-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Section III - Options (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rafy
- Start date
I did part b for IP (something about determining their own futures) and part b for World Order which was something about global cooperation in regards to challenges to world order (not that it mattered, you could basically talk about the same stuff for both world order questions).
Definitely smashed it as questions were incredibly broad, I had like 1h for each response so band 6 here I come novices.
Definitely smashed it as questions were incredibly broad, I had like 1h for each response so band 6 here I come novices.
I did part b for both consumer and family. I basically talked about the 4 issues that were in the text book. (Consumer - Credit, Product Certification, Marketting Innovations, Technology. Family - Same-sex relationships, birth technologies, parental responsibilities, care and protection of children)
Not too sure how well I went. I had a complete mind blank for Consumer and forgot most of my legislation, but I had a heap of cases and media stuff so I hope that'll make up for it. Family, I think I did okay. The question was about relationship breakdowns so I said that this wasn't limited to divorce and separation of de facto partners, but also included the relationship between parent and child. That way I was able to work the issue of child abuse into my answer. Not sure if this is right, but that's what I did.
Not too sure how well I went. I had a complete mind blank for Consumer and forgot most of my legislation, but I had a heap of cases and media stuff so I hope that'll make up for it. Family, I think I did okay. The question was about relationship breakdowns so I said that this wasn't limited to divorce and separation of de facto partners, but also included the relationship between parent and child. That way I was able to work the issue of child abuse into my answer. Not sure if this is right, but that's what I did.
For family I did - "Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for parties involved in relationship breakdown."
I started with the varying effectiveness of domestic violence - how it is stated as crime in law - battered wife syndrome - AVO's - pro-arrest policy - but also its ineffectiveness in an article which shows a 25% increase in women arrested because of this on wrongful grounds
then I depicted the changing nature of divorce (from Matrimonial Causes Act to Marriage Act - Relationship Centres - and legal consequences of separation (property where property divsions is now equal for men and women but still this success is somewhat tarnished by the court finding it difficult to annul orders where one party has sold their property to another party for an unreasonably low price) and the other consequence of children - "best interests of the child" still various laws remaining thus even after separation (I mentioned the gradual autonomy of the child (Re: Marion) and also still the various laws protecting their rights - maintenance/discipline/education - Campbell v Campbell (1988) - as well as "best interests of the child" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction
-then I went on about both the successes and failures of court - increasing animosity between parties (eg. in the case of R v Jean Majdalawi (1996) and also some surrogacy cases just briefly -->but at the same time still effective in ensuring the best interests of the child - eg. for same-sex in accordance with changing values (used your article) - Johnson and another v. Roberts and another (2010)
finally I talked about ADR -counselling/mediation/CCP/child-related trials under the Shared Parental Responsibilities Act - used articles and cases to conversely show its ineffectiveness - and ended with the bill currently debated in parliament which whilst protecting rights, has taken more than 5 yrs to implement in manifesting the psychological and physical impacts of the child
I started with the varying effectiveness of domestic violence - how it is stated as crime in law - battered wife syndrome - AVO's - pro-arrest policy - but also its ineffectiveness in an article which shows a 25% increase in women arrested because of this on wrongful grounds
then I depicted the changing nature of divorce (from Matrimonial Causes Act to Marriage Act - Relationship Centres - and legal consequences of separation (property where property divsions is now equal for men and women but still this success is somewhat tarnished by the court finding it difficult to annul orders where one party has sold their property to another party for an unreasonably low price) and the other consequence of children - "best interests of the child" still various laws remaining thus even after separation (I mentioned the gradual autonomy of the child (Re: Marion) and also still the various laws protecting their rights - maintenance/discipline/education - Campbell v Campbell (1988) - as well as "best interests of the child" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction
-then I went on about both the successes and failures of court - increasing animosity between parties (eg. in the case of R v Jean Majdalawi (1996) and also some surrogacy cases just briefly -->but at the same time still effective in ensuring the best interests of the child - eg. for same-sex in accordance with changing values (used your article) - Johnson and another v. Roberts and another (2010)
finally I talked about ADR -counselling/mediation/CCP/child-related trials under the Shared Parental Responsibilities Act - used articles and cases to conversely show its ineffectiveness - and ended with the bill currently debated in parliament which whilst protecting rights, has taken more than 5 yrs to implement in manifesting the psychological and physical impacts of the child
For consumers I did - "Why has justice for consumers been hard to achieve"?
