Chapter 11.4

Question 1

introduction to the high court

Answer 1

The high court is the highest court of appeal. Section 71 of the constitution established the high court and gave it jurisdiction to hear certain matters as well as section 76 gives the high court the power to hear disputes arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation. The High Court cannot change the words of the
Constitution, but it can change what those words mean.

Question 2

the principle of representative government

Answer 2

Australia’s parliamentary system is based on the principle of representative government. Parliament and government consist of members who are elected by
the people to make laws on their behalf. if government and parliament do not represent the views and values of a majority of people, they may be voted out of office at the next election.
The principle of representative government is enshrined in the Australian Constitution in section 7 (matter in relation to the senate)
and section 24 (matters in relation to the house of representatives) these sections require the Commonwealth Houses of Parliament to be directly
chosen by the people.

Question 3

How does the constitution protect the principle of representative government

Answer 3

• restricts the ability of commonwealth parliament to make laws that infringe on the rights of people to vote
• protects the ability of people to freely communicate on political matters.

Question 4

The Australian Constitution – sections 7 and 24

Answer 4

section 7 of the constituion states that the senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State and section 24 states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the
people of the Commonwealth.

Question 5

protecting voting in elections

Answer 5

The commonwealth parliament cannot interfere with peoples ability to engage in the political process, if there is interference with the voting at an election the law is likely to be declared invalid.
- Members of parliament must be directly chosen by the people so people have to have the right to vote

Question 6

protecting freedom of political communication

Answer 6

-By having freedom of political communication it ensure that citizens can freely discuss political and governmental matters enabling a fare and reasoned vote

Question 7

Limitations on the ability of the High Court
to protect the principle of representative
government

Answer 7

• The High Court is limited to interpreting the words and phrases of the Australian Constitution.
  It cannot ‘add’ new words or phrases, or expressly provide for a right to vote.
• The High Court can only intervene and protect the principle of representative government if a person challenges a law.
• The interpretation of the High Court will depend on its composition. Some justices are more conservative

Question 8

strengths of the high courts role in representative gov

Answer 8

• enrinched in the constituion
• high court is independent from the pressure of the parliament
• anyone can challange a law and bring it to the high court (if they are standing)
• judges of the high court are experinced in making decision and have a wide range of resources avaialble to assist them

Question 9

weaknesses of the high courts role

Answer 9

• Judges can only rule on the facts of the case brought
  before them.
• High Court judges cannot protect the principle of
  representative government unless a case is brought
  before them.
• The decision of the High Court may depend on the
  composition of the Court. Some justices are more
  conservative in their approach to the Constitution
  and may be reluctant to adopt a liberal approach to
  interpreting the Constitution.

Question 10

The roach case

Answer 10

Vickie Lea roach was serving a 6 year term of imprisonment and was enrolled to vote in the seat of Kooyong
- in 2006, commonwealth passes an act that restricted all sentenced prisoners from voting in election
- a previous act in 2004 states that prisoners serving sentences longer then 3 years could not vote this 2006 act extended this
- roach Challanged the constitutional validity of these acts and took this to the hight court
- the high court found that the 2006 act was inconsistent with the constitution - it found that it was unconstitutional due to sections 7 and 24 of the constitution (directly chosen by the people)
- the high court ruled that the 2004 legislation was still valid as prisoners who serve for a period of longer then 3 years have generally committed serious crimes

Question 11

one high court case where the high court acted as a guardian over the constitution/ representative nature of parliament

Answer 11

the high court acted as a gaurdian of the australian consitution in the case of roach v electrol commisioner where roach who was serving 6 years in prison, challanged the act of parliament prohibitng convited and sentenced prisoners from voting in elections.
in this case, the high court protected section 7 and 24 of the constitution by asserting that commonwealth therefore cannot make laws restricitng the right to vote. accordingly, the high court held that the act of parliament prohibitng prisoners from voting was unconstitutional as it violated section 7 and 24. however the impact of this was was somewhat limited, as the high court held that in some circumstances it was unconstitutional for the commonwealth to prohibit some citizens from voting, such as those convicted of murder. the high court also upheld previous legislation preventing prisoners serving sentances of more than 3 years from voting