As a non-lawyer but one who is interested in the operation of voluntary organisations, I found this article to be interesting.

I came to it with the though that "despotism of bureaucracies" is not a real world problem and came away convinced that it is. My thanks for a very readable explanation of the subject.

Thanks for that kind comment. My aim with this article was indeed to help make the notion of the separation of powers a more accessible. As I say, it is interesting that this notion is referenced in popular culture. James Page.

Good article. Does the author wish to comment on the newly acquired powers of the Minister for Immigration in which it seems that he can make decisions about persons entering this country without reference to any legal process?

When Menzies lost the Communist Party Case in 1949 in the High Court and the trial in the big jury with a referendum to ban the Communist Party he decided the Separation of :Powers was an obsolete Doctrine in the Commonwealth and allowed the High Court as then constituted as the Federal Supreme Court to write itself an “Unholy Bible” called the High Court Rules 1952, so that the executive and the High Court would in future travel in lockstep, and any pesky Constitutional question not supported by a huge hue and cry in the media could never again be raised in that supposedly independent guardian of Constitutional integrity. In 2004 Howard allowed this unholy congregation ( of seven) to write another “Unholy Bible” the High Court Rules 2004 abolishing the Queen and all She stands for from its unholy precincts.

Most people including the learned Professor have no idea that representative democracy has its basis in the New Testament. The Parliament of the Commonwealth starts each day with the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6 Verses 9-13 of that hallowed tome the Authorised King James Version. The Institution of the Sovereign, has endured until now because until the end of WWII the separation of powers embodied in the Magna Carta which derives its force from Matthew 18 Verses 15-20, was still held sacred in the United Kingdom and Australia. The Principle or a Supernatural Power to deliver justice relied on the separation of powers, separating thye power of Administration which was vested in a Justice, from the power to judge, which was vested in a jury usually of 12 as in 12 disciples. The Magna Carta incorporates the principle of Matthew 18 Verse 20 into the law, as Jesus Christ said, For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in their midst.

That enactment prevented blasphemers from imposing their will on an unwilling population. One of the strongest prohibitions in the New Testament is a prohibition on Judging. When the Australian Democrats proposed removing prayers from Parliament they committed political suicide.

An excellent summation of the incident and its ramifications, thank you. It is good to know that someone is guarding our guardians.

The Queen when she became Queen was required to take a Coronation Oath. Part of that was: Will you to the utmost of your power maintaine the laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? This appears in Halsbury's Statutes of England dated 1950. The Hawke Government in 1984 legislated in S 15AB Acts Interpretation Act 1901 that extrinsic material, not forming part of an Act was admissible to clarify the meaning of an Act. That means that the Holy Bible may be used to clarify the meaning of certain words and punctuation, two words come to mind.

The first is “court” uncapitalised whenever it stands alone in Ch III Constitution. It appears 23 times as a stand alone word. Only a very negligent or lazy scholar would pretend that it means the same as Court. The second is “judges”. During my education a word with an s on the end meant plural. This word appears standing alone twice, once in S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and again in s 79 Constitution. S 79 says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. Using the Holy Bible and its prohibition on an individual judging another, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which say all persons shall be equal before the law, it is fair to say that a single Judge, merging the power to arrive at a verdict and administer that verdict are in fact merging the judicial power with the executive power and offending S 43 Crimes Act 1914, ( Cth).

Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister had the Parliamentary Draftsman change the word Court wherever appearing in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Australian Security and Investments Commission Act 2001 to “court” to comply with Ch III Constitution. No Federal Court of Australia Judge has agreed to empanel “judges” as the tribunal of fact. Consequently Australia has one of the dirtiest legal systems in the civilised world.