Doctrine of separation of powers in Australian governance
🔺 Three Branches of Government in Australia:
| Branch | Role | Institution(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Legislative | Makes the laws | Parliament (House of Representatives & Senate) |
| Executive | Implements and administers laws | Government (Prime Minister, Cabinet, public service) |
| Judicial | Interprets laws | Courts and Judges (High Court, Federal Court) |
⚖️ Constitutional Basis
The Australian Constitution explicitly separates the powers at the federal level:
Chapter I – Parliament (Legislature)
Chapter II – Executive Government
Chapter III – Judicature (Judiciary)
While Australia doesn’t apply this doctrine as strictly as the U.S., the judicial power is the most rigorously protected. The High Court has consistently enforced the separation between judicial and non-judicial powers.
🧾 Key Principles
Judicial power must be exercised only by courts under Chapter III of the Constitution.
Non-judicial bodies (like tribunals or commissions) cannot exercise judicial power.
The legislature cannot confer judicial powers on executive bodies.
Executive interference in judicial functions is unconstitutional.
📚 Detailed Case Law Explaining the Doctrine
Here are six landmark cases that explain and apply the separation of powers in Australian constitutional law:
1. R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
➤ Facts:
The Conciliation and Arbitration Court was exercising both arbitral (non-judicial) and judicial powers under Commonwealth legislation.
➤ Issue:
Can a single body exercise both judicial and non-judicial powers?
➤ Held:
The High Court held that a Chapter III court cannot exercise non-judicial functions, and non-judicial bodies cannot exercise judicial power.
➤ Significance:
Established the strict separation of judicial power from the executive and legislative branches.
Led to the restructuring of Commonwealth tribunals and courts.
2. Cheng v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 248
➤ Facts:
The accused challenged a provision under which a judge issued a certificate to limit cross-examination of a witness on public interest grounds.
➤ Issue:
Does this give non-judicial discretion to a judge in a judicial proceeding?
➤ Held:
The High Court held that judicial discretion could include public interest considerations, and this did not breach the separation of powers.
➤ Significance:
Clarified the boundaries of judicial discretion.
Showed that not all powers exercised by judges are necessarily judicial power, but their use within proper judicial proceedings is allowed.
3. Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51
➤ Facts:
The NSW Parliament passed a law authorizing the Supreme Court to detain Gregory Kable preventively (not for a criminal offence but for perceived future risk).
➤ Issue:
Can a state court exercise a non-judicial function inconsistent with judicial independence?
➤ Held:
The High Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. Though the separation of powers is not strictly enforced in the states, state courts cannot be given powers that undermine their integrity as repositories of federal judicial power.
➤ Significance:
Introduced the “Kable Doctrine”, preventing state parliaments from undermining the independence of courts.
Ensured federal judicial integrity even at the state level.
4. Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen (Boilermakers' Case Appeal to Privy Council) [1957] AC 288
➤ Facts:
Followed the High Court’s decision in the Boilermakers’ Case; went to the Privy Council for final determination.
➤ Held:
Privy Council upheld the High Court’s view, reinforcing the incompatibility of judicial and non-judicial powers in one body.
➤ Significance:
Cemented the strict application of the doctrine in Australian federal constitutional law.
Confirmed that judicial power must be kept institutionally separate.
5. Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307
➤ Facts:
Thomas was subject to a control order under anti-terrorism legislation before being convicted of a crime.
➤ Issue:
Did the issuance of a control order involve judicial power or breach separation of powers?
➤ Held:
The High Court held that the control order could be validly issued by a court as part of judicial power, even though it involved preventive measures.
➤ Significance:
Court allowed some flexibility in the nature of judicial power.
Sparked ongoing debate on anti-terror laws and judicial independence.
6. Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1
➤ Facts:
Challenge to Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act and its compatibility with state court power.
➤ Issue:
Whether requiring courts to make “declarations of incompatibility” (that laws are inconsistent with human rights) violates separation of powers.
➤ Held:
The High Court held that such declarations are not binding, and therefore do not interfere with judicial power.
➤ Significance:
Confirmed that courts can participate in human rights dialogues without breaching judicial integrity.
Reinforced that judicial power involves enforceable decisions, not advisory opinions.
🔍 Key Doctrinal Points from Case Law
| Legal Principle | Key Case(s) |
|---|---|
| Judicial power must be exclusive to courts | Boilermakers’ Case (1956), Privy Council Appeal |
| State courts must preserve judicial integrity | Kable (1996) |
| Judges can exercise discretionary powers in context | Cheng (2000), Thomas v Mowbray (2007) |
| Courts cannot issue purely advisory opinions | Momcilovic (2011) |
🧠 Practical Implications in Governance
Legislative bodies must be careful not to confer judicial powers on tribunals or commissions that are not Chapter III courts.
Executive actions (like administrative detention or control orders) are subject to judicial scrutiny if they resemble punishment or judicial sentencing.
Judicial independence must be preserved for courts to legitimately exercise constitutional functions.
📝 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers in Australia is most strictly applied to the judiciary, ensuring that judicial power is independent, exclusive, and insulated from political or executive interference. Through landmark decisions, the High Court has protected the integrity of the courts, reinforcing democratic checks and balances in the Australian system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments