澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权、司法权AnswersThe legislative power is divided into three divisions as “exclusive powers”, “concurrent powers” and “residual powers”. Exclusive powers refer to legislative powers that exclusively belong to the Commonwealth. Only the Commonwealth can make laws in relation to these affairs. These affairs such as social security, customs and excise duties, defense, currency and coinage, external affairs, immigration, the government of the territories and communications are mainly in relation to the Commonwealth as a whole country. Concurrent powers refer to powers which are shared between the Commonwealth and states. Both the Commonwealth and states may make laws to regulate these aspects, such as trade and commerce, taxation, banking, insurance, marriage and divorce, industrial relations and so on. Residual powers refer to powers which will never be transferred to the Commonwealth but remain with states. These powers are in relation to the inner affairs of one state such as education, health, housing, transportation, law enforcement, environment and planning, public utilities, emergency services and roads and so on. They usually have no connection with other states or the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10, p 11, p 12).(1)Only the State parliaments can legislate on the construction of the new public hospital inAdelaide. This is because legislation on subject matter of “health”is one residual power belongs to the States (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 11).(2)Only the Commonwealth parliaments can legislate on the tax imposed on the importation intoAustralia of cars manufactured in America (imposition of a customs). This is because legislation on subject matter of “Customs and excise duties” is one power exclusively belongs to the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p10).(3)Only the Commonwealth parliaments can legislate on the establishment of an army base northof Adelaide due to that establishing an army base is a matter of the whole country. This is because legislation on subject matter of “Defense”is one power exclusively belongs to the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10). (4)Only the States parliaments can legislate on the prohibition on the construction of buildings inthe Adelaide hills face zone. This is because legislation on subject matter of “Environment and planning” is one residual power belongs to the States (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10).(5)I would follow the precedent which originates from the South Australian Supreme Court todecide the case based on the following grounds:a.In South Australia there is a layered court system consists of the Magistrates Court(including the Court of Limited Jurisdiction), the District Court and the Supreme Court of South Australia. The last one is the highest court in South Australia. The District Court is the lower and middle court. The three layers of courts are within the same hierarchy since they are in the same states.b.The doctrine of precedent provides that within the same court hierarchy a lower courtshall follow a precedent originates from a higher court. The Supreme Court of South Australia is the higher court and in the same hierarchy with the District Court. So the District Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Based on the doctrine of precedent I must follow the precedent raised by the lawyer originatesfrom the Supreme Court of South Australia, the higher court.c.Obviously the Supreme Court of New South Wales is not in the same hierarchy with theDistrict Court of South Australia due to their different location (they locate in different states) and have different jurisdictions. Decisions of a Supreme Courts in a state may be persuasive but have no binding effect upon other lower courts in other states or in other hierarchy. They only may be persuasive ( see FBL-Chapter 3 “Doctrine of precedent and statutory interpretation” p1, p2, p4).Taking into account of above reasons I may treat the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales as persuasive, but since its application conflicts the application of the decision of the South Australia Supreme Court and the District Court is bound to apply the decision of higher court within the same hierarchy, I will exclude the application of the decision of the Supreme Court of other state and follow the decision originates from the Supreme Court of South Australia.。