Multiple choice answers (3 Viewers)

[Jake22]

ah sorry didnt see...

however the legislature in the seperation of powers is the parliament, and it says in the question the Government did it.

What is the difference between government and parliament? Surely if the answer was in reference to the seperation of powers then it would make reference to the parliament as the legislature.

Parliament is just a body of the Government that is in charge of making and amending laws.

Im confused, i still think it may be A.

Also, can you prove A is wrong?

 

[knots&crosses]

I also put A, because one of the basis' for the rule of law is that no government is allowed to use power arbitrarily.

In just deciding to take the land off the farmers it is expressing arbitrary use of power. Hence a violation of the rule of law.

But alot of people on here have put other answers. Explanations would be good

I have done a whole list explaining each multiple choice. Its at the top of the page even though i just posted it.

 

[Jake22]

I have done a whole list explaining each multiple choice. Its at the top of the page even though i just posted it.

Yet you still havnt told me anything new.
Thanks

 

[knots&crosses]

Yet you still havnt told me anything new.
Thanks

Lol, now i am second guessing myself. I guess in this matter, there is no application of law. I mean for the rule of law to be violated it would have to have something to do with the Government being "above the law"- in this instance it is merely abusing its position. The next answer with this theory would be B, however governments (that includes parliament) are not an executive division. they are the "legislature"- thus the next best answer would be D- especially because they mentioned the role of the Hight court, and in accordance witht the constituational separation of powers it is the "judiciary" arm. Lol, hope that helps. But then again may be very wrong.

 

[Jake22]

Lol, now i am second guessing myself. I guess in this matter, there is no application of law. I mean for the rule of law to be violated it would have to have something to do with the Government being "above the law"- in this instance it is merely abusing its position. The next answer with this theory would be B, however governments (that includes parliament) are not an executive division. they are the "legislature"- thus the next best answer would be D- especially because they mentioned the role of the Hight court, and in accordance witht the constituational separation of powers it is the "judiciary" arm. Lol, hope that helps. But then again may be very wrong.

It is not B for obvious reasons, and with it needing to have something to do with the Government being "above the law" for it to be a violation of the rule of law, it states that the High Court has deemed it 'illegal', therefore suggesting they are above the law by their allowed continuation with the confiscation. Plus, it is still arbitrary use of power.

Does government not encompass parliament, executive and legislature? I mean, NSW Police website says NSW Government up the top, and hcourt.gov.au suggests it is part of the government. So you can't just say Government = parliament = legislature, because it also equals the courts and police.

Ive lost what i was on about now, and i think ive confused myself, so i'll shhh now and go to bed.

P.S. i still think its A

 

[knots&crosses]

It is not B for obvious reasons, and with it needing to have something to do with the Government being "above the law" for it to be a violation of the rule of law, it states that the High Court has deemed it 'illegal', therefore suggesting they are above the law by their allowed continuation with the confiscation. Plus, it is still arbitrary use of power.

Does government not encompass parliament, executive and legislature? I mean, NSW Police website says NSW Government up the top, and hcourt.gov.au suggests it is part of the government. So you can't just say Government = parliament = legislature, because it also equals the courts and police.

Ive lost what i was on about now, and i think ive confused myself, so i'll shhh now and go to bed.

P.S. i still think its A

Haha, youre right. Its confusing, but i guess its in the past and theres nothing we can do now. By the way your argument makes sense, but i dont know anymore, lol, youde make a good lawyer. Well, the good thing is that we never have to know all this again. Anyhow, its just one mark, i know that each mark builds up to another and so on, but yeh, most people found it the mc difficult so cut-off for bands should be lower.

 

[Matt Palmer]

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.

 

[leoyh]

why have previous posts been going on about the guy slipping on water in question 8, thus it being a tort because hte shopping centre failed to exercise a duty of care. it doesnt even say that he slipped because of water or for any reason that makes the shopping centre liable, it simply says he slipped. for all we know, he could have been bumped into by someone, could have just been a retard and slipped momentarily. whats this bs about water

 

[pyjamapants]

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:

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"

http://law.anu.edu.au/nissl/Monteleone.pdf

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.

Question 9, 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.

With question6 The court of Chancery also goes by the name of te "chancellor's court" so the answer was (C)
question7 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!

 

[charlesdinio]

Here are the correct answers minus a few of them:
(have spoken to my schools legal department, however there are a few we did not agree on so I will tell you which ones)

1. C
2. A
3. B
4. B
5. B (in relation to a previous post - the right to a jury trial is in Section 80)
6. C (you either knew it or you didn't lol)
7. A (protected by the constitution - therefore legal)
8. D (negligence)
9. B (piece of crap question.. B and C IMO are correct)
10. A
11. C
12. C
13. C
14. A
15. A

Hope everyone did alright.

