• Best of luck to the class of 2019 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • Help the next generation of students in the community for the new syllabus!
    Share your notes and exam papers on our Notes & Resources page

Multiple Choice Answers (1 Viewer)

ahen

Sexy Member
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
590
Location
Australia
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
camchee said:
Hey just wondering what everyone got as their multiple choice answers. I was fairly confident with these as were a few others in my class who had the same answers.

1. D
2. A
3. D
4. B
5. B
6. C
7. C
8. B
9. C
10. A
i got the exact same answers
lets hope they're right
 

Jessica14

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
307
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Armenikum said:
I agree with the others. I put (a) since the Mabo decision did create a precedent for Native Title so it was the first legal recognition.
 

fuzzyfaction89

New Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
5
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
I asked my religious education coordinator about question 2. He said it was B, not A (and yeah, i agree with him). Key words are 'legal recognition'

1) D
2) B
3) D
4) B
5) B
6) C
7) C
8) B
9) C
10) A
 

ashleypage

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
73
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
fuzzyfaction89 said:
I asked my religious education coordinator about question 2. He said it was B, not A (and yeah, i agree with him). Key words are 'legal recognition'

1) D
2) B
3) D
4) B
5) B
6) C
7) C
8) B
9) C
10) A
'Legal recognition' equates to Mabo though. Like it's been said multiple times before. I just want someone to decently prove me wrong.
Courts are legal system. Mabo recognised Aboriginal connection to land.
Native Title Act was just the outcome of Mabo written down, basically.

I think it was a trick question, that people would not understand that Mabo was in fact a legal recognition of Aboriginal connection to the land, or would make the mistake of choosing statute over case law.
 

ahen

Sexy Member
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
590
Location
Australia
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
this sounds like it's descending into something out of a legal studies textbook, if it was that complex it wouldn't be in a SOR exam would it? unless its part of the difference between them of course...
urgh i dunno im confused
 

Martyno1

oh hi
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
763
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
I put B for 2. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was B, but I don't know anymore?
 

Martyno1

oh hi
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
763
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
ashleypage said:
'Legal recognition' equates to Mabo though. Like it's been said multiple times before. I just want someone to decently prove me wrong.
Courts are legal system. Mabo recognised Aboriginal connection to land.
Native Title Act was just the outcome of Mabo written down, basically.

I think it was a trick question, that people would not understand that Mabo was in fact a legal recognition of Aboriginal connection to the land, or would make the mistake of choosing statute over case law.
I thought it would have been a trick question because they put the years afterwards. I thought it was B all along anyway.
 

Armenikum

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
117
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Martyno1 said:
I thought it would have been a trick question because they put the years afterwards. I thought it was B all along anyway.
It becomes vague here.

This is from the Living Religion textbook....

In regards to Mabo: "The High Court ruling FOUND a native title to land existed"

In regards to NT93: "...is the LEGISLATION that RECOGNISED the existence of..." - and no one cares about the rest.


So from this, it can be seen that Mabo's case expelled the legal fiction of Terra Nullius, and the court FOUND/DISCOVERED a Native Title, but didn't RECOGNISE it as a Law.

What the NT Act in 1993 did was do RECOGNISE (recognition from the question) as legislation (legal from the question).


Still though pretty vague - i'd put my money on recognition as enacting a federal law, but it also may be read as recognising that a Native Title existed.
You'd be silly to put a - sorry. You may recognise a knife a an illegal weapon on a plane, but it has to be RECOGNISED by law.

To further open the debate, on ONE mark mind you, can any of you ask your teacher's besides fuzzy, ho asked our teacher?
 

Lindaya

New Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
11
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Question 2 was silly. Most people would know about Mabo being the first 'whatever' with native title from year 10 history. I think the wording and layout of the question tried to throw people off for no reason.
 

yoakim

CBMI, MPH, AAP, MSF
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
727
Location
Manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
ashleypage said:
The courts are also part of the legal system though, so technically it should be Mabo, which I put, but it seemed so obvious? Like they had the years next to it, so I dunno, whether it was intended to make us second guess the Mabo decision or whattt.
Exactly my reason for that question. The court case is still considered as a legal recognition.

