Report on the 2011 WACE examination in

Politics and Law Stage 3

Year
2011
2010

Number who sat

890
801

Number of absentees
18
27

Summary
The examination was of three hours duration and followed a similar format to the 2010 WACE
examination with three separate sections and questions drawn from both Units 3A and 3B. The
raw examination mean was 45.7%. Full marks for one or more responses were awarded in
every question except Question 8. Candidates scored higher in the short response section than
the other two sections (source analysis and extended response). The feedback received from
both teachers and candidates relating to the examination was generally positive. There were
fewer scripts where candidates failed to complete a question. Many candidates did not
specifically answer the questions asked and appeared to lack a detailed factual base when
responding to the question.
General comments
The examination was divided into three sections: short response, source analysis and extended
response. Within the short response section candidates had to answer three of the four
questions presented. Two questions were drawn from Unit 3A and two from Unit 3B. In the
source analysis section candidates responded to one question based on either Unit 3A or Unit
3B and in the extended response section candidates answered one question from a choice of
two, for each of Units 3A and 3B.
In Section Two, Question 6 scored higher than Question 5. The extended responses were
disappointing. Candidates did not respond to the evaluation aspect of a question. Many
candidates did not read questions closely; and did not have a strong factual base on which to
draw. Examiners referred closely to wordings in the syllabus when setting the examination
questions. It was pleasing to see an increase in the frequency of use of examples in responses
this year; it is hoped this trend will continue.
Comments on specific sections/questions
Section One: Short response
Question 1
In part 1(a), too many candidates tended to overlook the word government and merely
explained the term representative. In part (b) there were several aspects that could have been
selected and most candidates identified one of these. The most common was the 2:1 ratio
between membership of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Many responses failed
to deal with the significance of this particular aspect and tended to talk in general terms of
representation rather than explaining that this ratio would normally allow the dominance of the
House of Representatives in any joint sitting. Responses that merely stated Section 24 is the
nexus clause were not considered to have met the requirements of the question. In Part (c)
most candidates could identify at least one power of the Australian Parliament, the most
popular being the power to legislate. Many responses struggled to identify a second power. It
was apparent that candidates had not really studied an alternative political system adequately
in terms of the executive, legislature and judiciary and were unable to make any specific
comparisons. It should be noted that the United Kingdoms political system cannot be seen as
an alternative political system to that used in Australia.
2012/02394

Question 2
The concept in part (a) was well known by candidates attempting this question. Most
candidates were able to make the connections between the role of the people; the transfer of
authority and the policies that could be implemented as a consequence of winning an election;
and forming government in the House of Representatives. Using examples in part (b) could
have been part of the explanation. Many responses were too general and merely covered the
dual mandate. In part (c) candidates overlooked explaining the claim and went immediately to
discussing the examples. The Gillard government and the carbon tax legislation was a common
example used but many responses did not use it correctly. These responses merely
concentrated on the pre-election promise rather than the realities of the election result and the
subsequent minority government in the discussion.
Question 3
Responses to part (a) indicated most candidates had a general idea of the meaning of the term
but many did not explain it adequately. There was a lack of specificity in responses to part (b)
with many indicating how people can participate rather than outlining how Australia has actually
promoted popular participation. The answer to Part (c) was either known or not known. There
was no need to write about Australia in this response. Too many candidates did. References to
a wide variety of countries were evident. There was a lack of specific information in the
explanation and it was evident that this section of the course had not been studied in sufficient
depth by many candidates.
Question 4
This was the most popular question in the section. When answering part (a), most candidates
knew an example of a common law right in Australia but many did not explain what these rights
were. It was expected that reference would be made to the role of the courts and legal
judgments. Many candidates who answered part (b) knew at least one explicit right. Each right
needed to be outlined. Too many candidates responded in a very general manner. It should be
noted that Section 41 the right to vote was a transitional right at federation. Candidates who
indicated this were rewarded but others who merely stated the right to vote were not. As it
stands at present, the right to vote is an implied right rather than an explicit right. Section 116
tended to be outlined in general terms and in reference to Section 80, many candidates omitted
that a trial by jury is only guaranteed for offences against any law of the Commonwealth. It
was expected that in part (c) candidates would identify and explain the various ways that
human rights are protected in a country other than Australia. It was not necessary to refer to
Australia. Too many responses lacked specificity. The United States and Canada were referred
to in the majority of responses. A common fault of responses that referred to the USA, was
referring only to the Bill of Rights. It should be noted that this is only one way used to protect
individual human rights in that country. There are other constitutional rights protected in the
USA with various amendments, including the 19th Amendment (1920) guaranteeing the right to
vote for women; and the 26th Amendment (1971) which guarantees the right to vote to those
aged 18 years or older. The Supreme Court has also been instrumental in guaranteeing rights
through its judgments such as the right to privacy. It is essential that this comparison is studied
explicitly as outlined in the syllabus.
Section Two: Source analysis
Relatively similar numbers of candidates attempted each question in this section.
Question 5
The term used in part (a) was in the supplied source material and most candidates were able to
indicate that it referred to the leadership of the government and opposition. To achieve full
marks, it was necessary to indicate that the executive is the decision making body within each
group. Part (b) highlighted the necessity of carefully reading the question. It was not a general
question regarding the role of the Opposition but rather its roles in the Parliament itself. This
tended to be overlooked by many candidates. Candidates were asked to make specific
reference to Source 1 in their response to part (c). Many responses overlooked this aspect of
the question. Better responses used the data supplied when explaining the consequences of
changes to Question Time. Many responses were general rather than explicit. Part (d) of this
question was not answered well. The main issue was the lack of evaluation and the limited use
of relevant examples. Most responses identified the legislative process in the Senate or the

