VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[M_BONG]

How does the senate make laws which haven't been through the house of representatives? I thought they acted as a house of review but apparently they also make laws but are unable to make money laws (imposing tax). How does the Senate initiate and make laws? Probably a rookie question but it is quite vague in the book. Like do the roles reverse between upper and lower house and house of reps acts as a house of review and scrutinises the bill? LOL.

Hey

The Senate can make laws. They have almost equal law making powers as the House of Reps. The way/methods they make laws is almost identical to the House of Reps (the methods to initiate/make laws will be covered in the second chapter of Justice and Outcomes, if you are using that textbook).

The confusion you may have is that you may think all laws have to come from the House of Reps. That is not true. Any MP (including Senators) can initiate legislation. However, most, not all, government laws will come from the House of Reps because that is where Federal Cabinet (main law-making committee of the government) sits.

If a bill originates in the Senate, it will only be reviewed by the Senate. It will not be sent down to the House of Reps for review.

Also, the Senate cannot make/amend any laws with money involved. Keep in mind money bills do not have to always be imposing taxes.

[meganrobyn]

If a bill originates in the Senate, it will only be reviewed by the Senate. It will not be sent down to the House of Reps for review.

......what do you mean here? Any bill originating in the Senate MUST be passed by the HoR as well. Of course the Senate will debate, vote on and perhaps amend bills initiated in the Senate, but that doesn't mean the HoR won't debate and amend them later itself - any amendments later made by the HoR will just be sent back up to the Senate and voted on, because all bills must be passed by both houses in the same form, and either house can make amendments (noted exceptions with money bills and referendum bills).

[M_BONG]

......what do you mean here? Any bill originating in the Senate MUST be passed by the HoR as well. Of course the Senate will debate, vote on and perhaps amend bills initiated in the Senate, but that doesn't mean the HoR won't debate and amend them later itself - any amendments later made by the HoR will just be sent back up to the Senate and voted on, because all bills must be passed by both houses in the same form, and either house can make amendments (noted exceptions with money bills and referendum bills).

My bad! I always thought the HOR does not explicitly take part in reviewing/amending/vote on any bills that was initiated in the Senate as it is the upper house

Thanks for clearing that up for both of us:)

[meganrobyn]

My bad! I always thought the HOR does not explicitly take part in reviewing/amending/vote on any bills that was initiated in the Senate as it is the upper house

Thanks for clearing that up for both of us:)

I mean, you do need to take likelihood into account, though. It's most likely that a Senate-initiated bill will be a private member's bill, in which case I guess the biggest likelihood is the HoR just shooting it down

[Bluegirl]

When it says 'to what extent' what is it asking me to say? Which words would I use to answer the question? Thanks

[HawthornM8]

It is basically asking you to what degree you agree, or disagree with the statement given.

In your answer somewhere you need to indicate your opinion. The easiest way to do this is start off your response straight away with "I agree to the above statement to a (limited/moderate/large etc.) extent".

You will lose marks if you don't have a clear opinion stating to what extent you agree/disagree with the statement.

I'm a noob but in my class we did a 'to what extent' question and we were basically told to talk about one side of it and create a conjunction with 'however' and argue the side that you believe in correlating with the statement.

[M_BONG]

I'm a noob but in my class we did a 'to what extent' question and we were basically told to talk about one side of it and create a conjunction with 'however' and argue the side that you believe in correlating with the statement.

Yeah it's a bit more than arguing both sides of without expressing an opinion. Otherwise, it would all be rote-learning arguments without much understanding/opinion.

Sure, you need to give both sides to show knowledge and allow a balanced argument but you definitely need a clear opinion.

You can fence-sit (like I did with a VCAT question) but you have to justify it using clear opinion instead of conforming to formulaic structures like "Advantage 1; use a conjunction like "however" then state corresponding advantage" without an opinion. Rarely, if at all,  will you be asked to regurgitate masses of information without clear direction.

