Question 1:  which court to determine the dispute

The Australian government has a well-structured court system. These courts range from the territorial courts to the highest court which is the supreme court of Australia. However the decision on which court should hear and determine the dispute between the common wealth and south Australian government is critical. The choice should ensure justice and fairness to the interested parties is administered(Webre, 2005).

The high court should be the court with the responsibility of hearing and determining such disputes. This is because it is the highest court in the Australian land. Park reservation is a matter of public interest and requires proper jurisdiction of the law. The high court provides the most reliable interpretation of the law and thus offering the opportunity of getting the most acceptable judgment. It also essential to note that high court ruling is the final verdict and has no avenue to appeal. Failure of avenues for appeal will make the judicial exercise speedy and to the benefit of the public.  The ruling from state judiciary is subject to revision by the Australian government but a high court ruling will be respected and adhered to the letter.

Question 2: provisions for listing Birdlands park by the minister

The Australian constitution has accorded the environment minister powers to regulate and determine which parks should be reserved. According to parks reservation Act of 2011, the minister for the environment has the obligation to identify areas to be parklands and protect them from insensitive developments. According to the provisions of this Act 4(1) the minister may order the listing of Birdlands as a park.  Biirdlands qualifies to be treated as a park since it is a home to exotic Houslum bird which is a rare species of southern parrot.

Prior to this Act of 2011, commonwealth had entered into an agreement with various Asian countries to protect parks from insensitive developments. Under this agreement, international convention for environment protection 2010 was established (Webre, 2005). The commonwealth parliament enforced this with enacting the parks preservation Act 2011 which gives the minister for Environment powers of listing parks. However, the ministers powers are limited to the extent that the area qualifies to be a park in is original state and it was not previously under ministers control as provided in section 5.

Question 3: Argument supporting invalidity of the parklands preservation Act 2011

The Australian government is expected to object the minister’s decision to list Birdlands for preservation under the parks preservation Act 2011. It is expected that the Australian government will put a strong case to defend their intention of building the entertainment Centre.First and foremost, the government argues that the decision on whether to develop the land lies squarely on the south Australian government.

In order to object the relevance of the preservation Act of 2011, the south Australian government will argue that their intention is not to change the status of the park. This is because the entertainment Centre intended to be constructed also lies under the park lands as defined in the section 3 of the provision. According to the provisions of the Act, park land means open area for recreational use or area set aside for human enjoyment (Webre, 2005). The government will strongly argue that the intention of development is to create a recreation facility and not insensitive developments which are prohibited by the constitution.

Question 4: Most likely outcome of this case

The decision to this case would be a difficult one to reach at. This is because the south Australian government can strongly defend the decision of building the recreation Centre. The functionality of the states is governed by the state laws which are made by the parliament. However, according to previous cases, the Minister is likely to win this case. This is because the provisions in the 2011 Act has given him the authority of listing the area as a park land. Though the south Australian government has a strong case to defend their actions, the supreme Australian law requires that commonwealth rules should be upheld in case of conflicts between the laws of the state and those of the Australian government.

References

State and territory government – australia.gov.au. (n.d.).australia.gov.au. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government/state-and-territory-government

Demirguc, A. (2012). Issues in Environmental Law, Policy, and Planning. Oxford: Scholarly Editions.

Legal Research Guide: Australia | Law Library of Congress. (n.d.).Library of Congress Home. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/australia.php

Webre, A. L. (2005). Exopolitics: politics, government and law in the universe: a treatise. Vancouver: Universe books.

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?