Thanks Jawnie.
I just read out of the book that it overrides the original precedent, not sure if that means abrogate but I'll trust you 
Another question! With last years exan, question 12, it asks you to analyse the impact of a referendum with regards to a case. The high scoring answer in the report seems to write all this unnecessary crap, or I'm doing it wrong. I thought I couldnjump right into the question talking about 1967 indigenous referendum and how the deletion of a few words saw a shift in the division of powers, but apparently you need to analyse some random points about referendums. I'm confused.
Brief intro on the 2 methods:
1-2 sentences outlining what each method is
Comment on how HC interp has historically impacted more on the d.o.p
Referendum:
1) The difficulty of achieving a double majority vote (generalise this)
2) Lack of bi-partisan support (generalise this)
3) Lack of level of voter understanding
These are often the reason why referendums are unsuccessful.
Then chuck in a however, these factors have seen to also largely contribute to the success of referendums and reference back to the 1967 referendum.
1) It achieved the double majority vote despite the difficulty of achieving it.
. The national YES vote was 90.77 %
. The highest 'yes' vote ever recorded in a federal referendum
. The YES vote was highest in Victoria and lowest in Western Australia
. Received a majority vote in all six states
2) The referendum contained bi-partisan support. This was because the Prime Minister at the time, Harold Holt, presented many reasons to why a YES vote should occur. These reasons include:
Aborigines should be able to share the same status as non-indigenous Australians.
To try and heal some of the wounds of discrimination
To allow for uniformity within laws dealing with indigenous Australians- take away power from each of the states and give it to the Commonwealth.
3)To address the lack of level of understanding factor
What was unique about the cases presented were that no “NO” vote cases were presented. This would then tip the scales towards the yes-vote because there were no valid or strong arguments/ campaigns against a yes vote. Therefore, majority of people were unaware of why they shouldn’t vote yes, so instead, they complied with the presented yes arguments.
End with the impact
This changed the balance of law making power in favour of the Commonwealth by giving them the right to make laws in areas where they previously were not able to. Because before the referendum, the states had residual power to make laws for the indigenous. It is now a concurrent power in which both the Commonwealth and states could legislate on.
S109 guaranteed that any existing state laws that were inconsistent with Commonwealth law would no longer exist.
Australia was able to pass the Racial Discrimination Act- the first federal anti-discrimination laws.
Without the referendum, the Commonwealth would not have been able to pass this legislation to protect Indigenous people in this way.
- It changed/deleted section 51(xxvi) and section 123
- Could also draw on "the changeed law-making powers allowed subsequent parliaments to pass further laws in relation to Aboriginals. For example, in 1972 the Whitlam government established the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and developed programs to address the needs of Aboriginal people in areas of employment, health, education, housing and the administration of justice.
Sorry it's all over the place. Overall, just pick out some points (not all) that you think is relevant from the 1967 referendum to illustrate your analysis of the factors affecting the likely success of referendum process. The focus of the question is on the method itself, not the case. Use the case to justify what you mentioned but don't let your answer be eaten by your example
This is just my approach, others may totally disagree but I hope this helps!
I'd use the same approach for HC interpretation.
Home
Help
Search
Login
