The High Court of Australia Has a Major Role to Play in Making Law in Australia

The High Court of Australia Has a Major Role to Play in Making Law in Australia

The High Court of Australia has a major role to play in Making Law in Australia It is argued that Judges and Courts do not make the law and more specifically, the High Court’s role in the Law of Australia is to interpret the constitution and to apply the existing legal principles passed by the government. It is in that application that new laws are made. Because Australia is a democratic nation, it can be assumed that the government statutes are made by a group that represents the interests of the people and therefore new laws are in accordance with the societal norms, morals and principles of the day. The High Courts interpretation of these laws can bring forward ambiguities and contradictions leading to the necessitation of new laws or invalidation of old laws. An example of this is the outcome of Mabo v. Queensland (No. 1) (1988) 166 CLR 186. The action was brought by Eddie Mabo and others to determine the legal rights of the Merriam people to the islands of Mer, or Murray Island, Dauar and Waier in the Torres Strait, which were annexed to the state of Queensland in 1879. Another law was passed in 1985 by the Queensland government in an attempt to pre-empt the case. Looking at the background of the case, a comparison between the Queensland Coast Islands Act 1879, the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 and the Racial Discriminations Act 1975, the laws that affect this case, we see that The first was enacted on the basis of the doctrine of terra nullius (land belonging to no one) and which therefore did not officially acknowledge the existence of the Aboriginal people or their ownership of the land despite the settlers recognition that there was a developed system of land ownership. During that period in history, Aboriginal people or any indigenous people of new found lands were not considered human or civilised so their society, laws, religion were not acknowledged and so had no rights to the land. This view of “native people” was accepted and...

Similar Essays