I had the underpinning idea of cost/administrative burden of courts as well as the power imbalance between impressionable consumers and unscrupulous businesses
The non-statutory controls of advertising - highly unregulated
I started with self-help -->Paul and Hart's Warehouse - as well as it sometimes not honouring its polcicy of refund, repair and exchange as shown in my newspaper article -->however the ACL ensures on the greater part refunds and repairs will be done on grounds of "bona fide" - still self-help, complaints sometimes falling on deaf ears and taking a while to respond
State organisations - difficulty to receive Legal Aid (Dietrich v. Queen) - as well as Office of Fair Trading <--lengthy time taken for action (I also highlighted its effectiveness but also consumer's over-reliance on it in thus taking too long for reform)
Federal organisations -ASIC - UCCC- while it does here credit card and activities now, it has not holistically pushed for the "green paper" where lenders will take into account their borrowers income levels and rate of returns -->thus almost contuining the injustices of CBA v Amadio (1983) and also other cases - I had cases highlighting the effectivness of the ACCC like in encouraging cooperation and preventing mislaeading advertising but also its ineffectiveness in achieving justice for consumers through the courts - like that article I had on Stocklands Pty Ltd where ACCC took it to court and despite it still fined $20,000 it still remains operated <--questions its effectiveness as a consumer watchdog
stressed the difficulty of court -->legal expenses and difficulty of individual successes - while some success is achieved through class actions it is still difficult - and penalties do not usually provide justice eg, the difficulty in rescinding contracts that are overwhelmingly unfair (Blomly v. Ryan (1981) and damages/compensation in general
also ADR - Community Justice Centres/mediation and I had a good article challenging the success of the CTTT
I had the underpinning idea of cost/administrative burden of courts as well as the power imbalance between impressionable consumers and unscrupulous businesses
The non-statutory controls of advertising - highly unregulated
I started with self-help -->Paul and Hart's Warehouse - as well as it sometimes not honouring its polcicy of refund, repair and exchange as shown in my newspaper article -->however the ACL ensures on the greater part refunds and repairs will be done on grounds of "bona fide" - still self-help, complaints sometimes falling on deaf ears and taking a while to respond
State organisations - difficulty to receive Legal Aid (Dietrich v. Queen) - as well as Office of Fair Trading <--lengthy time taken for action (I also highlighted its effectiveness but also consumer's over-reliance on it in thus taking too long for reform)
Federal organisations -ASIC - UCCC- while it does here credit card and activities now, it has not holistically pushed for the "green paper" where lenders will take into account their borrowers income levels and rate of returns -->thus almost contuining the injustices of CBA v Amadio (1983) and also other cases - I had cases highlighting the effectivness of the ACCC like in encouraging cooperation and preventing mislaeading advertising but also its ineffectiveness in achieving justice for consumers through the courts - like that article I had on Stocklands Pty Ltd where ACCC took it to court and despite it still fined $20,000 it still remains operated <--questions its effectiveness as a consumer watchdog
stressed the difficulty of court -->legal expenses and difficulty of individual successes - while some success is achieved through class actions it is still difficult - and penalties do not usually provide justice eg, the difficulty in rescinding contracts that are overwhelmingly unfair (Blomly v. Ryan (1981) and damages/compensation in general
also ADR - Community Justice Centres/mediation and I had a good article challenging the success of the CTTT
I did the same options as you...
Part (b) for IPs was more restrictive as it was focussed on self-determination. I did part (a). I can't remember what it was but it was open-ended.
Part (b) for WO was open-ended though, as I did it too. The more restrictive part (a) was focussed on nation-states.