An Australian future for the anti-commandeering doctrine: Might it command operation?

Abstract Within the Australian Federation to what extent is the Commonwealth Parliament prevented from ‘conscripting’ or ‘commandeering’ State officers for its own purposes? Drawing on the history of commandeering both in the United States and in Australia, this article explores the constraints on the formulation of any Australian-based doctrine in light of recent High Court jurisprudence. This article argues that while the practical scope of any Australian-derived doctrine has been curtailed by the High Court, there is a role for it to play as a ‘per se’ breach of the Melbourne Corporation principle. But to have that effect, its ambit must be confined to situations where there is (i) an administrative duty imposed on (ii) a state statutory office holder or statutory body, where (iii) this has not been acquiesced to by the relevant state legislature or contemplated by the Constitution.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Federal Law Review
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/fed.2025.10009
Primary Topic
Military History and Strategy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Australian future for the anti-commandeering doctrine: Might it command operation?

Tristan Taylor, Sarah Murray
Federal Law Review
Military History and Strategy
article

An Australian future for the anti-commandeering doctrine: Might it command operation?

Tristan Taylor, Sarah Murray
article en

Abstract

Abstract Within the Australian Federation to what extent is the Commonwealth Parliament prevented from ‘conscripting’ or ‘commandeering’ State officers for its own purposes? Drawing on the history of commandeering both in the United States and in Australia, this article explores the constraints on the formulation of any Australian-based doctrine in light of recent High Court jurisprudence. This article argues that while the practical scope of any Australian-derived doctrine has been curtailed by the High Court, there is a role for it to play as a ‘per se’ breach of the Melbourne Corporation principle. But to have that effect, its ambit must be confined to situations where there is (i) an administrative duty imposed on (ii) a state statutory office holder or statutory body, where (iii) this has not been acquiesced to by the relevant state legislature or contemplated by the Constitution.

Federal Law ReviewVol. 53
California Western School of Law (US), Family Court of Australia (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Military History and Strategy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

An Australian future for the anti-commandeering doctrine: Might it command operation? — Tristan Taylor, Sarah Murray · Federal Law Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS