This is long, so i bolded the questions, so you can only read the ones relevant to you.
Here are a couple of things that might help clarify a few questions:
Matt Palmer said:
Can we please have a discussion about question 5? i put c) education because compulsory education wasn't introduced until 1990, however right to education could mean something different....i wasn't sure.
I'm pretty sure the answer to question 5
is (B). Because I don't think the right to property is a fundamental right. The right to education was enshrined by legislation in all Australian colonies that made education free and compulsory. Therefore, logic follows that when Australia federated it was also enshrined in the constitution.
The right to the Federal vote was secured in 1902 [and included in the Constitution. That's why we had referendums to grant women and Aborigines the right to vote]
I just googled briefly and this document from the law faculty at ANU says
"Section 80 of the Australian Constitution provides a right to trial by jury in relation to federal offences charged on indictment"
With question 8
, I put (D) and I completely agree with the shopping center failing in their duty of care to Jack. Plus, I thought "property" was more intellectual property and land ownership. Someone said "8 C (Tort is Injury, only his property was damaged)
" But that's incorrect because tort is also a nuisance. And someone falling over is a nuisance.
, the definition of "equality before the law" considers whether equality is provided in the decision. Since the migrant wasn't discriminated against the answer is "equality of opportunity" because despite having lesser experience he was still not denied the ability to apply for the job.
6. B- I knew it was the court of chancery and chose the closest thing. apparently its correct, as the king himself handed jurisdiction to the chancellor, thus developing the principles of equity)
7. A - this is most probably wrong, but i read deeply into the question. The "permit" led me to believe it was a legal right. I'm sure there was past HSC q like thins.
The court of Chancery also goes by the name of te "chancellor's court" so the answer was (C)
I did exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. I saw a similar past paper question where the answer was a "legal right". So I put (A) although I am having doubts.
Lastly, and probably one of the most controversial questions is question 14
It's D. The separation of powers is to do with the Legislature (people who pass thw laws such as the government), the executive (the police who enforce it ) and the judiciary (the courts which apply such laws).
the question shows that the government (the legislature) wants to confiscate land even though the high court (the judiciary) is determining its illegal. This action is out of their own power. Thus its a violation of doctrine of separation of powers.
I put (A) and my reasoning was that the High Court determined the action was illegal but the Government confiscated the land anyway, and by doing so they put themself above the law. I didn't think it was a violation of the separation of powers because that occurs when the three branches are not independant from one another [hence are able to collude and do whatever they want]. Here, the judiciary has clearly said the confiscation is illegal, yet the government has gone and done it anyway. The judiciary has stayed firm with their decision, and wasn't influenced by the government, so the powers are very much separate if you get what i mean =P
Anyways. It's done now. Lets just hope our marks for rest of the paper compensate for a really crappy m/c.
p.s. question 4
was really weird. we've never talked about apparent or actual bias in class before!