You didn't cover strengths and weaknesses of parliament? That's on the exam every year and is frequently the topic of the 10-marker, so it's good you're looking into it. In fact, before the exam, I really recommend you get a large number of well-worded parliament strengths and weaknesses (and do a comparative evaluation with courts as law-makers - ie parliament versus courts - when you cover that, as well).
A critical evaluation or analysis is essentially an opinion with supporting reasons (strengths and weaknesses). You give an opinion on parliament, and then discuss a range of strengths and weaknesses. It is very easy to lose marks on these 'discussion' questions, so you want to have strong points, with short examples where relevant, and AT LEAST as many points as there are marks. Preferably a few additional points as backup.
What works best is if you match strengths to weaknesses - like you're looking at both sides of an argument. The example you've given doesn't really say why it is a strength - the 'in futuro' point is generally considered good because it means that parliament doesn't have to wait for something to become a problem in society before acting; they have the power to make positive change, or to try to prevent harm before it actually occurs (unlike courts). You could then balance that against a weakness by saying that, in practice, however, it is impossible for parliament to foresee every problem before it occurs, and the passage of a bill can be very slow (for example, the VLRC took over two years to investigate the issue of provocation being an inappropriate defence to murder); this somewhat undermines the goal of stopping harm before it occurs. Alternatively, parliament makes law with future application by making the wording quite vague and general so that the act applies to as many future situations as possible; but this means the public cannot always be sure what the law covers and what it does not, so this places a lot of power in the hands of unelected judges to decide what the law means - when we elect our parliament to do that, not our courts.
Here are some examples of strengths and weaknesses relating to two main areas of parliament, as a sample of how you might "match" strengths with weaknesses. I'm not saying they're all worded with enough detail, though!
Strengths relating to parliament being a democratically elected body may include:
• Law-makers in parliament are elected, therefore are accountable to the people for the law that they make.
• Electing parliament means that laws are more likely to reflect majority values and needs, because each MP needs the support of a majority in their electorate come election-time.
• Because parliament is a representative body, it is more accessible to the public than courts, through lobbying, interest groups, campaign funding, and making submissions to law reform bodies.
• Electing representatives to make laws on our behalf is a more efficient system than a direct democracy where every citizen would be expected to vote on laws and educate themselves on every issue. It also means we can choose our ‘best and brightest’ to do a better job for us and specialise in law-making.
Weaknesses relating to parliament being a democratically elected body may include:
• Parliament may make short-term decisions to attract votes, rather than making the best decisions for the long-term, because they are worried they might lose their seat next election.
• The fact that members of parliament will often try to please the majority view in order to gain votes can lead to a ‘tyranny of the majority’ in which the loudest voices are the only ones listened to, and can mean that laws pander to majority interests rather than protecting minority interests, children, the future or the environment.
• Parliament being a representative body that is constantly pressured by lobby groups and the media means that it has little independence, and can often bow to making law to please the interest groups that gave the party in power the most money. This may not always be in the best interests of the community.
Strengths relating to parliament being a forum for debate and scrutiny may include:
• The second reading debate gives many members of parliament from different political parties a chance to give their opinion on the bill.
• The second reading debate allows true representative government because each MP can talk about the bill in terms of how it impacts on their electorate and what the people they are representing think of it – even if they did not vote for the Government.
• The committee stage allows the bill to be amended through discussion and scrutiny of each section so it best reflects the views of the community, and any mistakes made in drafting can be fixed.
• The committee stage allows the parliament to do thorough research on the bill, consult with experts and formal law reform bodies, and investigate what the likely impact of passing it will be.
Weaknesses relating to parliament being a forum for debate and scrutiny may include:
• The process can be very time-consuming, especially if the bill is referred to a committee for investigation. For example, legislation to give some equal rights to same sex couples was in committee for over 6 months.
• The Government can use the ‘guillotine’ to cut debate short in the lower house where they have the majority, which means that different viewpoints cannot be explored fully and parliament will not be an effective forum for debate.
• The upper house may not always be able to act as an effective forum for review and scrutiny if the Government has a majority and it is a ‘rubber stamp’ Senate, or if the Opposition has a majority and it is a ‘hostile’ Senate.
• The upper house may not be able to effective review bills if independents use their balance of power to pursue narrow agendas of their own, instead of looking objectively at the merits of the bill.
• The lower house is not generally able to act as an honest forum for debate and scrutiny of bills because the Government always has a majority. It does not need, therefore, to listen to any criticisms or suggestions for amendment because it has the numbers to pass what it wants.
Home
Help
Search
Login
