Hardcore.

Now just in case anyone was wondering how a regular constitutional law question looks like (which I sincerely have grievous doubt), here goes.

Disclaimer: Proceed at your own risk. The following article has already inflicted PTD on me. *twitch twitch.... drool*

Assignment Qn 2:

Western Australia has for years had an electoral system in which country seats have fewer voters than city seats. In 2006, it enacts an Electoral Redistribution Act which contains the following provisions:

Section 27 – In any redistribution, the Electoral Commission shall ensure that electorates in Area 1 (The whole of the State outside the Perth Metropolitan Area) have at least 50% of the number of electors of the largest electorate in Area 2 (The Perth Metropolitan Area).

Section 28 – In determining electoral boundaries, the Commission is to take into account topography, the sizes of proposed electorates, transport within proposed electoral boundaries, community of interest within each electorate; the need to ensure that all areas of the State are reasonably represented and the number of electors in each electorate.

Section 29 – No Act for the amendment or repeal of sections 27-29 of this Act is valid unless the proposed amendments or repeal are approved at a referendum by a majority of electors in a majority of electorates and by a majority of electors overall before the Act receives the royal assent.

In 2008, the parliament of WA passes the Electoral Redistribution Amendment Act, section 6 of which reads:
Section 29 of the Electoral Redistribution Act is repealed.

The Act passed both houses of parliament and received the royal assent without being put to a referendum.

In 2010, the parliament of WA passes the Electoral Redistribution Amendment Act (No 2), section 3 of which reads:

Section 27 of the Electoral Redistribution Act is repealed and the following section is substituted for it:
Section 27 - In any redistribution, the Electoral Commission shall ensure that all electorates have as near as is reasonably practical the same number of electors.

Jones, a member of parliament, challenges the validity of section 3 of the Electoral Redistribution Amendment Act (No 2). We are instructed to draft submissions on behalf of the West Australian government.

Those submissions will need to address the following issues:
1. is the Electoral Redistribution Amendment Act, section 6 a law on the constitution, powers and procedures of parliament; (In answering this question, assume that a repealing law is on the same subject matter as the law it repeals.)

2. If yes, did it have to comply with the procedure set out in section 29 of the Electoral Redistribution Act in order to be valid. (This will depend upon whether that procedure is a valid manner and form requirement.)

3. is the Electoral Redistribution Amendment Act (No 2), section 3 a law on the constitution, powers and procedures of parliament

4. If yes, did it have to comply with the procedure set out in section 29 of the Electoral Redistribution Act in order to be valid. (The answer to this question raises the same issues as the answer to question 2).

Will it make any difference to our submissions if at all relevant dates, a majority of electorates are in the Perth Metropolitan Area?

Criteria to be addressed in assessment
1. Ability to draft clear, concise submissions
2. Ability to identify arguments for and against submissions and their strengths and weaknesses.
3. Familiarity with the law on the issues in question;
4. Knowledge and understanding of the arguments of principle for and against the points in the Commonwealth’s submission
5. Academic writing skills, such as expression and punctuation, ability to present arguments clearly and logically and accurate and appropriate referencing


Got to submit 2000 words on this in 3 weeks. I need a religion. *sigh*