The Sights of Canberra

With a great sense of relief, the mid-semester break arrived. Having completed all my assignments and one test, I looked forward to such much needed, and deserved, respite. The exam, on torts, was open book while the assignments were not particularly challenging. However, as these are my first assessments in law school, I am anxious to know how I did. However, with 2 weeks of uninterrupted vacation, I decided that I should take the opportunity to visit some of Canberra's more famous landmarks.

On Tuesday, I went to the High Court of Australia, the court of final appeal. Its role is much like that of the Supreme Court of Canada in that it is the final judge of the law and interprets each law and statute with regards to the Australian Constitution. The High Court consists of 7 judges, 1 of whom is the Chief Justice. Until 1988 the justices wore long wigs but have since then adopted the more Canadian/American approach of plain black robes and no wigs. One of the justices, Handley, was born in Canada, so there is hope for me yet. Interestingly, unlike Canada, the government cannot override the High Court's Constitutional ruling, a la section 33 (notwithstanding clause); there is no such clause in the Australian Constitution. In the building itself, there are 3 courtrooms: #1 for major constitutional and ceremonial matters (7 judges), #2 for most matters (5 judges) and #3 for procedural matters (1 judge).

The case I saw before the High Court involved a dispute between the government and a business with regards to the 10% GST which is levied on all goods and services. Essentially, the company was offerred a service as part of a contract it entered. The contract was then abrogated (rescission was the exact word) and the company is arguing that it does not owe any GST. The government is arguing the opposite. I heard most of the government's case and the very beginning of the company's case when there was a break for lunch. It was interesting to see how the court operated. The judges interrupted the lawyers several times to take them to task on their assertions. It's a very unique event to see and I hope to one day, maybe, be sitting on the bench of the High Court.

The next day I went to Parliament House, the center of Australian democracy. Unfortunately, Parliament is not in session so I'll have to wait a little while yet to go see question period. One thing that distinguishes this Parliament from Canada's is that it was built in 1988 so everything looks newer and more modern. There is plenty more natural light which, I think, makes the building more inviting. Australia's Parliament operates in much the same way as Canada's except that the lower house is called the House of Representatives and the upper chamber, the Senate, is an elected body. Like the US, the House represents the people while the Senate represents the states. I think that it is a very well designed edifice.

Almost at the spur of a moment, I decided to travel to Sydney to visit some people I'd met in Canberra. I thought I might be able to go to Melbourne but I couldn't get a cheap enough flight and other means of transportation take too long. In fact, I'm writing this post in Sydney. I'm only here for a few days but, with any luck, my next post will contain many happy adventures of Australia's great metropolis.