2017 VCE Legal Studies - Exam Question Competition!

[Bubbly_bluey]

- Your explanation of a petition is pretty good, however it is essential that you incorporate the phrase "tabled in Parliament" when explaining the possibility of a petition to influence law reform. E.g. - A petition is... which can influence legislative change when it is tabled in Parliament by a member of the House of Representatives or Senate...

Thank you for your feedback!! i don't understand what you mean by "tabled in parliament"

[jamonwindeyer]

Thank you for your feedback!! i don't understand what you mean by "tabled in parliament"

Will just quietly say in case you didn't realise that this is a VCE thread, and I think you are in the HSC bubbly, but don't let that stop you getting involved because this thread is the best thing since sliced bread and there is lots of crossover anyway!

[Glasses]

Thank you for your feedback!! i don't understand what you mean by "tabled in parliament"

It basically refers to the petition being presented to Parliament in VCE Legal, the assessors are very strict and require the phrase "tabled in Parliament" whenever petitions are talked about

this thread is the best thing since sliced bread

 

[Glasses]

ROUND 1 SUMMARY

Firstly, a massive thank you to DoctorTwo, Notarobot and Bubbly_bluey for your involvement in the competition so far; and a big thank you to the AN admin team (especially Jamon and Joseph41) for their support of the thread!

Secondly, I'd like to congratulate Notarobot for their answer, which has been decided as the answer of the round (although this was definitely a tough decision!)

Thirdly, I've written a sample answer to this round's question which will hopefully be of some assistance to you guys!

Glasses' Sample Answer

A petition is a formal, written request to the government for a particular law that is considered outdated or unjust to be changed; and in order to have the possibility of influencing law reform, should be tabled in parliament by a member of the lower or upper house. In contrast, a demonstration is a gathering of members of the community, in a public place, to alert the government of a needed change in the law, and to show the participants’ support of said legislative change.

To push for a change in the law, an individual or group should make use of a demonstration, rather than a petition. Demonstrations are advantageous because unlike petitions, which are not ‘visual’, they are extremely attention grabbing and quite often publicised. Similarly, demonstrations (and particularly those with many participants) are likely to gain widespread awareness and support in the community and nationally for a cause - especially with media attention. Accordingly, this wide-scale support is more likely to get the attention of members of parliament, who are responsible for changing the law, meaning that the actual likelihood of law reform increases (especially if members of parliament become actively involved and ‘take on’ the cause). Thus, an individual or group should utilise a demonstration, rather than a petition, to influence law reform.

Lastly, I'd like to invite everyone once again to get involved with the competition!! I will post the question for round 2 soon!!

[delana]

I just discovered this thread and I think it is an awesome idea! I will certainly get involved share it with the facebook group for my VCE legal class for surel! We're not such a big group this year but I think everyone will be very pleased to find out about this! We just had our second SAC on Friday, it has been helpful to see these students responses and the sample to clarify how best to address this prompt!

[Glasses]

Round 2 (Mar 6 - Mar 15)
QUESTION: 'The operation of the separation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice.' Analyse this statement. {6 marks}.

[Joseph41]

I just discovered this thread and I think it is an awesome idea! I will certainly get involved share it with the facebook group for my VCE legal class for surel! We're not such a big group this year but I think everyone will be very pleased to find out about this! We just had our second SAC on Friday, it has been helpful to see these students responses and the sample to clarify how best to address this prompt!

Amazing first post! Welcome to the forums, delana.

I can't wait to see you around. Please do share the love and let your friends know!

[Notarobot]

Hi Glasses and everyone Thanks again for the points and especially for the feedback. Here's my next contribution:

Round 2 (Mar 6 - Mar 15)
QUESTION: 'The operation of the separation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice.' Analyse this statement. {6 marks}.

Spoiler

The separation of powers is a feature of the Australian parliamentary system which ensures that different bodies control the three different Australian political functions which are the legislative, executive, and judicial, in order to avoid one body having absolute power. However, the operation of separation of powers differs in practice from it's theoretical operation. For example, in theory the Governor-General is responsible for the executive branch but in practice it is the government as the Governor-General works on the advice of the Government. Also, some members of parliament are part of the government, meaning that they are part of both the executive and legislative functions.

[Glasses]

Hi Glasses and everyone Thanks again for the points and especially for the feedback. Here's my next contribution:

Spoiler

The separation of powers is a feature of the Australian parliamentary system which ensures that different bodies control the three different Australian political functions which are the legislative, executive, and judicial, in order to avoid one body having absolute power. However, the operation of separation of powers differs in practice from it's theoretical operation. For example, in theory the Governor-General is responsible for the executive branch but in practice it is the government as the Governor-General works on the advice of the Government. Also, some members of parliament are part of the government, meaning that they are part of both the executive and legislative functions.

Thanks for your answer!! Here's some feedback
- Your understanding of the differences between the theory and application of the SoP is sound, which is great.
- My main concern is the depth of your response to this question. As the task word was 'analyse', you're required to be relatively descriptive in your answer. And given the question was worth 6 marks (deliberately), I'd aim to divide those marks between the different aspects of this question. So, I'd assign 2 marks per branch of the SoP - so 2 marks for a comparison of the theory behind and application of the legislative branch, 2 marks for a comparison of the theory behind and application of the executive branch, and 2 marks for a comparison of theory behind and application of the judicial branch. That way, you can be certain that your answer is in-depth, and sufficiently analyses the various parts which make up the Separation of Powers, whilst also comparing (similarities and differences) the theory and operation of the doctrine.
- Again, you seem to be comfortable with the content (which is fantastic), but just need to work on breaking down the question

Therefore, I'm going to say 3/6 for this question.

