VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[meganrobyn]

hey guys! sorry if this comes off as a dumb question but:

i know one main function of parliament is to 'provide popular representation and debate', but what does that mean exactly?

Popular representation is different from proportional representation (that the Senate has) because each electorate is roughly the same size, so everyone's vote counts roughly the same (unlike voting as a state bloc). Theoretically, majority opinion should win. Connected to this, the lower house members are expected to represent the views of the people in general - not the interests of the states, for instance. Then you connect that with the idea of debating those different views.

[upandgo]

Popular representation is different from proportional representation (that the Senate has) because each electorate is roughly the same size, so everyone's vote counts roughly the same (unlike voting as a state bloc). Theoretically, majority opinion should win. Connected to this, the lower house members are expected to represent the views of the people in general - not the interests of the states, for instance. Then you connect that with the idea of debating those different views.

thanks for the clarification! 

[clarke54321]

Hi All,

I have been looking everywhere for a recent law (in the past 5 years) that has encouraged changes in values in the society.

If anyone knows of any I would really appreciate some advice!

Thanks in advance

[nm4065]

Hi All,

I have been looking everywhere for a recent law (in the past 5 years) that has encouraged changes in values in the society.

If anyone knows of any I would really appreciate some advice!

Thanks in advance

The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 aimed to promote a change in the views of employers when hiring employees, and aimed to reduce discrimination and create a culture shift and equal workplaces, where merit is valued, rather than other factors e.g. sexual orientation. Another example is the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 which educated and encourages people to be respectful of human rights and force government to act in a way that respects the human rights of all individuals. This is now why a statement of compatibility is tabled in parliament when a new bill is introduced.

[clarke54321]

The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 aimed to promote a change in the views of employers when hiring employees, and aimed to reduce discrimination and create a culture shift and equal workplaces, where merit is valued, rather than other factors e.g. sexual orientation. Another example is the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 which educated and encourages people to be respectful of human rights and force government to act in a way that respects the human rights of all individuals. This is now why a statement of compatibility is tabled in parliament when a new bill is introduced.

Thank you, but would this be considered to be too outdated?

[upandgo]

hey all  quick question, how exactly is separation of powers associated with democracy? i asked my teacher but he really confused me so any clarification would be appreciated!

[chasej]

hey all  quick question, how exactly is separation of powers associated with democracy? i asked my teacher but he really confused me so any clarification would be appreciated!

Well really, there is no inherent link between the separation of powers and democracy. The separation of powers is merely the division between the three law making and enforcing powers that exist at the Australian federal level, while democracy is just a system of government in which all the people in a polity are involved in decision making (usually through representative parliament as exists in Australia). A democracy could exist without a separation of powers, and a separation of powers could exist without democracy.

But the separation of powers does support democracy in some ways. For example the separation between the legislature (parliament) and judiciary (courts), ensures that the courts, namely the High Court, maintain independence and can apply the constitution to ensure parliament only makes laws within its powers. The High Court also has the power to ensure parliament acts properly when making laws, if a law directs a court to do something which is not within its capacity or a law forces something which is so vastly inconsistent with the Australian governmental system (usually by being unconstitutional) it is struck out.

Furthermore the separation of powers allows the legislature and executive (governor-general representing the queen) to exercise reserve powers, these can be used in an emergency to ensure proper functioning of parliament, for example if the result of an election is unclear, the GG can declare that the last known prime-minister remain in charge until such time as a new prime-minister is determined. The GG can also dismiss prime-minsters and governments if they act illegally/improperly/incapably (this is not judging political issues or merely because the GG disagrees with what is happening but is due to serious issues) as well as call double-dissolutions which dissolve parliaments and bring new elections if there is a dead-heat and a bill cannot be passed by parliament following a set out process (the process of which is not relevant to the VCE course).

All of these checks and balances (in theory) help maintain the health of democracy by ensuring regular elections and that parliament respects the system and acts within its mandate by the people who elect the government and parliament (Australians).

If you remember and can explain it, how did your teacher explain it? I'm just interested to know.

[upandgo]

Well really, there is no inherent link between the separation of powers and democracy. The separation of powers is merely the division between the three law making and enforcing powers that exist at the Australian federal level, while democracy is just a system of government in which all the people in a polity are involved in decision making (usually through representative parliament as exists in Australia). A democracy could exist without a separation of powers, and a separation of powers could exist without democracy.

