VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[chasej]

I know the franklin dam case in a fair bit of detail so I edited your answer on some points to make the case more clear and generally reworded some of the terms to make it look better. Areas of your answer I crossed out have a strike, and areas I added are in italics. Sorry that some of your answer towards the end got deleted (I clicked backspace instead of the strike button). That isn't to say your answer was bad, it was very good, I just added some stuff so you could learn some extra facts of the case, if you didn't already know them.

I don't know the Roads case, however the one change I did make was to do with using correct terminology. Balance of powers is an AOS1 term where no party holds a majority in the senate and thus the major political parties must negotiate with minor parties to achieve a majority to pass bills into law. The word you need to use to describe the way powers are divided between states and the commonwealth in the constitution is the term "division of powers". You probably wouldn't lose a mark on incorrect use of just one term, however it is good to ensure you are using legal terminology correctly, as it can impart your knowledge to assessors of your SAC/exam paper(s) better and just in general increases the perceived standard of your work.

In the Franklin Dam Case, The Commonwealth attempted to introduced legislation which blocked a dam being built, by the Tasmanian state government, on the basis it was to damage a world heritage protected area, in which Australia the Commonwealth has signed an international treaty requiring them to protect such areas.
The Tasmanian government argued in this case that the Commonwealth did not have a right to create such legislation as they were interfering with a power that was left exclusively with the states, while the Commonweath argued that, although their legislation was to interfere with the operation of a residual power, they had a right to legislate in the area, as since the dam effected an international treaty, and hence the Commonwealth's international obligations, the Commonwealth had the right to legislate in this area under its "external affairs head of power"
The High Court determined that the CW did have the power to intervene a residual power where it would be required that it uphold its external affairs power. interpreted the words "external affairs" in the constitution to include matters covered by Australia's international treaties, thus the Commonwealth's dam blocking legislation was found to be made within the Commonwealth's constitutional parameters, hence the legislation was valid.
This case resulted in the Commonwealth Parliament’s law making powers to increase increasing at the expense of the states because the Commonwealth is now able to legislate on areas of law that was previously a residual power if it were to uphold an international treaty. The Commonwealth had also used this “external affairs power” as precedent to create a variety of other laws to ‘uphold obligations under international treaties’. The high court's new interoperation affirmed the Commonwealth's right to make laws in areas covered by it's international treaties, which are international obligations, hence considered to be "external affairs" by the High Court interpretation. Hence, this changes the balance of power distribution of powers between the State and Commonwealth Parliaments as the Commonwealth were able to legislate in areas effecting international treaties, regardless if traditionally such an area of law would be considered residual powers left with the state at time of federation, and thus under S109 of the Constitution the Commonwealth law would always prevail against State law should Commonwealth and State laws become inconsistent in areas related to Australia's international treaties.

In the Roads Case (1926) ie. Financial Power, Victoria challenged the Commonwealth’s ability under S96 to make conditional or tied grants of financial assistance to the states. The Commonwealth had provided funds to the States, yet the States preferred not to spend the funds on what the CW wanted, which were building roads.
The High Court found the case in favour of the Commonwealth and that the States would be required to follow its policies to receive a grant.
This substantially altered the balance of powers division of powers in favour of the Commonwealth because they could manipulate the states to the conditions on which grants given to the states had to be used eg. Road construction. It also meant that the Commonwealth is indirectly controlling many of the states’ residual powers.

[Jawnle]

I know the franklin dam case in a fair bit of detail so I edited your answer on some points to make the case more clear and generally reworded some of the terms to make it look better. Areas of your answer I crossed out have a strike, and areas I added are in italics. Sorry that some of your answer towards the end got deleted (I clicked backspace instead of the strike button). That isn't to say your answer was bad, it was very good, I just added some stuff so you could learn some extra facts of the case, if you didn't already know them.

I don't know the Roads case, however the one change I did make was to do with using correct terminology. Balance of powers is an AOS1 term where no party holds a majority in the senate and thus the major political parties must negotiate with minor parties to achieve a majority to pass bills into law. The word you need to use to describe the way powers are divided between states and the commonwealth in the constitution is the term "division of powers". You probably wouldn't lose a mark on incorrect use of just one term, however it is good to ensure you are using legal terminology correctly, as it can impart your knowledge to assessors of your SAC/exam paper(s) better and just in general increases the perceived standard of your work.

