TRY ME!
Youth Voting Rights Expansion
Summary
The Youth Enfranchisement Bill 2025, if enacted, would alter Section 48 of the Victorian Constitution by lowering the voting age to 16. Section 48 is not entrenched, allowing changes through a simple legislative process. The Bill can be lawfully presented to the Governor for assent. Despite cynical motives, the Bill serves a legitimate governmental purpose under the Australia Act 1986. Section 2 of the Act may be a valid manner and form requirement under the Australia Acts 1986. The Senates adjournment of the Bills debate does not constitute rejection or failure to pass under Section 57 of the Australian Constitution. The Senates amendment may not comply with Section 53 if it involves appropriation. The High Court might issue an injunction against dissolution if Section 57 conditions are unmet. Legal advice is recommended for these complex issues.Full Conversation
does s48 of the Victorian constitution have any entrenched requirements for alteration.
In the Victorian Constitution, Section * sets out the qualifications for electors. However, it is not specifically entrenched. This means it can be altered by a simple legislative process, without needing a referendum or special majority, unlike some other sections. Always consult legal advice for confirmation.
Assume that the * Bill is a Bill by which s * of the Victorian Constitution would be repealed, altered or varied if it were validly enacted. Is it lawful to present the * Bill to the Governor for His Majesty’s assent? Explain why (or why not).
In the context of the Victorian Constitution, if the * Bill alters Section * and there are no specific entrenchment requirements, it is lawful to present the Bill to the Governor for His Majesty's assent after being passed by an absolute majority. Since Section * is not entrenched, a simple legislative process suffices. However, always consult a legal expert for confirmation in such matters.
Given the entirely cynical reasons the * Act was enacted, is its enactment an exercise of the legislative powers of the Victorian Parliament ‘for the peace, order and government’ of Victoria in terms of s *(*) of the Australia Act * (Cth)? Explain why (or why not).
Case Rating: *
The enactment of the * Act, even if based on cynical reasons, can still be considered an exercise of the legislative powers of the Victorian Parliament "for the peace, order and government" of Victoria under s *(*) of the Australia Act * (Cth). The key factor is whether the legislation serves a legitimate governmental purpose, such as extending democratic participation, rather than the motivations behind it.
The enactment of the * Act, even if based on cynical reasons, can still be considered an exercise of the legislative powers of the Victorian Parliament "for the peace, order and government" of Victoria under s *(*) of the Australia Act * (Cth). The key factor is whether the legislation serves a legitimate governmental purpose, such as extending democratic participation, rather than the motivations behind it.
Section * Referendum Restrictive Procedure
It shall not be lawful to present to the Governor for His Majesty’s assent any Bill by which this section and section * may be repealed, altered or varied unless the Bill has been passed by the Assembly and Council and approved by the majority of electors aged * and * voting at a referendum.
Is s * of the Act a valid ‘manner and form’ requirement in terms of s * of the Australia Acts * (Cth). Explain why (or why not).
Case Rating: *
Section * of the Act is likely a valid 'manner and form' requirement under s * of the Australia Acts * (Cth) if it concerns the legislative process for state laws. Section * allows states to entrench certain legislative procedures, provided they are consistent with the constitutional requirements. However, the requirement for a referendum with votes by * and *-year-olds might raise questions of validity if it conflicts with entrenched age requirements or other procedural norms. Legal advice would be essential for a definitive answer.
Section * of the Act is likely a valid 'manner and form' requirement under s * of the Australia Acts * (Cth) if it concerns the legislative process for state laws. Section * allows states to entrench certain legislative procedures, provided they are consistent with the constitutional requirements. However, the requirement for a referendum with votes by * and *-year-olds might raise questions of validity if it conflicts with entrenched age requirements or other procedural norms. Legal advice would be essential for a definitive answer.
The Bill reaches the Senate on * July *. The majority of Senators are not members of the Yellow Party, and they make it abundantly clear in the Second Reading Debate that they adamantly oppose the Bill. Accordingly, on * July * the Senate votes to adjourn the Second Reading Debate on the Bill for 13 months to * August *.
Did the Senate reject the Bill on * July * in terms of s * of the Australian Constitution? Explain why (or why not)
Case Rating: *
In terms of section * of the Australian Constitution, the Senate did not formally reject the Bill on * July *. Instead, they voted to adjourn the Second Reading Debate for 13 months. Section * applies when the Senate rejects or fails to pass a proposed law, not merely when it postpones consideration. Therefore, this adjournment does not constitute a rejection under s *.
