I'm abit unsure as to how to approach question 3 of the sample exam
"Why is the requirement for standing important for a court to be able to make laws?"
Hey! Once you understand how standing affects a court's ability to make laws, you won't forget it and you can use it in a variety of examples, such as the disadvantages for Section 109.
To answer the question, the requirement for standing is important for a court to be able to make laws because it cannot make common law (or change/interpret statute law) unless a plaintiff with standing initiates a case.
To have their claim heard in a court, a plaintiff must be directly affected by the defendant's actions, and be affected to a greater degree than the general public. Basically, you can't just sue someone because they're doing something wrong, you have to be directly affected by it. For example, in the McBain case, McBain, the doctor, was directly affected by the inconsistency in the Commonwealth and state laws because he was fined under the Commonwealth Act. If somebody who noticed the inconsistency, but wasn't directly affected by it, tried to challenge the state law, they probably wouldn't have standing and the court wouldn't be able to hear their case, even though it was completely justified.This is why I said it can be used for disadvantages in Section 109 - the state law cannot be deemed inoperable unless someone with standing challenges it. Remember, courts cannot change the law without a case before them, even if it is justified.
The requirement for standing is in a similar vein to costs and time in bringing a case to court. If nobody has standing, or nobody has the time and money to initiate a case, the court cannot change the law, so their law-making ability is extremely limited in this respect.