General George Brandis 's ' The Bell Group Legislation Scandal Yesterday Doesn 't Get Us Particularly Far?

The court case consisted of the Queensland government passing an act and trying to pass a law which prevented Aboriginal people, from claiming native title. Native title in Australia being the government recognising the traditional connection that the Indigenous people have with the land and waters. Mabo eventually won this case, the result not being that they could claim native title but that the possibility was

Howard Government in regards to the response to the Wik case and meant it harder to make

Two judges, Kenneth Hayne and Dyson Heydon agreed also with Howard government’s argument. Both the judges also banned under 21 and most women not to vote, many states imposed property or income qualifications, and most Aborigines and Pacific islanders and other “coloured persons” were denied the vote.

"In 2003-04, for example, the Australian Government contribution to legal aid funding was $130 million, compared to its contribution of $159 million in 1996-97", In what way the government thought this would assist in the search for affordable services for the Average Australian is hard to clarify. As a consequence, more and more people are having to either give up on their freedom or represent themselves in court which costs the courts large sums of money and employs an un-even playing

Judge Tracey had regard to Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, in relation to issues with the construction of statutes. The case proposed that in order to define the purpose of a legislation, the extent and aim of the whole statute and the language of the relevant provision should be taken into consideration. Similarly, in “The Engineers Case” the court stated that the language of a statute should be examined in its ordinary and natural sense in order to understand the intent of Parliament behind making it.

Australians, was a  domestic  organization.  While the party was actively  aggressive towards governmental policies, they did  not have the  capacity  to be at war with the Commonwealth.  This provision bore no relation to

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

The case of Mabo v Others v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (www.austlii, 1993), rewrote common law as the court ruled in a six to one majority, that the people of

Another institution that protects our rights is shown by this case, the principle of separation of powers is on display, simply put the principle of the separation of powers refers to the three different branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and how they provide for a system of checks and balances for one another (Donald Carper, 2011) ensuring all parts act within the scope of their powers. This is outlined by the fact that the actions of the executive where investigated by the courts to see if their actions were in compliance with the Australian Constitution and other relevant legislation passed, by ensuring that the government’s actions were in accordance with the rules stated in the constitution it was ensured that the government acted within its scope and there was no abuse of power, because if this system of checks and balances did not exist than there would be no way to stop one of the bodies from overstretching and doing something that is outside of their power, we need to hold institutions accountable in order to ensure people’s rights are protected and governments cannot implement any policy that they wish. Individuals may disagree about the outcomes of particular cases but it is vital to our democracy and our rights that all the outcomes of cases are based on the Constitution and the relevant legislation, by having everything follow a set guideline and by having systems to enforce these guidelines we ensure institutions

Where there are problems, they are often with the way the Australian federal system operates, rather than with federalism itself. Rather than criticising our federal system, we should be working to make better use of its advantages
in order to improve our prosperity. In particular, the reform of the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States, and reform of fiscal federalism, are desperately needed. (Twomey and Withers, 2007)

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

Below is the memorandum for the negligence action regarding our client, Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok. To succeed in a claim of negligence, it must be proven that, on the balance of probabilities, that a duty of care was owed by the State of Victoria to prevent him from getting arrested once his bail conditions had been formally changed.

The government intervened by establishing a public inquiry known as the Leveson Commission chaired by Lord Justice Leveson with the raison d’être of inquiring into the corrupt practices and culture which was rampant within the press industry. Leveson himself, aware that many reports had been published but with zero implications went about espousing substantive reforms necessary for an effective self-regulatory watchdog and this ultimately gave rise to the Leveson Principles which not only received widespread support from the public but also from organisations such as Hack Off

‘It is well-known that the Separation of Powers doctrine is sine qua non for maintaining the rule of law however, an absolute separation of power does not exist in the Australian legal system.’