 

[charlesdinio]

I thought question 10 was D because common law isn't made by parliament, anyone agree with that?

John you piece of no good.

The question was:

What is NOT an essential feature of a just law?

DW bout common law

Go to your text book.. or those study cards

It says B C and D are all features of just laws.

A is not true, some laws are only there to ristrict what we can and cant do, not provide a remedy

 

[breezy221090]

I disagree buddy, because legislation that restricts also provides remedies.
Such as that to RESTRICT an employer from terminating employment, the employee who is unfairly treated can seek a remedy. A perfect example of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PARLIAMENT not passing a just law is the Anti Terrorism Bill or the Work Choices legislation. The answer is D.

 

[timmiejay]

'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'

I got this out of a hand-out our teacher made which demonstrates the violation of the separation of powers.

'The parliament makes law but is separate in saying they cannot claim a judge's decision is wrong or go against it. In the same way, the police cannot force a judge to convict the accused in court.'

The question in 14 shows that the government is trying to go against a high court decision even though the high court said it was illegal.
If this is still wrong i have no ideaaa

Also, the rule of law means the absence of arbitrary power which means that a person can only be punished by the ordinary law and courts and not at the whim of any government or group.
2 principles: The law should be known to all and it should not apply arbitarily (it should apply equally; no one is above the law) The question doesnt seem to have that this certain government is placing inequality on the farmers. theyre just going out of their way to do it..?

 

[copperearth27]

ahh for Question 12 people have said that the answer is D. while this may be a feature in some adversarial trials in the local and sometimes district court, you have overlooked the fact that in a jury trial, which is a large part of the adversarial system, the jury decides guilt or innocence and the judge determines the sentance.
you might now say that the local court hears the most cases and there is no jury in there let me point out that the local court uses a magistrate not a judge so the question doesnt really apply to that.
also the question stipulates what is the MOST COMMON feature of the adversarial system. judges only determine guilt or innocence in some cases, and therefore it is not indeed the most common feature. option C is teh answer because it applies in all cases and not just those without a jury.

 

[Jake22]

'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'

I got this out of a hand-out our teacher made which demonstrates the violation of the separation of powers.

'The parliament makes law but is separate in saying they cannot claim a judge's decision is wrong or go against it. In the same way, the police cannot force a judge to convict the accused in court.'

The question in 14 shows that the government is trying to go against a high court decision even though the high court said it was illegal.
If this is still wrong i have no ideaaa

Also, the rule of law means the absence of arbitrary power which means that a person can only be punished by the ordinary law and courts and not at the whim of any government or group.
2 principles: The law should be known to all and it should not apply arbitarily (it should apply equally; no one is above the law) The question doesnt seem to have that this certain government is placing inequality on the farmers. theyre just going out of their way to do it..?

you need to go google what arbitrary means. And if your reasoning that A is wrong relies on the farmers being treated equal to everyone else, clearly thats not true because then the government would be confiscating land of everyone in the country, and not just farmers.

 

[melaniejane]

John you piece of no good.

The question was:

What is NOT an essential feature of a just law?

DW bout common law

Go to your text book.. or those study cards

It says B C and D are all features of just laws.

A is not true, some laws are only there to ristrict what we can and cant do, not provide a remedy

this is very wrong. alot of those answers you provided were very very wrong.

 

[evildentist]

Right to acquisition of property on just terms - s51.3 - it's in the constitution.

Why do I know this??

 

[pyjamapants]

Right to acquisition of property on just terms - s51.3 - it's in the constitution.

Why do I know this??

Yeah but that's the right of the government to acquire other people's property on just terms as long as they provide compensation.
I remember my teacher telling me that.
It's not necessarily an individual's right to property.

However, section 80 secured the right to trial by jury for serious offenders
and section 41 secures the right to vote.
And I'm almost completely certain the right to education is protected by the constitution. So the property one is definitely wrong.

I can't remember who said this earlier in the thread, but, IF the right to protest is enshrined in the Australian constitution [which, i dunno if it is] then, that question about a person being denied a permit means they've been denied a legal right.

 

[melaniejane]

But via a process of elimination, you can knock out,

A) the right to vote
and
C) the right to a jury trial.

(which we know are enshrined in the constitution)

Then you have B and C.

whilst B) the right to property, translates to "the right to property on just terms".

Versus

C) the right to education (which is not at all in the constitution)

so = C

 

[melaniejane]

"The way to guarantee that we have a viable a modern education system is to

constitutionally enshrine the right to a free state education (including the right to​

private if the public right is waived) in the Australian constitution via a referendum."

(this was off a website, dedicated to adding education to the constitution)


this implies, education is not an enshrined right already.