Exam post mortem 2016

[nm4065]

Thoughts on 2016 exam? I was confused with the referendum scenario (was it successful or unsucessful) I also found it tricky to pull 5 marks for the difference in the purposes of criminal and civil pre-trial procedures. What was the question on "discuss the role of Commonwealth Parliament" asking for - I said its role is 1) to initate laws that reflect society's values and 2) provide an arena to debate and scruitinise these. I then evaluated both. Was worth 6 marks

[carlton_99]

The referendum was unsuccessful as only 3/6 states voted yes, thus no majority.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Wait how many states are there?? Wasn't it 3 voted no?

[HasibA]

anyone have a copy of the exam? thanks

[phurell]

Wait how many states are there?? Wasn't it 3 voted no?

it was voted no and not yes wasn't it..... oops......

actually, i don't think i got it wrong.. there are only 6 states so 4/6 states would've needed to pass it and since 3 already failed it the referendum was unsuccessful. 

[nm4065]

Wait how many states are there?? Wasn't it 3 voted no?

I think it said " a majority in all states agreed execpt for VIC, NSW and TAS) that means if 3 didn't agree, only 3 did agree (SA, WA and QLD) but you need 4/6 states for double majority provision to be achieved. Is this right???

[SexGodDosia]

If i recall the question said 56% of voters overall and a majority of voters in a majority of all states, except Victoria, Newsouth wales and Tasmania voted yes for the purposed referendum


Would imply 6/6 states of 51% + as well as 51% overall right? i dont remember it mentioning only Vic, nsw, tas said yes

[jasmineravi]

were we required to use an example in the need for change question?

[SexGodDosia]

were we required to use an example in the need for change question?

Only 2 marks i did but i dont think it was necessary 

[jasmineravi]

i guess including it would have assured you the 2 marks

[HopefulLawStudent]

I screwed up... said there were 7 states.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Wait... does the NT just not get a say in referenda at all? 

And if it's 6 states, then what happens when 3 states vote in favour and 3 don't vote in favour? 

[Alter]

I screwed up... said there were 7 states.

If it's any consolation, you'll probably still get marks for correct explanation depending on the wording, only being deducted mark(s) for the wrong answer. Kinda like if you did your working right in methods but ended up with the wrong answer.

Wait... does the NT just not get a say in referenda at all? 

And if it's 6 states, then what happens when 3 states vote in favour and 3 don't vote in favour? 

If there's 3 in favour and 3 not, it fails. You need 4, 5, or 6.

The political power of NT and ACT is tiny when compared to that of the states.

EDIT: To clarify, people in NT and ACT still vote in referenda. However, these votes don't count towards the state majority component, if that makes sense.

[HarryCondon5]

If it's any consolation, you'll probably still get marks for correct explanation depending on the wording, only being deducted mark(s) for the wrong answer. Kinda like if you did your working right in methods but ended up with the wrong answer. If there's 3 in favour and 3 not, it fails. You need 4, 5, or 6.

The political power of NT and ACT is tiny when compared to that of the states.

EDIT: To clarify, people in NT and ACT still vote in referenda. However, these votes don't count towards the state majority component, if that makes sense.

Hi Alter,
I was just wondering if you'd be able to answer a couple questions I have regarding the exam?
I was just curious as to what would've been desirable for 6 marks in regard to an evaluation of implied rights?
Also, for 4 marks, what would you have recommended writing for the purposes of civil and criminal pre-trial procedures?
Cheers!! Thank you

[deejay9]

anyone have a copy of the exam? thanks

I'd also be interested in reading it, if anyone has a copy