post-2010 House of Representatives but did not refer to specific events or legislation and did
not evaluate with reference to the context of recent years.
Question 6
Part (a) was answered well. Most were able to indicate that it referred to the courts being
impartial and fair; and judges being competent and independent of outside influences. In part
(b), most candidates were able to identify two factors but the explanations tended to be limited.
Better answers used examples, where relevant, in the explanation of each factor. In part (c) the
higher scoring responses identified and discussed aspects of the judicial process and linked
these with at one or more aspects of the rule of law. The focus was the judicial process, which
has direct links to the syllabus points of the appeals process; transparent processes; as well as
the independent arbiter/judge. Unfortunately, the judicial process focus of this question was
overlooked by many candidates. In part (d) most candidates were able to identify at least one
process apart from public confidence that helped to ensure judicial accountability in Australia.
Explanations were repetitive and general with little, if any, evaluation evident in most
responses. There were several responses that did not focus on processes per se. The most
common point raised was collegiality. A common mistake was the misuse of the term judicial
review as well as general statements regarding judicial commissions and their powers, such as
in NSW.
Section Three: Extended response
Question 7
This was the most popular extended response to questions on Unit 3A content, with 589
candidates attempting it. Better responses indicated what constituted federalism at Federation,
in terms of division of powers between the Commonwealth and States, as well as the federal
judicial system as it operated. These responses then discussed the situation today by
addressing the over time aspect of the claim. The question did not ask for responses on how
federalism has changed; but rather an evaluation of the extent of the change. Too many
candidates focused on the how and there was a preoccupation with phases of the High Court,
which was totally irrelevant. Some responses made reference to Section 96 in terms of referral
of powers. It should be remembered that when an evaluation of a claim is called for, it is not
necessary to agree with the claim totally. In this respect judicial federalism has not changed
markedly over time.
Question 8
This question was about the lawmaking process in Australia and the ways the process can
incorporate the role and influence of political parties and pressure groups in: the initiation and
introduction of legislation; the amendment of legislation; a bills progress through the parliament
in becoming law; as well as court proceedings that lead to a new laws or a changes in the laws.
Most candidates overlooked reference to the lawmaking process. Responses that included
reference to political parties and at least one pressure group scored more highly. Few
responses specifically referred to the major parties, whether they be government or opposition
parties, when explaining how legislation progressed through parliament. References to the role
of minor parties tended to be very general. Better answers included examples. Many responses
alluded to the ACTU and the change to Work Choices legislation but did not include sufficient
detailed information to illustrate the ACTUs role/influence in the lawmaking process.
Committees and the role of political parties/minors as well as pressure groups tended to be
overlooked in many responses.
Question 9
Higher scoring answers discussed the following in relation to the office of Governor-General:
appointment; removal; powers and accountability. These answers made reference to particular
Governors-General in the discussion on whether or not the office of Governor-General is highly
debatable. It was evident that many candidates were not aware of the central role of the Prime
Minister in both appointment and removal of a Governor-General: many responses only
focused on the constitutional provisions regarding their appointment. The powers of the
Governor-General were generally well known. The 1975 constitutional crisis was a useful focus
for any discussion but too many responses were far too general when referring to it. Some of
these very general responses did not refer to Whitlam and Kerr by name, nor relate the crisis to
the key elements of the question. It must be acknowledged that there were some excellent

responses to this question; but it would appear that for many candidates, this section of the
syllabus was interpreted as requiring study of the 1975 crisis only, rather than the issue of
accountability of the Governor-General.
Question 10
This was the more popular extended response to questions on the Unit 3B content but was not
answered well. An inordinate number of responses discussed access and equity along with
barriers to participation in the legal system. The syllabus does not mention these terms but
rather the experience of the individual or group within the political and legal system. The
majority of responses used Indigenous Australians as an example but did not mention what
has happened over time in both the political and legal system. The higher scoring responses
incorporated factually based analysis acknowledging that there have been some changes in the
position of Indigenous Australians within the political and legal system; but also discussed
whether or not disadvantage was experienced. It needs to be recognised that particular
Australian states are central to this discussion pre-1967 laws. Some responses used the
example of asylum seekers. It was evident that many candidates were not conversant with the
particulars of the laws covering asylum seekers and the changes made over time. In these
responses there was a tendency to write in general terms, with no indication of the provisions
within the legal system, especially regarding the laws and the rights of those seeking asylum.
Responses that included reference to specific legal provisions tended to score more highly.