Thanks for the moderation! Just another question, do you think the amount you wrote is possible given the time frame? (6 minutes)

[chasej]

Thanks for the moderation! Just another question, do you think the amount you wrote is possible given the time frame? (6 minutes)

Don't you get a little more than one minute per mark? I'm a pretty fast writer so personally I could do it, not sure about you though. If you write quick it's possible. You don't have to include everything I wrote to get 3 marks though, just ensure you impart the key points. Generally, 1 mark for explaining facts of case (brief background and overview of the parties argument), 1 mark for explaining outcome (the high court interoperation), 1 mark for linking to division of powers (what the high court interoperation effectively means).

[Jawnle]

Don't you get a little more than one minute per mark? I'm a pretty fast writer so personally I could do it, not sure about you though. If you write quick it's possible. You don't have to include everything I wrote to get 3 marks though, just ensure you impart the key points. Generally, 1 mark for explaining facts of case (brief background and overview of the parties argument), 1 mark for explaining outcome (the high court interoperation), 1 mark for linking to division of powers (what the high court interoperation effectively means).

Do you think my answer would have gotten the 3 marks? I just need to change my terminology and structure to make it flow better but overall I've got the main concepts and have answered the question do you think?

[Jawnle]

What's the difference between separation of powers and division of powers? I understand each concept, but they both are really similar to me and I am confused as to who exactly is involved/affected in these principles.

[chasej]

What's the difference between separation of powers and division of powers? I understand each concept, but they both are really similar to me and I am confused as to who exactly is involved/affected in these principles.

The Seperation of Powers is a principle of the Australian Federal system, referring to the three types of law making/enforcing powers which exist at the federal level, the legislative power (vested in parliament, the executive (vested in the crown represented by the governor-general but in practice run by the prime minister and other senior ministers), and the judicial power (the power vested in the high courts and other federal courts the parliament has established to resolve disputes and make laws through precedent).

The Division of powers, isn't really a principle of the parliamentary system but rather a concept which is a by-product of the constitution which refers to the way law-making powers i.e. jurisdiction is divided between the federal and state parliaments. Essentially the division of powers refers to the way all law making powers in Australia are assigned to each parliament.

In essence, The separation of powers refers to the way powers are divided internally between the three law making powers in the federal system (and to a lesser extent the states, as the separation of powers between the state's executive/legislative/judiciary is much less clear than those in the federal level). While the division of powers refers to the way jurisdiction is divided between the state and federal parliaments.


Seperation of powers=law making/enforcing powers divided internally between the three powers.
Division of powers=jurisdiction divided between the various parliament's in Australia.

[gs]

Happy to answer any difficult question(s) some students may have

[Einstein]

How do you go about remembering all the content in legal studies. Features/ads/disadv etc its overwhelming. As soon as I finish with one I forget what I just did

[chasej]

How do you go about remembering all the content in legal studies. Features/ads/disadv etc its overwhelming. As soon as I finish with one I forget what I just did

I try to highlight the text and write notes on the content before class (at least a week ahead of the class where possible, though towards the end of the term I slipped a little)

In class I handwrite notes.

After class review those notes and update my previous notes (which are on the computer) with new points or clarifications.

I find that purpose allows sufficient revision to remember everything.

[Einstein]

I do the same but come sac time I forget the earlier work, especially advantages disadvantages etc

[Einstein]

How many dot points do you work ahead of your class?

[chasej]

How many dot points do you work ahead of your class?

Around 3-4 depending on the amount of content in each point.

[chasej]

I do the same but come sac time I forget the earlier work, especially advantages disadvantages etc

Maybe try going through your notes for each AOS at least every 48-72 hours then. You should have good retention that way. If not you may have to change your study method e.g. switch to cue cards etc.

[Einstein]

yeah i am failing that i suppose, like after class i don't revisit older topics. Do you suggest revising AOS1 every week , or maybe on the holidays again or something?

[chasej]

yeah i am failing that i suppose, like after class i don't revisit older topics. Do you suggest revising AOS1 every week , or maybe on the holidays again or something?

Don't go crazy with revision, it's still early in the year. But last year I found it helpful to go through everything in economics at least once a month (like just a 1-2 hour skim).