VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[ech_93]

Personally, I didn't keep anything like that. They say you are meant to pay attention to all of that kind of stuff in the news, but they have some fairly recent changes listed in the text book anyway, and thats all you really need. Although, we did look at some newspaper articles throughout the year in class, but none of that really helped.

And, na, I didn't do anything other than practice exams, etc. in preparation.

[eeps]

He's in my class

- So basically I could say it's not really an effective process because of yadda yadda?

The other question is

'Two strengths of parliament as a law-maker are that it makes laws which reflect the views of the community and can make laws whenever the need arises'
Critically examine these two strengths (6 marks)

Firstly, a clarification - does critically examine mean an in-depth analysis of both sides? or is there more to it?

Then, "laws which reflect the views of the community"
- Comment on how the people vote in the government - who introduces the majority of bills - to represent them and thus the policies introduced tend to be reflective of community values
- However, as the members of the party are more likely to vote along party lines as opposed to the views of the community, it can lack such qualities?

"Critically examine" means you have to give the pros and cons of the statement in question. So in the question you gave, you would need to explain the strengths in a bit more detail and give a corresponding weakness to each strength. Yeh, what you've said is correct; MPs may vote on party lines which loses the original function of Parliament to represent the views of the people. For the second strength, a weakness to that would be parliament doesn't sit all the time; it only sits at certain periods throughout the year, so it may not pass many laws in a short space of time. I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking; hopefully that answers your query?

[schnappy]

On a SAC, the first part of the question was 'Do you think Australia should keep a bicameral parliament?' I believed it to be more of a stimulus than a literal question... lost a mark. But I think it's complete frog shit. The Privacy Act 1984 explicitely protects an individuals political stance, why should I have to answer this question? I'm not kidding, being a legal studies teacher (Or perhaps VPAP who made the shitty SAC) they should know this and be aware of it. I've even been told to avoid politics in my answers...

[flash36]

My bet is that it was asking you to justify the existence of the Senate.

[schnappy]

Which I did. I just didn't directly answer the question... same with another thing. I gave an objective response but I didn't give a direct answer to the question so I didn't get the mark...

[eeps]

How many successful referendums would we need to know for the exam/and or SACs?

[Liuy]

1, although knowing a few more in not as much detail wouldn't hurt.

[andy456]

You could probably get away with not knowing any successful referenda..... just know the stats (like 8/44 or something like that) and why its so damn hard to succeed. and then maybe some other useful info, like if the double majority wasnt needed a further 9 or something would have passed meaning double majority is a bitch..... just learn 1 or 2 anyway just so you can give detail as to why the ones that did pass passed..... like the aboriginal one had a 90.xx% yes vote which is massive and referendum usually pass after traumatic and substantial change...
Just learn a couple to be safe

[Abdulhai]

I've got a question.
Do we have medicare because of the 1946 referendum?

[werdna]

I've got a question.
Do we have medicare because of the 1946 referendum?

Good question.. I'd say the 1946 Referendum definitely did have some kind of impact/influence, but whether or not it is a direct result of the referendum I'm not too sure.

[eeps]

Here are my notes for AOS 2; I didn't include the comparison between countries, since people may be doing different countries. Though for those doing Canada, I've also attached notes for that.

[Hellhole]

I've got a question.
Do we have medicare because of the 1946 referendum?

Good question.. I'd say the 1946 Referendum definitely did have some kind of impact/influence, but whether or not it is a direct result of the referendum I'm not too sure.

Considering the 29 year gap between the incorporation of Medibank and the Referendum, I'd say that it wasn't a direct result of it. Before that, the Australian health care system was mostly private. Medibank was the ultimate way of insuring coverage of "all" Australians were able to have access to health services (even though it was a government funded, private health care insurer), though I doubt it was a direct result of the referendum.

[chrisjb]

This is a question to previous legal studies students:
Did you keep any big changes in the law which were reported in the media (i.e. newspaper) in like a folder and make a collection throughout the year?
in fact, did you happen to do anything other than questions, practice exams and study guides in preparation?

Thanks.

I kind of did. I followed the news and everything, and recorded the best examples in my book. But the only current example I ever used was the Peter Garret one and about 4 recent examples in the final AOS. I had a wealth of other examples which I had come across and recorded in my workbook, except there's no points in legal for using an example from two weeks ago as opposed to two years ago- in the end relevance wins out. Not like in Interstudies or Natpol where the super recent often trumps the super relevant.

[izzykose]

I did the first half of my aos2 SAC today. There were 8 questions 30 marks and i was given 43 minutes to complete it. Would i lose marks on the following questions. (Note: these are not full responses only main points of them).

Is the Commonwealth Parliament the absolute law maker? Explain two restrictions on the Commonwealth Constitution:
I said its not an absolute law maker, as power is shared with seperate state parliaments in areas of concurrent power. I gave examples such as section 92- cannot restrict free trade between states and also said cannot establish a state religion but failed to give the relevant section of the constitution. Would i lose marks?

For a question on the referral of law making powers i said:

That they have the power to do so, and may do so because of expertise and because of consistency. Would i lose marks because i didnt mention they must pass an act of parliament?

[eeps]

In regards to your first question, no you wouldn't. I was told by my teacher, who's an exam marker, that you don't lose marks if you quote the wrong section of the Constitution; I'd think you get the marks there, since you've listed the correct prohibitions. As for your second question, if your teacher is harsh on the marking then you may lose a mark at best. The state parliaments pass an Act which refers their legislative powers on a particular topic to the Commonwealth; an example would be the new National Curriculum - the introduction of "ATAR score" previously known as "ENTER score".