VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[Darren]

Could someone help me with this question please
'The legislative process provides an effective means to bring about a change in the law'
Present two arguments to support this.
What could I include? Could I include parliament being an arena for debate (thoroughly argued by all ministers representing the interests of all people)? This sounds like a really dodgy question, any ideas? :S

[LeahT]

Could someone help me with this question please
'The legislative process provides an effective means to bring about a change in the law'
Present two arguments to support this.
What could I include? Could I include parliament being an arena for debate (thoroughly argued by all ministers representing the interests of all people)? This sounds like a really dodgy question, any ideas? :S

1) The legislative process of parliament allows for a thorough review and investigation into proposed laws (bills). The Senate and Legislative Council are both houses of review, meaning that they have councels of people designed specifically to make educated ammendments and decisions in regard to proposed bills. Whilst this can slow down the process of creating bills when done effectively, it means that new laws are well researched and effective, as they have to be passed by both the upper and lower houses before they become legislature.

2) The three readings of the proposed bill allows for effective process of changing the law, as the bill is comprehensively discussed and debated by all members of parliament. Members must explain their choices and answer questions posed to them, and the the discussion in these debates can result in changes that improve the bill.


I honestly don't know if that's right, but it's the first thing that comes to mind when I read the question. If anyone wants to check that, I'd much appreciate it

[Darren]

That sounds about right. I honestly can't think of anything else to support that question. It's rather dodgy, usually the process of law through parliament is kept separate from law reform. Weird question to say the least.
Thanks though [:

[schnappy]

I would say it doesn't hurt to know what the cabinet, parliamentary counsel's basic roles are:
i.e. cabinet decides gov. policy and gauges society's trends and needs in order to initiate appropriate legislative change.
i.e. parliamentary counsel are people with legal expertise who draft the bill

but besides this, as EPL said, just concentrate on VLRC.

From what I've seen in passed exams and the study design, they're pretty bad at the way they word things so I think you can really argue just about anything as long as you have two feet to stand on. The 2008 exam asked to explain the principle of seperation of powers - it didn't say how it is applied in the Australian legislature so I would see that as a political question... but no, they wanted you to regurgitate the 3 branches of the state. Formal pressure can also come from professional lobbyists, but really the VLRC is the only thing you can go with as per the study design.

[Tobias Funke]

Okay, question, sorta moreso directed at EPL because he's more likely to have done the question, but any one else feel free to answer.

4 mark question,
"The ideology behind the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is to protect institutions from outside influence. How is this achieved?"

Without looking at my textbook, I can get "checks and balances", but i'm not sure if outside influence means the OTHER arms of power, or something else

[eeps]

I asked this exact question a while back and chrisjb gave me the answer. You would need to explain the three functions in the legal system (i.e. legislative, executive and judicial). That would get you 2 or 3 out of the 4 marks. Talk about how the doctrine prevents any abuse of power as no one authority has absolute power and hence, provides for checks and balances. Additionally, I would also mention the role of judges - that they act impartially; as they have 5-year terms, ensuring that they are not pressured by any outside influences (i.e. parliament etc). This relates back to the doctrine - judicial function.

[nacho]

I have a SAC coming up so was wodering if anyone would like to take a shot at answering these questions:
q1. to what extent do you think is law making through parliament an effective method of law-making. ( 8 marks)
How exactly would you go about answering this question, and what word-length are we looking at? I'd generally talk about the weakness/limitations of parliament and then the strengths. Then evaluate overall which one is stronger? What really gets me is the "to what extent" part.. how do you answer that bit?