Armenikum you said: "Mabo: "The High Court ruling FOUND a native title to land existed"" <--- but if the court 'found' a native title to land exist, is not that the same as a 'recognition' but in this case, a 'legal recognition'? Since if you conclude that you find something, you need to recognise some elements of it to make that conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Jerruy

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
297
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
The answer to 2 is definitely A as Mabo did involves legal recognition of Aboriginal Land rights. The answer to the question is A. BUT.

I think the Board may have intended the answer to be B. However the answer to that question is A.
 
Last edited:

Armenikum

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
117
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
yoakim said:
Exactly my reason for that question. The court case is still considered as a legal recognition.

Armenikum you said: "Mabo: "The High Court ruling FOUND a native title to land existed"" <--- but if the court 'found' a native title to land exist, is not that the same as a 'recognition' but in this case, a 'legal recognition'? Since if you conclude that you find something, you need to recognise some elements of it to make that conclusion.
Yes Yoakim, that's where it becomes vague.

A court can FIND something - and that can be classed as recognition

BUT

There is also the notion of LEGAL RECOGNITION as being recognised in legislature. Mabo's case was famous for removal of Terra Nullius, and the discovery of a Native Title - but the Native Title Act of 1993 recognised it in legislature.

At this point in time, either Helen Smith can post up the answer, or we will never find out :p
 

asmita.c

New Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
6
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2007
DAMNN !

i got question 10 wrong ><

did anyone get a B for 10 lol
 

yoakim

CBMI, MPH, AAP, MSF
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
727
Location
Manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Armenikum said:
Yes Yoakim, that's where it becomes vague.

A court can FIND something - and that can be classed as recognition

BUT

There is also the notion of LEGAL RECOGNITION as being recognised in legislature. Mabo's case was famous for removal of Terra Nullius, and the discovery of a Native Title - but the Native Title Act of 1993 recognised it in legislature.

At this point in time, either Helen Smith can post up the answer, or we will never find out :p
I see your point. But from what I understand from all this is that Native Title isconsidered as a 'formal' legal recognition, yet Mabo's case would be an 'informal' one? This is getting vague.
 

Teuma

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
1
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The Australian department of foreign affairs and trade stated that:

"The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. The Australian legal system recognises native title where..." - http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indg_landrights.html

So i think the answer is B

 
Last edited:

Eddie n

New Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
9
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
hopefully the BOS will give the answers a and b. i think everybody would agree that is the best decision :p
 

Armenikum

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
117
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Teuma said:
The Australian department of foreign affairs and trade stated that:

"The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. The Australian legal system recognises native title where..." - http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indg_landrights.html

So i think the answer is B

Cheers.
 

fartx2

New Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
asmita.c said:
DAMNN !

i got question 10 wrong ><

did anyone get a B for 10 lol
D is just rediculous

and the modern society of the commie wannabe state government we live in forces tolerance and understaning, so they would say ecumenism is good

so its most likely A
 

josharmwav2007

New Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
3
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
If it is the legal recognition of native title then it is A because it recognised native title under common law, a legal recognition.

But the question was about Aboriginal connection to the land.

I looked over the information about mabo and the native title act and it just says it recognised ownership not really a connection.

semantics maybe but the question doesn't have a correct answer from the four presented.
 

camchee

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
7
Location
Gosford
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
"The judgments of the High Court in the Mabo case inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. In recognising the traditional rights of the Meriam people to their islands in the eastern Torres Strait, the Court also held that native title existed for all Indigenous people in Australia prior to Cook's Instructions and the establishment of the British Colony of New South Wales in 1788...This decision altered the foundation of land law in Australia.

The Mabo decision thus solved the problem posed by the Gove Land Rights Case in 1971, which followed the 'legal fiction' of terra nullius. In recognising that Indigenous people in Australia had a prior title to land taken by the Crown since Cook's declaration of possession in 1770, the Court held that this title exists today in any portion of land where it has not legally been extinguished."

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=33

I think this strongly suggests that the answer would be A
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top