Unit 4: Area of Study 2 - The People, the Parliament and the Courts Flashcards
Majority Government
Is a Government that holds the majority of seats in the Lower House
Factors that Affect the Ability of Parliament to Make Law
- The Roles of the Houses of Parliament
- The Representative Nature of Parliament
- Political Pressures
- Restrictions on the Law-Making Powers of Parliament
Minority Government
Is a Government that does not hold a majority of seats in the Lower House, and therefore has to rely on the support of Minor Parties and Independents to form Government
Rubber Stamp Upper House
Is where the Government holds the majority of seats in both Houses and therefore automatically approves the decisions that are made in the Lower House because the members of the Government generally vote along their Party’s values, leading to minimal opposition against a Bill
Hostile Upper House
Is where the Government does not hold a majority of seats in the Upper House and therefore has to rely on the support of the Opposition or the Crossbench to have their Bills passed. An Upper House that acts in a hostile manner is able to fore amendments to Government Bills or block proposed Legislation
How a Majority Government Assists the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law (List 2)
- A Bill needs to be passed in this House and the Senate to become a Law
- It ensures that the Parliamentary Law-Making process is rigorous and thorough
- It encourages the Parliament to produce effective and just laws which reflect the views and needs of the majority of the community
How a Minority Government Assists the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law (List 2)
- A Bill needs to be passed in the Upper House and the House of Representatives to become a Law
- It ensures that the Parliamentary Law-Making process is rigorous and thorough
- It encourages the Parliament to produce effective and just laws which reflect the views and needs of the majority of the community by scrutinizing Bills
How a Rubber Stamp Upper House Assists the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law
The Government can easily make pass Bills and make Law due to them holding the majority of seats in both Houses
How a Hostile Upper House Assists the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law (List 2)
- It can assist the effectiveness of the Parliament as a ‘Law-Maker’, as it can ensure Bills are more thoroughly scrutinized
- It ensures that a wider range of views and community interests are reflected in the Legislation
- Can assist in rigorous and thorough debate, meaning that Bills have been well thought through and all aspects of it has been considered
How a Majority Government Limits the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law
By producing Laws that are effective and reflect the needs of the majority of the community, it can slow the process of Law Reform
How a Minority Government Limits the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law
By producing Laws that are effective and reflect the needs of the majority of the community, it can slow the process of Law Reform
How a Rubber Stamp Upper House Limits the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law (List 2)
- There is very little discussion and negotiation of a Bill and making the Law, since the Government has the majority in both Houses, essentially ‘controlling’ them
- It gives the Opposition, Independents and Minor Parties the ability to force amendments to, or block, Government bills which can obstruct the ability of the democratically elected Government to implement its legislative program
- It can also allow Independents and Minor Parties to hold a disproportionately high level of power compared to their relatively low voter base
How a Hostile Upper House Limits the Parliament’s Ability to Make Law (List 2)
- It is very difficult getting any Bill through the Upper House
- It can obstruct the ability of the Government to implement its policy agenda, usually for the Parliamentary Member’s own reasons
- It allows Independents and Minor Parties to hold a very high level of power, compared to their relatively low voter base, which can be seen as an undemocratic restriction on the Parliament’s Law-Making ability
Representative Government
Is a Government where the people elect representatives to govern on their behalf
Characteristics of the Representative Nature of Parliament (List 2)
- A Representative Democracy in Australia is achieved through Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution which provides the right to citizens to vote and elect Politicians to represent them.
- They should be upheld through regular Elections
- The members who are viewed as not representing the interests of their Electorate will be replaced
- A point of view may get considerable media coverage, but not actually represent majority views
-
The Representative Nature of Parliament: The Views of the Majority
- If Law made by Parliament does not represent the views of the majority, it is likely that the Government will be voted out at the next Election
The Representative Nature of Parliament: Regular Elections
Elections may limit Law-Making by providing Governments with a short-term focus, such as aiming to win the next Election
Sources of Political Pressures
- Domestic Pressures
- Internal Party Politics
- International Pressures
Domestic Pressures
- Organisations can be well funded and be very persuasive through expensive ad campaigns. Governments can avoid difficult issues if it means they risk losing the next Election
Internal Party Politics
- Is where voting on party lines causes Politicians to vote against their values, or the desires of their Electorate. Disagreements within a party can slow the process of Law-Making down
International Pressures
- These pressures can affect the types of Legislation that is or is not introduced. International Treaties can lead to Law Reform in Australia
Jurisdictional Limitations
Is where Parliament can only make Laws within its area of power
Specific Prohibitions
Is when the Constitution expressly bans Parliament from making Laws in an area
Ways that the Commonwealth Parliament is restricted in Law-Making (List 2)
- Through Residual Powers, unless given power by the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court or a Referendum.
- If it is out of their Jurisdiction
- Cannot make a national religion or force individuals to practice a religion
- Changing the wording of the Constitution
Ways that the Victorian Parliament is restricted in Law-Making (List 2)
- If it is out of their Jurisdiction
- If it concerns Military or Naval Forces
- Creating a new currency
- Changing the wording of the Constitution
The Court Hierarchy (From Bottom to Top)
- Magistrates’ Court
- County Court
- Supreme Court (Trial Division)
- Supreme Court (Court of Appeal)
- High Court
When do the Courts Make Law?