In terms of section * of the Australian Constitution, the Senate did not formally reject the Bill on * July *. Instead, they voted to adjourn the Second Reading Debate for 13 months. Section * applies when the Senate rejects or fails to pass a proposed law, not merely when it postpones consideration. Therefore, this adjournment does not constitute a rejection under s *.
The Bill reaches the Senate on * July *. The majority of Senators are not members of the Yellow Party, and they make it abundantly clear in the Second Reading Debate that they adamantly oppose the Bill. Accordingly, on * July * the Senate votes to adjourn the Second Reading Debate on the Bill for 13 months to * August *.
Did the Senate fail to pass the Bill on * July * in terms of s * of the Australian Constitution? Briefly discuss.
Case Rating: *
In terms of section * of the Australian Constitution, the Senate did not formally reject or fail to pass the Bill on * July *. The decision to adjourn the Second Reading Debate for 13 months is not considered a failure to pass, as section * requires an outright rejection or failure to pass a proposed law, not merely an adjournment or postponement of debate.
In terms of section * of the Australian Constitution, the Senate did not formally reject or fail to pass the Bill on * July *. The decision to adjourn the Second Reading Debate for 13 months is not considered a failure to pass, as section * requires an outright rejection or failure to pass a proposed law, not merely an adjournment or postponement of debate.
On * August * in the second session of the 48th Parliament the Senate passes the Bill with an amendment to clause *, namely, to replace the words ‘$* * *’ (that is, five million dollars) with the words ’$* * *’ (that is, ten million dollars). The House of Representatives will not agree to the amendment on the basis that, in its opinion, the amendment does not comply with s * of the Australian Constitution.
Question Seven (six marks)
Do you agree with the House of Representatives that the Senate’s amendment of the Bill does not comply with s * of the Australian Constitution? Briefly discuss.
Case Rating: *
Section * of the Australian Constitution outlines that the Senate may not amend bills imposing taxation or appropriating revenue for the ordinary annual services of the government. If the amendment involves such appropriation, it may not comply with s *. However, the Senate can request amendments. Whether the amendment complies depends on the bill's nature concerning these financial provisions.
Section * of the Australian Constitution outlines that the Senate may not amend bills imposing taxation or appropriating revenue for the ordinary annual services of the government. If the amendment involves such appropriation, it may not comply with s *. However, the Senate can request amendments. Whether the amendment complies depends on the bill's nature concerning these financial provisions.
On * March * in the third session of the 48th Parliament, the House again passes the Bill without the Senate amendments, The Bill is then sent to the Senate on * May * and on that day, the Senate rejects it. The Prime Minister indicates on * May * that they will go to the Governor-General and advise her to dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously following the Senate’s * May * rejection of the Bill. Would the High Court issue an injunction to prevent the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate? Briefly discuss.
Case Rating: *
The High Court may issue an injunction if it finds that the conditions for a double dissolution under Section * of the Australian Constitution have not been met. However, this is a complex constitutional matter involving the interpretation of legislative procedures and powers. Legal advice would be essential to assess the likelihood of an injunction.
The High Court may issue an injunction if it finds that the conditions for a double dissolution under Section * of the Australian Constitution have not been met. However, this is a complex constitutional matter involving the interpretation of legislative procedures and powers. Legal advice would be essential to assess the likelihood of an injunction.
On * August * in the second session of the 48th Parliament the Senate passes the Bill with an amendment to clause *, namely, to replace the words ‘$* * *’ (that is, five million dollars) with the words ’$* * *’ (that is, ten million dollars). The House of Representatives will not agree to the amendment on the basis that, in its opinion, the amendment does not comply with s * of the Australian Constitution.
On * March * in the third session of the 48th Parliament, the House again passes the Bill without the Senate amendments, The Bill is then sent to the Senate on * May * and on that day, the Senate rejects it. The Prime Minister indicates on * May * that they will go to the Governor-General and advise her to dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously following the Senate’s * May * rejection of the Bill.
Would the High Court issue an injunction to prevent the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate? Briefly discuss.
Case Rating: *
The High Court may be unlikely to issue an injunction to prevent the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as this is largely a political question. Section * of the Australian Constitution governs double dissolutions, and the Court traditionally avoids intervening in political matters unless there's a clear constitutional violation. Legal advice is advisable for specific guidance.
The High Court may be unlikely to issue an injunction to prevent the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as this is largely a political question. Section * of the Australian Constitution governs double dissolutions, and the Court traditionally avoids intervening in political matters unless there's a clear constitutional violation. Legal advice is advisable for specific guidance.
Start a new chat