Multiple Choice Answers (2 Viewers)

[ahen]

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]

it's b

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]

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]

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]

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]

I put B for 2. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was B, but I don't know anymore?

 

[Martyno1]

'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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jerruy]

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.

 

[Armenikum]

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

 

[asmita.c]

DAMNN !

i got question 10 wrong ><

did anyone get a B for 10 lol

 

[yoakim]

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

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]

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

 

[Eddie n]

hopefully the BOS will give the answers a and b. i think everybody would agree that is the best decision

 

[Armenikum]

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]

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]

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]

"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