[Glasses]

Hi all,

Just letting you know that Round 2 has been extended till the 20th of March!

Again, absolutely everyone is welcome to get involved, regardless of skill level!!!

[Bentamy]

Hi all, this is my first post here.
Some background info: I am studying legal 3/4, currently in year 11.
Note that answer is in italics, with the question for reference.

'The operation of the separation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice.' Analyse this statement. {6 marks}

The operation of separtation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice to a limited extent.

  Separation of powers exists to ensure that no one body has complete legal and political control. The Australian parliament systems separates the legislative function carried out by parliament (law-making), the executive function (administration of laws) carried out by the Governor-General in theory, but the cabinet in practice, and the judicial function carried out by the courts (applying and interpreting the law).

  Although the executive and legislative function should be separated in theory, in practice there is an overlap between these two functions in the Australian parliament systems. This is because the cabinet, comprised of the Prime Minister and senior government ministers, undertakes the legislative function as they are part of parliament, and the cabinet also undertakes the executive function, by administering the laws through their departments, in practice. Therefore, there is not a true separation of powers in practice between the executive and legislative.

  However, the judiciary is truly separated from the legislative and executive branches both in practice and theory, which ensures cases are handled in an independent and impartial manner, which is not subject to political interference, thereby avoiding corruption. The importance of this separation was demonstrated by the High Court’s decision in the Malaysian Solution case, where they held the Gillard government’s law to be ‘ultra vires’. This shows the importance of the courts providing a check and balance on parliament’s law-making power.

  In conclusion, the separation of powers is the same in practice and in theory to a limited extent, as the judiciary is completely independent, however there is still an overlap between the legislative and executive branches.

[Glasses]

Hi all, this is my first post here.
Some background info: I am studying legal 3/4, currently in year 11.
Note that answer is in italics, with the question for reference.

'The operation of the separation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice.' Analyse this statement. {6 marks}

The operation of separtation of powers is the same both in theory, and in practice to a limited extent.

  Separation of powers exists to ensure that no one body has complete legal and political control. The Australian parliament systems separates the legislative function carried out by parliament (law-making), the executive function (administration of laws) carried out by the Governor-General in theory, but the cabinet in practice, and the judicial function carried out by the courts (applying and interpreting the law).

  Although the executive and legislative function should be separated in theory, in practice there is an overlap between these two functions in the Australian parliament systems. This is because the cabinet, comprised of the Prime Minister and senior government ministers, undertakes the legislative function as they are part of parliament, and the cabinet also undertakes the executive function, by administering the laws through their departments, in practice. Therefore, there is not a true separation of powers in practice between the executive and legislative.

  However, the judiciary is truly separated from the legislative and executive branches both in practice and theory, which ensures cases are handled in an independent and impartial manner, which is not subject to political interference, thereby avoiding corruption. The importance of this separation was demonstrated by the High Court’s decision in the Malaysian Solution case, where they held the Gillard government’s law to be ‘ultra vires’. This shows the importance of the courts providing a check and balance on parliament’s law-making power.

  In conclusion, the separation of powers is the same in practice and in theory to a limited extent, as the judiciary is completely independent, however there is still an overlap between the legislative and executive branches.

Thanks a heap for your contribution Bentamy!! Here's some feedback!
- Your answer is pretty much spot-on! You correctly analysed the overlap between the legislature and the executive, and identified the fact that in theory, these branches are supposed to be completely separate.
- Your analysis of the judicial branch is also fantastic, and I especially liked the fact that you highlighted the importance of this branch being completely independent.
- I also love the fact that you logically divided the parts of your answer with paragraphs.
- Really the only thing I can point out is that it might be worth reading over your answer, just to make sure everything flows and makes sense. E.g. The bit where you say "The Australian parliament systems" should be "The Australian Parliamentary System".

Nonetheless, I'm going to say 6/6. Fantastic job!!

[Glasses]

I will have the question for round 3 up soon!

[Bentamy]

Thanks a heap for your contribution Bentamy!! Here's some feedback!
- Your answer is pretty much spot-on! You correctly analysed the overlap between the legislature and the executive, and identified the fact that in theory, these branches are supposed to be completely separate.
- Your analysis of the judicial branch is also fantastic, and I especially liked the fact that you highlighted the importance of this branch being completely independent.
- I also love the fact that you logically divided the parts of your answer with paragraphs.
- Really the only thing I can point out is that it might be worth reading over your answer, just to make sure everything flows and makes sense. E.g. The bit where you say "The Australian parliament systems" should be "The Australian Parliamentary System".

Nonetheless, I'm going to say 6/6. Fantastic job!!

Thank you for the feedback. I love paragraphs!

Oh lol, didn't realise that slight error. Thank you for the 6/6.

looking forward to the next question.

[Notarobot]

Thanks Glasses (and Megan for help elsewhere if she is reading this too), its really good to see the other answers. Hope some more people will join in.