Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 30, 2024, 12:10:43 am

Author Topic: Critique, please?  (Read 1154 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

xkaleidoscope

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
Critique, please?
« on: May 05, 2008, 04:30:46 pm »
0
Well, I was wondering if anyone could assess my answers and give feedback. Somehow, it feels like it I'm merely regurgitating information and not actually applying my knowledge. Also, I feel that my answers a pretty mediocre -- it's nothing exceptional, really. ~_______~;

I'm going well I suppose; I got a 93% (56/60) for my first SAC. Just did the second SAC today and it was all good. My teacher says my answers are pretty good since they're straightfoward (sort of). But IMO, he's not really that of a harsh marker. So... yeah.

Anyway, here's some examples of how I answer questions:

Use one example to explain and illustrate how the law-making powers of the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliaments have been changed by High Court interpretations of the Constitution. (3 marks)
The High Court’s role is to determine the intentions of the founders of the Constitution and how those intentions apply to present circumstances. Therefore, the High Court’s interpretations have given broader meaning to the words of the Constitution. This is because by broadening the meaning of the Constitution, it allowed the present circumstances to be regarded. For instance, in the Commonwealth v. Tasmania (1983) case, it was decided that external affairs – an exclusive power that is highlighted in the Constitution in section 51 (xxix) – would be extended to that the Commonwealth would be able to make a law to stop construction activity in a world heritage area in Tasmania. This was traditionally a residual power. Thus, this clearly takes away the powers of the States, who are supposedly the only Parliaments responsible for making laws in the residual areas.

Use an example to explain and illustrate how Section 109 of the Constitution works and the effect that Section 109 has on the Division of Powers. (3 marks)
Section 109 of the Constitution states that where there is an inconsistency between a Commonwealth law and a State law the Commonwealth will prevail and the State law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The operation of section 109 was highlighted in the McBain case. In this case it was argued that section 8(1) of the Victorian Act was inconsistent with section 22(1) of the Commonwealth Act and invalid by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution. The Federal Court decided that there was an inconsistency and in 1997, the Victorian Parliament amended the Fertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic.) to correct the inconsistency between the Victorian Act and Commonwealth Act. This case demonstrates that section 109 gives more preference to the Commonwealth in the area of concurrent powers than the States. Therefore, this increases the Commonwealth’s power to the extent of the inconsistency at the expense of the States. Ultimately, section 109 causes an imbalance of the Division of Powers between State and Commonwealth law in the area of concurrent powers.

Compare the way in democratic and human rights are protected in Australia to the way in which these rights are protected in Canada. In your comparison refer to three similarities and three differences. (5 marks)
In Australia, democratic and human rights are protected by through the Australian Constitution. In Canada, there is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect democratic and human rights.

Canada and Australia are similar in protecting democratic and human rights in a sense that express rights are entrenched and can only be changed by holding a referendum to change the Constitution. Additionally, Canada and Australia are similar in that rights are fully enforceable by the courts, who can declare legislation that violates the protected rights as invalid. Moreover, both Canada and Australia operate as a Federation, with a similar parliamentary system to Australia.

A difference between the way Australia and Canada protect democratic and human rights is that the Canadian Charter has a far more extensive list of express rights than the Australian Constitution. Thus, the Canadian Charter is more concerned with explicitly stating individual rights than the Australian Constitution.

Additionally, some Canadian rights can be overridden by Parliament, but no Australian rights can offer an opinion to Parliament as to the validity of proposed legislation, whereas the Australian High Court does not give advisory opinions. Moreover, Canadian courts can offer remedies to parties whose freedoms have been infringed, which is not an option for the Australian High Court.

Evaluate the way in which the Constitution protects democratic and human rights in Australia. (4 marks)
The Constitution protects democratic and human rights in a sense that it includes expressed rights and implied rights, such as the right to own private property (section 51 [xxxi]) and the right to be free from interstate discrimination (section 117).

However, the writers of the Constitution were concerned with guaranteeing the rights of the States rather the rights of individuals. Thus, the Constitution provides few clearly stated rights for individuals. For example, there are only 5 expressed rights and 2 implied rights highlighted in the Constitution. Moreover, these rights are mainly stated as limitations on the powers of the Commonwealth Government rather than as rights of the individual. For instance, section 116 of the Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from making laws in relation to the establishment of a religion. Section 116, however, does not clearly state that an individual is free to practice any religion – it merely suggests it.

Overall, the Constitution does protect some democratic and human rights in Australia. Despite this, it does not provide an extensive list of expressed or implied rights. Therefore, the Australian Constitution does not provide a strong means of protecting individual democratic and human rights.


- - - - - - - - -

If possible, could you mark my answers? Comments are most welcomed. Thanks in advance; much appreciated! <3

Oh, I have a question: if I happen to go at the rate I am now (approx. 93% for my SACs and the actual exam), would there be a high chance that I could obtain a study score of 42?

~ xkaleidoscope