty Ltd v Festival Stores (1972) 127 CLR 617 and Taiga Ltd v MBC International Ltd (1976) 133 CLR 622.

36 The Queen v Trade Practices Tribunal; ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 361.

37 The Queen v Quinn; ex parte Consolidated Foods Corporation (1977) 138 CLR 1.

38 Hayburn's Case 2 Dall 409 (1792); Yale Todd 13 How 52 (1794); US v Ferreira 13 How 40 (1851).

39 Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57; Jones v The Commonwealth (1987) 71 ALR 497, (1987) 61 ALJR 348.

40 Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57, 73-74.

41 The King v Bevan; ex parte Elias and Gordon (1942) 66 CLR 452.

42 Dynes v Hoover 61 US 65 (1858).

43 The Queen v Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157.