high court of australia
ita) How has the high court of Australia changed the balance of power between the commonwealth and the states? The High Court of Australia has the authority to decide matters relating to the Australian Constitution, that is it interprates the meanings of constitution when used in legal cases, and in using this power has influenced the balance of power between the states and the Commonwealth. Cases in which the High Court has exercised the power of interpreting the Constitution include the Uniform Tax Case in 1942, the Koowarta Case in 1982, and the Franklin Dam Case in 1983.Prior to the uniform tax case in 1942 income tax was payable to the Commonwealth and State Governments. In 1942, the Commonwealth Government passed a law assuming exclusive control over income taxes. The scheme had two main points: · The use of Commonwealth taxing power to impose an income tax at a rate equal to the previous total of State and Commonwealth income taxes combined. · The second, was the use of the grants power contained in Section 96 of the Constitution. Each State was to be granted an amount of money approximately equal to that which it would have raised through the imposition o
Also a judge is guarrunteed the position and a set wage until the age of 70 which protects them from threats etc. Those elected representatives who sit in parliament cannot over rule the high court in any matter concerning the interpretation of the constitution. So in this example the high court took away the states power to collect revenue on income tax instead the Commonwealth may make grants to the States in any manner it sees fit. They ruled that the Commonwealth could make laws necessary to implement international agreements made under the external affairs power, Section 51 of the Constitution. For these reasons it is possible that the high court makes mistakes with out scrutiny or becomes inconsistant. Presently the government in power, who are elected b the people, appoint the judges so in a way we have indirect controll over who is appointed. In 1982 the High Court upheld the right of John Koowarta a local aboriginal man, to buy land in northern Queensland and ruled the Queensland government policy of disallowing Aboriginal people from owning land was in conflict with the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. It may attach almost any conditions it likes to these grants even in areas for which it has no constitutional responsibility. There are 7 judges appointed at any given time and more than one will sit over any given case. The court upheld a Commonwealth legislative scheme that had the practical effect of excluding the States entirely from income tax. I personally believe that it is appropriate fore the high court of Australia to decide these interpretations. The States challenged the Commonwealth and lost. Judges are appointed by the government which currently hold power.
Common topics in this essay:
Act Court,
Commonwealth Government,
John Koowarta,
Australian Constitution,
Franklin Dam,
,
Commonwealth Court,
Court Australia,
income tax,
Uniform Tax,
court australia,
court upheld,
Commonwealth Governments,
judges appointed,
power commonwealth court,
tax 1942,
power elected,
uniform tax,
upheld commonwealth,
income taxes,
court power,
balance power commonwealth,
court upheld commonwealth,
uniform tax 1942,
|
Acceptance Essays