[Bluegirl]

Yeah it's a bit more than arguing both sides of without expressing an opinion. Otherwise, it would all be rote-learning arguments without much understanding/opinion.

Sure, you need to give both sides to show knowledge and allow a balanced argument but you definitely need a clear opinion.

You can fence-sit (like I did with a VCAT question) but you have to justify it using clear opinion instead of conforming to formulaic structures like "Advantage 1; use a conjunction like "however" then state corresponding advantage" without an opinion. Rarely, if at all,  will you be asked to regurgitate masses of information without clear direction.

Thanks!

In my textbook (Making and Breaking the Law) there's the sample exam question 'Outline the structure of the state and Commonwealth parliaments.' which is worth 6 marks.
In A+ Notes there's the similar question 'Outline the structure of both the Commonwealth and State Parliaments' and that's worth 3 marks.

For the two questions, what would I include in the 6 marker one and not in the 3 marker one?

[HawthornM8]

For the two questions, what would I include in the 6 marker one and not in the 3 marker one?

That is what I want to know! I've seen so many questions that are the same but 3-4 marks separate them. How are we meant to know what the criteria wants?

[meganrobyn]

Thanks!

In my textbook (Making and Breaking the Law) there's the sample exam question 'Outline the structure of the state and Commonwealth parliaments.' which is worth 6 marks.
In A+ Notes there's the similar question 'Outline the structure of both the Commonwealth and State Parliaments' and that's worth 3 marks.

For the two questions, what would I include in the 6 marker one and not in the 3 marker one?

No idea!!! That's not exam-style marking. Firstly, 'outline' is 1-2 marks. Secondly, that question on the exam has historically been worth 1-2 marks. I think the textbook is probably just giving you 1 mark per item of content to encourage you to put the 'LH' down, plus 'HoR' as the *name* of the LH. That would total six things to say. But it's not exam-style.

[Anchy]

I used 'Making and Breaking the Law' last year and the exam marking allocation for its questions are awful. There is no way that would be 6 marks, 4 marks at most.

[Bluegirl]

I used 'Making and Breaking the Law' last year and the exam marking allocation for it's questions are awful. There is no way that would be 6 marks, 4 marks at most.

No idea!!! That's not exam-style marking. Firstly, 'outline' is 1-2 marks. Secondly, that question on the exam has historically been worth 1-2 marks. I think the textbook is probably just giving you 1 mark per item of content to encourage you to put the 'LH' down, plus 'HoR' as the *name* of the LH. That would total six things to say. But it's not exam-style.

Thanks guys! Cleared up my confusion!

I think my teacher is a really nice guy and I can easily have a conversation with him, but I'm not liking his teaching methods. He spends half the session writing notes on the bored, and I feel like he's wasting my time.
His notes are bare minimum and I don't feel anywhere near satisfied that he is covering all that we need to know.
I'm going to make my own notes, but my only worry is that the study design doesn't give us exactly what we need to know?
Eg.Principles of the Australian parliamentary system: responsible government, representative government and separation of powers

I understand we need to know that, but not WHAT we need to know about them
I'm making notes based on the SS dot points, but I still feel my notes aren't as concise as they should be (feel like I am still adding stuff I might not need to know)

Can anyone offer advice? Much appreciated
Edit: I'm also using tmaclegal.com and his videos to take notes, and I feel they're so much better than my teachers. Are they worth using?

[Bluegirl]

When answering an 8 mark practice exam question, how do you structure it?
It's an agree disagree question, so yeah. No idea how to write it.

[Anchy]

When answering an 8 mark practice exam question, how do you structure it?
It's an agree disagree question, so yeah. No idea how to write it.

What type of question is it? Critically evaluate, to what extent... Etc?

You have a specific question?

[Bluegirl]

What type of question is it? Critically evaluate, to what extent... Etc?

You have a specific question?

'The Australian Parliamentary system consists of a number of checks and balances. The most important of these is the separation of powers' Do you agree? Justify your decision