This next question is crucial, the teacher said it would practically be on the SAC (but a permutation i guess)
q2. "Laws need to change for many reasons. Sometimes parliament fails to respond adequately". Discuss this comment. In your discussion explain how individuals, groups and one law reform body attempt to influence a change in the law. (10 marks)
 So the law reform would be the VLRC. What recent example could be used for this? Individuals ---> Petitions/demonstrations ? I think letters would be a pretty crap example.
Personal Question: What does it mean that "parliament fails to respond adequately" ?

q3. 'Parliament is a very effective law-maker. There is no signficant weakness in the way parliament carries out this role.' Discuss this statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Juistify your conclusions. (10 marks)
Again, with the 'extent'.. How do i justify conclusions, case examples? Should i bring in representative/responsible government, or is that completely irrelevant to parliament?

q4. What is the purpose of the Second Reading Speech in the progress of a Bill through Parliament? Outline two further steps that must be taken for the Bill to become a law. (6 marks).
Purpose, pretty easy.. To introduce the bill, debate on, talk about compliance with charter of human rights etc. Two further steps 'royal assent' (although i am positive if this question came up, they would say "With the exception of royal assent" so what other two?

thanks

[Tobias Funke]

q1) "to what extent?" just state the extent in which you think, not really an objective answer, but you do need to explain why, and the comes in the content of your answer.
- strengths and weaknesses of course (perhaps examples)

q2) Well, it means that occasionally, parliament doesn't respond properly to laws that need to change. You could dispute that gay marriage is a law that needs changing, but yeah.
Really just state the methods of changing a law and how effective they can be in changing the law

q3) see q1

q4) consideration in detail stage and third reading?

[eeps]

1) When the question states "to what extent" you can partially agree or disagree with the statement. I would approach this question by saying something along the lines of "Parliament overall is an effective law-maker as it can make laws whenever the need arises, it has the resources to do so (time and money) and is a democratically-elected body. However, there are weaknesses to Parliament as a law-maker, this includes; MPs may vote on party lines, it's a lengthy process through parliament, and it can't supervise all delegated legislation." Generally give an "introduction paragraph" discussing whether you agree/disagree with the statement/question; then go on to talk about the strengths and weakness of parliament. Since it's an 8-mark question, I would list 4 strengths and weaknesses of parliament.

2) This question was on the VCAA '09 exam. You can look at the suggested answer on their website.

3) Again, I would give an "introduction paragraph". Then, I would list 4 or 5 strengths and weaknesses of parliament. I wouldn't mention representative/responsible government.

4) What Tobias Funke said. Also, it depends if the Second Reading Speech is in the Victorian or Federal Parliament. You don't need to mention the "Statement of Compatibility" if it's in Federal Parliament.

[onur369]

Hey guys what is sovereignty of parliament?

[eeps]

Read this or this as well.

Parliamentary Sovereignty (also called the sovereignty of parliament, parliamentary supremacy, or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions (including any executive or judicial bodies as they may exist).

[onur369]

Can someone help?
Parliaments can make laws in three ways, make new laws, amend laws and repeal laws. Give an example of a situation where a need for each of the three circumstances may arise.  3 marks                                                                         

[eeps]

Can someone help?
Parliaments can make laws in three ways, make new laws, amend laws and repeal laws. Give an example of a situation where a need for each of the three circumstances may arise.  3 marks                                                                         

- Make new laws: Gaps in legislation/loop-holes, in which case Parliament may see the need to make new laws to cover it.
- Amend laws: Strong community backlash/protest against a certain law, then Parliament may amend the law to meet community values/needs.
- Repeal laws: Similar to "Amend laws", if it's not line with community values/attitudes; no one will follow the law. In which case, Parliament may repeal the law.

They're the things that came to my head when I read the question, I'm not entirely sure they're right... go with them if you will.

[nacho]

damn..should have studied im screwed for the SAC tmrw. Thank god it's only out of 15. O_O

[eeps]

Would any past Legal Studies students have any notes on Canada; in comparison to Australia that they could upload? My textbook isn't the greatest...

damn..should have studied im screwed for the SAC tmrw. Thank god it's only out of 15. O_O

My next SAC is two weeks away; it's worth 50% of my Unit 3 SAC mark. Where's everyone up to? We just finished express/implied rights/structural protections and are moving onto "Protecting rights - comparative approaches". o.0