Are the 5 entrenched rights outdated?

[sheyma53]

Are they outdated and do they protect the 'individual' or the commonwealth? thanks

[coopercorbett]

Hi,
I haven't done a whole lot on this part of AOS 2 (only just finished the first half of it on Friday). But from what I can understand the 5 entrenched rights within the Constitution, that is:
 1. Acquisition of Property
 2. Trial by Jury
 3. Freedom of Interstate Trade
 4. Freedom of Religion
 5. Freedom from Interstate Discrimination

Are not outdated, and are placed to ensure the rights of the citizens of Australia. I have come to this conclusion as the rights do not seem to benefit the Commonwealth in any way, and in fact Freedom of Religion (Section. 116) is used as an example of a restriction placed upon the Commonwealth law-making ability. Whether or not they are outdated is very much up to personal belief and interpretation. I personally take the stand, that while these 5 entrenched rights perhaps dont cover the full breadth of what needs to be protected in this day-and-age, they are still relevant and applicable in society ie. do not lag behind.

Hope that helps!

[chasej]

All my opinion but may help you understand.

 1. Acquisition of Property-->Cetainly not outdated, reguarly government need to aquire privately owned land for various purposes, and the right to receive just compensation for that ensures individuals do not suffer financial loss as a result of such aquisitions.
 2. Trial by Jury-->Bit conflicted on this. On one hand trial by jury can insure that individuals are treated fairly in trial and with randomly selected jurors it is much less likely vexatious charges would result in a guilty finding. On the other hand, jurors are tainted by their own opinions and may not hear cases objectively in a legal manner like judge may be able to, theoritically this right does protect the individual against abuse of the court essentially.
 3. Freedom of Interstate Trade-->Protects both the individual, the economy and the commonwealth and is an integral part of the functioning of Australia, especially in this day and age with online shops and interstate shipping. Individuals deserve the right to the best products from around the country, the economy prospers without unneccesary tariffs and taxes and the commonwealth is able to manage a purely nationalised economy without the states impedding on that power.
 4. Freedom of Religion-->Quite outdated in my opinion, but that's just because I doubt religions benefits to society. That being said, can't deny it does protect beliefs of the individual and can help ensure the commonwealth doesnt attempt to silence or interfere with specific beliefs.
 5. Freedom from Interstate Discrimination-->Was enacted to protect smaller states essentially, the small/large states thing doesn't really matter much today with the globalised world but still can be considered important to ensure all Australian citizens are treated equally and not subject to certain restrictions because of where they reside, supporting freedom of movement between states which iirc is an implied right or similar of the constitution (please don't quote me on that last point though).

[Summers]

Why are you guys learning it in such depth? All you are really expected to know is what are entrenched/expressed rights, know there are 5 (don't have to list them all) but know how to describe one of them. For example, freedom of religion.

[meganrobyn]

Why are you guys learning it in such depth? All you are really expected to know is what are entrenched/expressed rights, know there are 5 (don't have to list them all) but know how to describe one of them. For example, freedom of religion.

Actually, you should really know a bit more than that...

[lwlwlwlw]

I finished Legal Studies last year and we barely had any questions on these rights for the end-of-year exam. If I were you I'd focus on more relevant and important aspects that are on the study design, like pre-trial procedures.

[chasej]

I finished Legal Studies last year and we barely had any questions on these rights for the end-of-year exam. If I were you I'd focus on more relevant and important aspects that are on the study design, like pre-trial procedures.

Just because they weren't examined last year doesn't mean they aren't relevant for this year, if they're on the study design, they're equally examinable as everything else is.

[meganrobyn]

Just because they weren't examined last year doesn't mean they aren't relevant for this year, if they're on the study design, they're equally examinable as everything else is.

Also, something that wasn't on last year is arguably sliiiightly more likely for this year.

[brenden]

Also, something that wasn't on last year is arguably sliiiightly more likely for this year.

Just based on the probability of two things happening to occur two years in a row? I thought the 2014 exam was written before the 2013 exam was seen by students?

[meganrobyn]

Just based on the probability of two things happening to occur two years in a row? I thought the 2014 exam was written before the 2013 exam was seen by students?

I'm not sure how the timing of it being released to students is relevant...? The people writing the exam know what was on it last year. If something has been asked recently, it's not going to be a top top priority; if it hasn't been asked recently, it's going to be slightly more likely. These are obviously generalisations, but they are logical consequences of trying to rotate through all the SD material.

[Grace_Anna96]

Hello guys,
This kind of off topic, although there has been some great replies & it falls under the same topic:

I was just wondering would we have to distinguish between the role of the Commonwealth Constitution Act & the role of the High Court?

As I have read that the role of the Act is:
o   Provides a framework for the Australian parliamentary system
o   Established the commonwealth parliament
o   Established the High Court under section 71 and allowed them to interpret the constitution under section 76.

Whereas the role of the HC interpreting the constitution is:
o   To ensure that the constitution remains relevant to the people
o   to ensure that the states or commonwealth parliaments are not abusing their power
o   to give meaning to the words in the constitution and apply the constitution to everyday situations

[M_BONG]

Hello guys,
This kind of off topic, although there has been some great replies & it falls under the same topic:

I was just wondering would we have to distinguish between the role of the Commonwealth Constitution Act & the role of the High Court?

As I have read that the role of the Act is:
o   Provides a framework for the Australian parliamentary system
o   Established the commonwealth parliament
o   Established the High Court under section 71 and allowed them to interpret the constitution under section 76.

Whereas the role of the HC interpreting the constitution is:
o   To ensure that the constitution remains relevant to the people
o   to ensure that the states or commonwealth parliaments are not abusing their power
o   to give meaning to the words in the constitution and apply the constitution to everyday situations

So you're asking if we need to be able to distinguish between the role of Constitution and HC?

I think it's good to know the functions of both; but knowing how to properly distinguish between the two is probably not an exam-style question.

You definitely need to know the roles of both to answer those 8/10 markers on High Court cases without waffling on too much; but I don't think VCAA will ask specifically to distinguish between the Constitution and the High Court.

[Grace_Anna96]

So you're asking if we need to be able to distinguish between the role of Constitution and HC?

I think it's good to know the functions of both; but knowing how to properly distinguish between the two is probably not an exam-style question.

You definitely need to know the roles of both to answer those 8/10 markers on High Court cases without waffling on too much; but I don't think VCAA will ask specifically to distinguish between the Constitution and the High Court.

Thankyou for your advice Yhprum! I just wasn't sure if there was a difference between the roles of the High Court when interpreting the constitution & the roles of the High Court Interpretation act- although I will have a look through past exams maybe? The study design is just so broad.

Also, as I am writing up my revision notes for the VLRC I don't know whether to include the processes & the roles? DO we have to know both & an example?

[M_BONG]

Thankyou for your advice Yhprum! I just wasn't sure if there was a difference between the roles of the High Court when interpreting the constitution & the roles of the High Court Interpretation act- although I will have a look through past exams maybe? The study design is just so broad.

Also, as I am writing up my revision notes for the VLRC I don't know whether to include the processes & the roles? DO we have to know both & an example?

Ok you don't need to know the difference (if there is one) on how the HC interprets Acts of parliament and the Constitution.

Yes, you need to know an example of the VLRC and the processes. I think the SD states an example is needed. For example I did jury directions last year,

Processes: you do need to know the processes, in case an "explain" question pops up. You need to start from the Attorney general's terms of reference to a report tabled to parliament and include somewhere that parliament does not have not to adopt the change.