Liuy's Question Thread

[eeps]

High Court interpretation does not alter the written words in the Constitution; it only applies the meaning of the text in the Constitution to the case brought before the court. An advantage of the High Court interpretation is that a decision must be made, which generally results in a change in the division of law-making powers between the Commonwealth and the states. However, if a case isn't brought before the High Court then nothing changes. I would give an example of a High Court case - i.e. Franklin Dam case. Discuss its' impact.

For a referendum, it's effective in that it ultimately can insert or delete words in the Constitution. Give an example of a successful referendum - i.e. 1967. As with the High Court interpretation, it results in a change in the division of law-making powers between the Commonwealth and the states. Both are effective in that sense, more-so the referendum process, I believe. Though it is an effective process, talk about the low success rate of referendums, and give one or two reasons why it is low. An advantage of the referendum process is that individuals/groups can initiate change (whereas in High Court interpretation, it can't) and may ultimately result in a successful referendum. The obvious disadvantage being that referendums have a low success rate.


8 marks is a lot for a question like that. I don't know if what I've said above actually helps. That's just how I would approach the question.

[Liuy]

What is the difference between the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights and a Bill of Rights for Canada?

[flash36]

I think their Bill of Rights is contained within the Charter.

[Liuy]

Question: "One means of improving the protection of rights in Australia would be to introduce a bill of rights as part of our Constitution."

Explain the process for changing the Constitution to include a bill of rights and explain why, historically, a proposal to undertake this process is likely to be unsuccessful.

How would everyone go about answering this question?
does it have to include anything to do with the protection of rights? as in, how do I refer to the quote in my answer?

Cheers

[eeps]

Question: "One means of improving the protection of rights in Australia would be to introduce a bill of rights as part of our Constitution."

Explain the process for changing the Constitution to include a bill of rights and explain why, historically, a proposal to undertake this process is likely to be unsuccessful.

How would everyone go about answering this question?
does it have to include anything to do with the protection of rights? as in, how do I refer to the quote in my answer?

Cheers

You should discuss the process of a referendum. Discuss how it works, and give an example - i.e. For a bill of rights to be successful, it must pass both houses of Parliament, the majority of voters (50% + 1) and the majority of states (4 out of 6 states) must agree to proposed change. Then after that, discuss factors why referendums are generally unsuccessful. For example, a "double majority" is difficult to achieve. 2 or 3 factors would be adequate. If a bill of rights was successful through the referendum process, then a greater number of rights would be protected in the Constitution.

[Liuy]

Thanks for that, the question was confusing as to the amount of detail it required from the Protection of Rights part of the Constitution area of study.

So I gather its mainly to do with the process of referendums.

[Liuy]

Is it necessary to know examples for the structural protection of rights? i.e. separation of powers, responsible government, representative government.

I can't think of any from the top of my head...

[Tobias Funke]

The implied right to vote
Representative government ensures that an election can't be canceled

[Liuy]

right to vote isn't an implied right... do you mean right to freedom of political communication?

[eeps]

Is it necessary to know examples for the structural protection of rights? i.e. separation of powers, responsible government, representative government.

I can't think of any from the top of my head...

To be honest, I didn't think you'd need to. I would have thought listing a structural protection, then going into a bit more detail about it was enough. Structural protections are self-explanatory in my opinion. For example, representative government; which is designed to ensure that members of Parliament are accountable to the electorate, and should represent the values of the voters, the foundation of democracy.

[cranberry]

just to clear one thing up...structural protections include statutory, common and international law?

[Liuy]

Nah, structural protections are the mechanisms which indirectly protect the rights of Australians through the TEXT and STRUCTURE of the Constitution.
e.g. representative government, responsible government and separation of powers.

Statutory, Common and International Law are 3 different ways in which Australia protects the rights of the people.

[cranberry]

sac went well....hopefully keep the A+'s rolling

[Liuy]

Quick one, in a response to a "compare" question (e.g. compare Australia's approach to protection of rights to Canadian approach), along with similarities and differences, is it necessary to include an evaluation of which country's approach is more effective?

Cheers

[eeps]

Quick one, in a response to a "compare" question (e.g. compare Australia's approach to protection of rights to Canadian approach), along with similarities and differences, is it necessary to include an evaluation of which country's approach is more effective?

Cheers

No, I don't think so. If it doesn't explicitly say "evaluate which approach is more effective", then you don't need to. Moreover, you could be asked to "critically evaluate Australia's approach to protecting rights".