ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE Business Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Legal Studies => Topic started by: vanroevan1994 on February 17, 2012, 08:45:00 pm
-
1- In what way is the parliament a supreme law-making body (1mark)
2 - Why do you think the principle of separation of powers is a necessary part of our democratic system? (4 marks)
Please tell me how you would answer them? how you would structure them and anything other tips or anything! thanks! :)
-
1- In what way is the parliament a supreme law-making body (1mark)
Parliament is a supreme law-making body as it's power overrides all other bodies within the legal system, such as making laws on any issue, as long as it is acting within its constitutional powers
2 - Why do you think the principle of separation of powers is a necessary part of our democratic system? (4 marks)
The principle of the separation of powers states that the three main arms of the legal system granted by the constitution must be kept separate and held by different bodies, so no one holds absolute power. The separation of powers consist of the legislative function (those that make the law; exercised by parliament), the executive function (those that implement administer the law; exercised by the Crown) and the judicial function (interpret the law and settle legal disputes; exercised by the courts). There is overlap between the legislative and the executive powers, as the Governor-General is apart of both the legislative and executive body, some members of parliament are also members of the government and parliament delegates some law-making powers to government departments and executive councils. The judicial body is kept separate to maintain independence in the courts, and to avoid influence from the legislative and executive bodies to allow for them to make unbiased decisions
The separation of powers is a necessary part of our democratic system as it enables each power to create a system of checks and balances on each other and avoids corruption in the legal system.
Feel free to critique my answers
-
Thank You! that is fine.
Would you be able to take a look at this question for me?
Explain the role of the Senate. To what extent do you think the Senate is able to fulfil its role? In a democracy, should the government be able to obstruct proposed laws? Discuss. (8 marks)
I don't know what to put into that brings in the 8 marks. -.- haha
-
Explain the role of the Senate. To what extent do you think the Senate is able to fulfil its role? In a democracy, should the government be able to obstruct proposed laws? Discuss. (8 marks)
I don't know what to put into that brings in the 8 marks. -.- haha
In terms of mark allocation I think for 8 marks this is how it might/could be:
Role of Senate = 1 mark
"To what extent is senate...." = 4-6 marks
"In a democracy, should the Govt..." = 2-3 marks
I think for this question you'd have to mention the senate is a "House of review" - It scrutinises and reviews bills that are passed to it from the House of reps. It can also originate (except money bills), amend or reject any proposed law. "To what extent" means you could examine both sides of the argument - so for example:
The senate plays an important role in the Australian parliamentary system because it scrutinises and reviews bills passed up to it by the House of Reps. Such review and scrutiny of bills ensures that a bill's flaws are exposed and rectified and that only potentially strong bills go on to become law. HOWEVER, the Senate may also run the risk of becoming a "rubber stamp" if the Government also has a majority in the Upper house as well as the lower house. This means the senate may not bother to properly scrutinise and review bills and just simply pass them, thus causing weaker and flawed bills to go on to become Acts of Parliament, contradicting the Senate's role as the "House of Review".
^ so I think if you give out like 2-3 points like that you should be okay :)
I think the Govt. should be able to obstruct proposed laws, because being a Democratic nation, we elect MP's who will represent and protect our values in Parliament and through the law. Thus Bills should be able to be obstructed because some bills might be controversial or offending to the views/values of people/groups in the wider community. This would go against the principles of representative govt as well. Also some bills might have obvious flaws/weaknesses which might lessen their efficiency once they become law - so in this case the Govt. should be able to stop such bills from being passed - I think :P At least this is a part of what I might've written haha :)
-
The task word 'explain' always means 2 or more marks, so you'd want to spend a few minutes writing on the roles before starting the evaluation.
1-2 marks - explain the role of the States House
1-2 marks - explain the role of the House of Review
4 marks approx - evaluation/discussion like the really good example above
1 mark - response to the final comment
With that final comment, though, it doesn't make 100% sense to me. Anyone can obstruct proposed bills, depending on the composition of the house - as long as they have the deciding vote. In the LH the Government can obstruct non-Govt bills, and no-one else usually has the numbers to obstruct Govt bills... but in the UH the opposition can obstruct Govt (or minor party) bills if they have the majority. Usually in the UH only two or three people can obstruct both Govt and opposition bills if a minor party or some independents hold the balance of power (swing vote).
-
Oh, and with the 'supreme law-maker' question...
Parliament is the supreme law-maker because:
- Section 1 of Chapter 1 of the Constitution states that the legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament. It's basically the same at state level.
- Parliament can override law made by other law-makers such as courts and subordinate authorities (because of s1 of the Const).
- Parliament can delegate law-making power to other law-makers such as councils and statutory authorities.
- No other law-maker can override the law made by parliament (because of s1 of the Const).