Can judicial decisions in Australia be superceded?
In the US, apparently the president has power of judicial decision as he can remove people from jail. I don't think it is possible for the prime minister in Australia to do this, but is there other ways that the government can have control of court decisions. I have a debate coming up an I'm trying to argue that Australia is better at upholding the rules of Law than the US so can someone please explain the concept of the President having ultimate power on judicial decisions and whether or not judicial decisions are the final say in Australia.
More Questions From This User See All
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
This is a loaded question and it's actually quite difficult to answer in such a limited space. The simplest way for me to say this is that our constitution, the Commonwealth Constitution, gives the Federal Government certain 'heads of power' and the government cannot act outside of these 'heads' without being in violation. If it is preceved that the government is acting outside of it's power a member of the public, or a state, can sue the government in the High Court, however, it's important to note that just because a person or state petitions the HC does not mean that it will hear the case.
That said, if [x] the court determines that [x] is not within the governments power, the government can, much like in the US, amend the law in question that may have fully, or partially, struck down, so that it conforms. I can assure you that our government is no better than the US government at adhering to the law. However, as we already have a Queen, our Prime Minister does not act as if they are one, i.e. President Bush, and choose to only adhere to the laws as they see fit. I believe that we Australians are much more politically switched on than Americans which may stem from the requirement that we vote.