Week 4- Legislation and Statutory Interpretation Question 1: The Commonwealth Constitution gives effect to the 'separation of powers' doctrine by creating three distinct branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. 1. What is the 'separation of powers' doctrine and do you think it is important? Why/Why not? 2. How does the creation of these three branches of government facilitate the separation of powers? 3. Is there a complete separation of powers in Australia? Why/why not? 4. Do you think the separation of powers doctrine should be applied more rigorously or in a more relaxed manner in Australia? Why/why not ? Question 2 : When interpreting statutory provisions, the court may have regard to a number of different factors including the specic wording of the legislation, any extrinsic material relevant to the legislation and the broader public policy of the legislation as a whole. 1. What is the role of the court when interpreting statutory provisions? 2. Of the three methods of statutory interpretation addressed in this chapter, which best facilitates this role? Why? 3. Do you think that the 001111 is 'making law\" when interpreting statute? Why/why not? 4. Do your answers to the previous questions on the separation of powers doctrine change at all in light of the court's role in statutory interpretation? Question 3 Section 314 of the (hypothetical) Road Offences Act 1999 was introduced in NSW. It provides that 'the use of a mobile phone whilst driving is an offence.' In the denition section (s4), the telm 'use' is dened as 'communicating with the mobile phone in any way whatsoever. ' The same section denes a 'mobile phone\" as being, amongst other things, an electronic device used to communicate with another person or user' . The word ' driving' is dened as ' being in control of a vehicle whilst on the road'. The Minister in her second reading speech said that the purpose of the legislation was to reduce the rate of motor accidents caused by the use of mobile phones: 'They are a menace in the hands of car drivers and we intend to do something about it.' In each of the following cases, the defendant was prosecuted under s 31; 1. Victoria was using her mobile's GPS to nd the address of Zara, her favourite shop. 2. In order to make sure her mobile was turned off while driving Anna placed it next to her ear for a second. She argued that this was not 'use' of a mobile phone. 3. Peter was driving while using his mini Ipad to chat with his sweetheart, ElenaHe argued he was not using a 'mobile phone