Sir Owen Dixon and the Concept of 'Nationhood' as a Source of Commonwealth Power

in J. Eldridge and T. Pilkington (eds), "Sir Owen Dixon's Legacy", The Federation Press, Sydney, 2019, pp 56-79.

39 Pages Posted: 7 Oct 2020

See all articles by Peter Gerangelos

Peter Gerangelos

The University of Sydney - Faculty of Law

Date Written: July 1, 2019

Abstract

The principal focus of this chapter is to trace from the reasoning of Dixon J, and those whom he influenced, the High Court’s evolving jurisprudence with respect to the concept of “nationhood” as a source of power. A central thesis of this chapter is that it is questionable whether the reasoning of Dixon J in the Cold War Era cases (Sharkey, Burns v Ransley, Communisty Party Case, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Case) as well as the reasoning in subsequent pivotal executive power cases in the High Court such as AAP and Davis, support the development of an inherent executive “nationhood” power in s 61 of the Constitution. The chapter examines the extent to which the influence of Dixon J, together with the nature of the very issues considered in these cases, come together to influence the outcome of what is often regarded as the most seminal case on executive power in recent years: Pape v Commissioner of Taxation.

Keywords: Owen Dixon, Executive Power, Nationhood, s 61 of the Constitution, the Mason Implication, breadth/depth, responsible government, federal distribution of powers, common law powers of the Crown, prerogative, non-statutory executive capacities

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Gerangelos, Peter, Sir Owen Dixon and the Concept of 'Nationhood' as a Source of Commonwealth Power (July 1, 2019). in J. Eldridge and T. Pilkington (eds), "Sir Owen Dixon's Legacy", The Federation Press, Sydney, 2019, pp 56-79., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3702705

Peter Gerangelos (Contact Author)

The University of Sydney - Faculty of Law ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
60
Abstract Views
300
Rank
643,430
PlumX Metrics