But the separation of powers does support democracy in some ways. For example the separation between the legislature (parliament) and judiciary (courts), ensures that the courts, namely the High Court, maintain independence and can apply the constitution to ensure parliament only makes laws within its powers. The High Court also has the power to ensure parliament acts properly when making laws, if a law directs a court to do something which is not within its capacity or a law forces something which is so vastly inconsistent with the Australian governmental system (usually by being unconstitutional) it is struck out.

Furthermore the separation of powers allows the legislature and executive (governor-general representing the queen) to exercise reserve powers, these can be used in an emergency to ensure proper functioning of parliament, for example if the result of an election is unclear, the GG can declare that the last known prime-minister remain in charge until such time as a new prime-minister is determined. The GG can also dismiss prime-minsters and governments if they act illegally/improperly/incapably (this is not judging political issues or merely because the GG disagrees with what is happening but is due to serious issues) as well as call double-dissolutions which dissolve parliaments and bring new elections if there is a dead-heat and a bill cannot be passed by parliament following a set out process (the process of which is not relevant to the VCE course).

All of these checks and balances (in theory) help maintain the health of democracy by ensuring regular elections and that parliament respects the system and acts within its mandate by the people who elect the government and parliament (Australians).

If you remember and can explain it, how did your teacher explain it? I'm just interested to know.

ohhhh makes sense now  really appreciate this, thanks so much!

my teachers explanation was nowhere near as in-depth & insightful as yours- he said that in a democracy, people are able to vote their preferred politicians into office, and how the separation of powers doctrine ensures that these politicians don't act outside their powers (after reading this post im very certain he's incorrect, or maybe he didn't understand what i was asking).

thankyou once again 

[meganrobyn]

hey all  quick question, how exactly is separation of powers associated with democracy? i asked my teacher but he really confused me so any clarification would be appreciated!

There is an absolute link between the SoP and democracy. In an indirect democracy the people delegate power to government (via a constitution of some kind) to govern on their behalf. In order to prevent the abuse of this delegated power, we split government into three branches, with checks and balances.

See, the crown isn't part of democracy (it's kind of awkwardly stuck on the top of a democracy) and the crown also isn't part of the separation of powers. We use the Constitution to set up the SoP and to *also* limit the power of the sovereign, but they gave royal assent to the Constitution in the first place...

[clarke54321]

Hi Everyone,

When talking about the VLRC and explaining it's role with an example, what types of thing about the example should you include?

[meganrobyn]

Hi Everyone,

When talking about the VLRC and explaining it's role with an example, what types of thing about the example should you include?

Keep in mind that the example is worth approx 1 mark tops. So, short answer, NOT MANY THINGS. I'd just have what topic it was on, maybe the year or the duration of the investigation (to support arguments about how long it takes), the basic purpose of the investigation, and one or two key recommendations plus whether they were implemented. That should be plenty to use only what's relevant in any particular answer.

[upandgo]

hey everyone!

what happens exactly in a double dissolution? i know it's not examinable but im just curious about the process  thanks in advance!

[chasej]

hey everyone!

what happens exactly in a double dissolution? i know it's not examinable but im just curious about the process  thanks in advance!

It's really complicated, but basically when a bill cannot be passed the governor-general dissolves the parliament and a new election is held. Then the new parliament tries to pass the bill, if the new parliament cannot pass it a joint sitting of both houses is arranged and the majority of that joint sitting decides whether the bill is passed or rejected.

Wikipedia explains the full process and constitutional requirements if you want to read it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution

[upandgo]

It's really complicated, but basically when a bill cannot be passed the governor-general dissolves the parliament and a new election is held. Then the new parliament tries to pass the bill, if the new parliament cannot pass it a joint sitting of both houses is arranged and the majority of that joint sitting decides whether the bill is passed or rejected.

Wikipedia explains the full process and constitutional requirements if you want to read it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution

nice, thanks chase 

one other question: would the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee have to examine a Bill after the second reading speech in the Legislative Council, after it has already done so in the Legislative Assembly? or do they only perform this check once? i really appreciate all the help, thanks everyone!

[clarke54321]

Hi all,

If I come across the questions of, 'Explain two differences between the role of the Legislative Council and the role of the Legislative Assembly' in a SAC, would it be sufficient to talk about the Legislative Assembly's role to determine government and the Legislative Council's role to act as a house of review. I understand that the Legislative Assembly also reviews legislation, but not to the same extent as the Legislative Council, therefore would it be acceptable for this to be a difference in roles?