- When the Court is asked to resolve a dispute where there is no existing Law
- When the Court is asked to resolve a dispute where there is an existing Statute, but the words require interpretation because the Law is ambiguous
The Doctrine of Precedent
Is the process where Judges follow the reasons for their decisions, which are given by the Courts that are higher then them in the Court Hierarchy when deciding on similar future cases
The Key Features of the Doctrine of Precedent
- Persuasive Precedent
- Ratio Decidendi
- Obiter Dictum
- Binding Precedent
- Stare Decisis
Persuasive Precedent
Is the legal reasoning behind a decision of a lower (or equal) Court within the same Jurisdiction, or a Court in a different Jurisdiction that may be considered relevant, and therefore used as a source of influence even thought it is not binding
Ratio Decidendi
Is a term that means ‘The Reason’; the legal reasoning behind a Judge’s decision. This forms the binding aspect of a Precedent
Obiter Dictum
Is a term that means ‘By the Way’
Binding Precedent
Is the legal reasoning for a decision of a Higher Court that must be followed by a Lower Court in the same Jurisdiction in cases where the key facts are similar
Stare Decisis
Is a term that means ‘Let the Decision Stand’, which is the basic principle underlying the Doctrine of Precedent
The Key Features of Developing and Avoiding Precedent
- Reversing a Precedent
- Overruling a Precedent
- Distinguishing a Precedent
- Disapproving a Precedent
Reversing a Precedent
This is where a Superior Court changes a previous Precedent set by a Lower Court in the same case in Appeal, thereby creating a new Precedent which overrides the earlier Precedent
Overruling a Precedent
This is when a Superior Court changes previous Precedent that was established by a Lower Court, in a different and later case, thereby creating a new Precedent which overrules the earlier Precedent
Distinguishing a Precedent
Is the process by which a Lower Court decides that the main facts of a case are sufficiently different to that of a case in which a Precedent was established by a Superior Court, so that they are not bound to follow it
Disapproving a Precedent
Is when a Court expresses its dissatisfaction of an existing Precedent, but is still bound to follow it
Statutory Interpretation
Is the process by which Judges give meaning to the words or phrases in an Act of Parliament, so it can be applied to resolve the case before them
Reasons for Statutory Interpretation
- Broad or General Wording
- New Technology
- Changing Values
- Unintended Consequences
Reasons for Statutory Interpretation: Broad or General Wording
Most Legislation will use general and broad terms in drafting but will need to apply to specific circumstances. The Courts therefore can give precise meanings to general terms. Words such as ‘weapon’ may need to be clarified in the context of a particular case
Reasons for Statutory Interpretation: New Technology
New technology may develop faster than Parliament can keep up. There may also be a need to interpret the Constitution to determine if the Commonwealth Parliament has the power, with respect to a new technology
Reasons for Statutory Interpretation: Changing Values
Society’s views and the meaning of words and Laws can change over time. For example, views on requirements for ‘consent’ are evolving, and notions of gender or marriage have considerably shifted
Reasons for Statutory Interpretation: Unintended Consequences
Laws sometimes Sometimes laws can be used in ways that are unintended by Parliament. Defensive Homicide laws in Victoria, intended to protect women who killed their husbands as a result of domestic violence, were instead used by men to justify murdering their partners. This was not something fixed by Statutory Interpretation. Parliament Repealed the law
Case Regarding Statutory Interpretation
The Studded Belt Case
Summary of the Studded Belt Case
The Defendant was wearing a black leather belt that had raised metal studs on it. He was arrested by police because he was ‘possessing a weapon.’ He was found guilty at the Magistrates’ Court because they found that the belt was a “regulated weapon.”
He Appealed to the Supreme Court, under the Weapons Act which stated that “A person must not possess, carry or use any regulated weapon without a lawful excuse.” Under this followed a list of weapons. The Defendant Appealed on the fact that a studded belt was not a regulated weapon.
The Supreme Court decided that the studded belt was not a regulated weapon, even though it could be used as one. The Defendant had a “lawful excuse” for possessing the belt, which was to hold up his pants, therefore he did not intend to use it as a weapon.
Effects of Statutory Interpretation
- The Parties will Receive a Binding Resolution
- The Meaning of Legislation can be Restricted or Expanded
- Precedent may be Set for Future Cases to Follow
- Words or Phrases of the Statute are Given Meaning
Effects of Statutory Interpretation: The Parties will Receive a Binding Resolution
Once the Legislation has been interpreted, it can be applied to the case. It will make clear the application of the law in the particular case, pending any Appeal
Effects of Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Legislation can be Restricted or Expanded
The interpretation given to the words may be more restricted or be more expansive
Effects of Statutory Interpretation: Precedent may be Set for Future Cases to Follow
If a decision of a Superior Court is given that interprets the meaning of words and phrases, that is Binding on later Courts, and the Act will be read together with the Precedent
Effects of Statutory Interpretation: Words or Phrases of the Statute are Given Meaning
This is where specific words or phrases of Statutes are given meaning and will be solidified in Precedent
Case Regarding the Effects of Statutory Interpretation
Is Ciabatta Bread? Case
Summary of Is Ciabatta a Bread? Case
The Plaintiff took the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to Court after it was ruled that is mini Ciabatta was a biscuit, not a bread, therefore he had to pay no GST.
If his product attracted GST, he would owe the ATO $85,000. The Federal Court found in favour of the ATO as the Ciabatta was broken during the hearing and cracked like a cracker. The Plaintiff therefore was liable and had to pay GST
Factors that Affect the Ability of the Courts to Make Law
- The Doctrine of Precedent
- Judicial Conservatism
- Judicial Activism
- Costs and Time of Bringing a Case to Court
- The Requirement for Standing
How the Doctrine of Precedent Assists the Court’s Ability to Make Law (List 2)
- If Statute Law of Common Law doesn’t exist or it is unclear, Judges can create new and applicable Law
- Judges of Superior Courts can overrule or reverse a decision of a Lower Court, thereby developing Law
- If a Party is able to distinguish from another case, the Court does not have to follow Precedent and may create new Law
- Judges can disapprove Laws, which may encourage Superior Courts to set new Precedent