Hi all!
Would anyone have a sample response or a way to respond to this question?
How can High Court interpretations of the Commonwealth Constitution change the division of powers between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? Explain using the Brislan and Franklin Dam case studies. (10 marks)
Thanks!
Hey
Totally agree with everything posted just above ^^^, but in addition I think the best way to explain how the HCA (High Court) can alter the division of law making powers just needs to open with why they can.
So, the HCA, under Sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution, has the power to hear cases relating to the constitutional validity of particular laws. So, e.g. in the Franklin Dams case, the Cth Parliament passed a law to enact a treaty that they had signed that was in a residual area of power. Therefore, when the state took the case to the HCA, the HCA was able to make a decision on whether or not the Cth had the power to pass that certain law in the residual area of power.
Therefore, that's how they can alter the division of law making power, because they have the power to determine whether the Cth Parliament has the ability to create certain law - in the Dams case they decided that the Cth Plt had the power to pass any law required to enact a treaty, which made it a concurrent area of power and therefore subject to S109, as Glasses explained above.
Hope this (additionally) helps!
KB
Thanks!
[/quote]