Quick questions on The High Court and judicial power: WACE Year 12 Politics and Law

Several cases recur in WACE answers. The Tasmanian Dam Case (Commonwealth v Tasmania, 1983) confirmed the external affairs power lets the Commonwealth implement treaty obligations, allowing it to override state development. The Mabo Case (Mabo v Queensland (No 2), 1992) recognised native title at common law, rejecting the doctrine of terra nullius. The Wik Case (1996) held native title could coexist with pastoral leases.

Chapter III does more than create the courts; it strictly separates judicial power from the legislative and executive branches at the federal level. The Boilermakers' Case (R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society, 1956) held that Commonwealth judicial power can only be exercised by Chapter III courts, and those courts cannot exercise non-judicial functions. This protects judges from being assigned political tasks and protects citizens from having their rights determined by anyone but an independent court.

In favour of the Court's power: it upholds the rule of law, keeps governments within constitutional limits, protects the federal balance, and has filled some gaps in rights protection through implication. Concerns raised against it: unelected judges can effectively change constitutional meaning without a referendum, decisions can have major policy consequences, and the broad reading of powers has centralised authority in Canberra in ways the framers may not have intended. A balanced answer holds both sides together.