Solutions to the questions
The dispute between the common wealth and the government of South Australia will be heard in the Federal court of Australia. The jurisdiction of the court includes issue which relate to native titles, disputes in relation to industrial matters and it has the jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The common wealth first resolves to solve the dispute in the administrative tribunal. In the event there is an appeal, the appeal proceeds to the Federal court of Australia.
The minister for the Environment has power and authority to list Bird lands for regulation. The minister derives the Authority from the Parks preservations Act of 20ll. The legal essence of the Act is to conserve and protect the park lands in the environs of ‘The common wealth of Australia.’ the act is to protect usage of the land for park and any other related purposes. The intent of the Act was to ‘Give effect to the international Convection for Environment protection 2010.’ The regulation was intended to protect against insensitive development.
In the event that the government of South Australia feels that the Parklands Preservation Act 2011 is invalid, various arguments can be raised to argue the case against the case. The first argument is, “The decision to build an entertainment centre within the state is purely a matter for the South Australian government to determine.’ The second argument is parliament had passed, ‘The Birdlands Development Act 2012’, which effected authority to build an entertainment complex. The state government derives the power and in effect perceives the other act invalid. The other argument is the building of the complex is not an insensitive development. The Parks Preservation Act contravenes some of the provisions of the ‘The international Convention for Environment Protection 2010.’ The legal intention of this former Act was to basically to protect areas of park from development which is insensitive to environmental protection.
The case involves the Australia Commonwealth verses South Australian government. The government is likely to loose in this case. The court will hold that it is within the powers and authority of the minister for Environment to direct and control areas near and in the parkland. Wildlife and environment protection is a global concern issue. Recreation and enjoyment facilities do not override the basic and essential need to protect natural habitats. The construction of a complex is an insensitive development. The complex will interfere with the environment and natural habitat protection. The intention of the complex is for entertainment purposes. the competition between entertainment protection of wildlife will lead to conflict in policy in relation to human life and wildlife protection. There are no substantial grounds to hold water for the case for the obligation on the part of the government to specifically build the complex within the environs of the park. The obligation for the government of Australia will interfere with the right of the Australian common wealth to execute its mandate in natural habitat and wildlife protection. The judges will hold that protection of the wildlife is paramount and subsist human leisure and enjoyment. The act does not also contravene in any way the provisions of ‘The Birdlands Development Act 2012. ‘An act by private body is only invalid if it contravenes the fundamental and supreme constitution. This is not the case in regard to the common wealth of Australia. The government ought to be the chief advocate for wildlife and environmental conservation. This is not by means of advancement of human leisure at the expense of the wildlife pleasure and utilization of the natural resources. The pollution from the complex in terms of sound pollution, disposal of human waste and behaviors such as throwing of stones will scare away the birds. This is the essence of the protection of parkland and bird lands protection. There was an agreement between the south Australian government and common wealth of Australia to protect the areas of parkland from insensitive development. Insensitivity in this case may or will imply scaring of wildlife as a result of human interference. There is no reason to defy and pronounce the agreement upon effect by the same South Australian Government.