Henderson is relevant in assessing how a State's legislative and executive actions may affect the Commonwealth's executive power, although a State's executive actions in that regard appear to be restricted to the area of
royal prerogative. While there were majorities in favour of general concepts in the matter, there were differing views on specific aspects concerning the distribution of legislative power: :* Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ held that, where the Commonwealth has a pre-existing relationship with a citizen and a State passes a law which potentially affects that relationship, the State law will be valid so long as it is of general application and does impose a disability on, or remove a privilege or immunity of, the Commonwealth. In Brennan CJ's view, which was similar to McHugh J's, such laws would not be valid as the Commonwealth had not chosen whether to be subject to it. As all five agreed that the Commonwealth will only be bound by State law where it has consented to be bound, this has the effect of making the Commonwealth executive superior to those of the States. :* Whether a State law affects the executive capacities of the Commonwealth, as opposed to the exercise of them, will be a matter subject to the facts of a particular case. :* The High Court's view of the relevance of s. 109 in such matters was inconclusive. McHugh, Gummow and Kirby JJ believed that, where executive power arises from statute, the Commonwealth's protection from State law must come from s. 109 and not from the
Cigamatic doctrine. Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ did not consider s. 109 in formulating their judgment. Certain commentators consider the first viewpoint to be more consistent with the nature of Australian federation. :* While Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ held that the States do not have specific legislative powers to restrict or modify the executive capacities of the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth does have such authority with respect to those of the States, it has been noted that there is no reason why a State law could not affect the Commonwealth so long as it is for the
peace, order and good government of that State. :* Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ agreed that the States do not have the power to alter the legal relationships between the Commonwealth and its subjects. The majority of Justices accepted that s. 64 of the
Judiciary Act 1903 did not apply, as the DHA was not a body that was subject to the
Cigamatic doctrine. However,
Commonwealth v Evans Deakin Industries had previously held that that provision will mean that a wide range of State laws may apply to the Commonwealth in circumstances where the doctrine applies. == See also ==