Just me with another 5 marker 
no rush to get it marked or anything, thanks heaps! <3
All over it
Assess the importance of Native Title, Mabo and Wik for the Land Rights MovementNative Title, Mabo and Wik are crucial components of the land rights movement, as they recognised the importance of land to Aboriginal spirituality and continued cultural survival of Indigenous Australians.
Excellent first sentence - Judgement is immediately apparent and a breakdown of main points is given. The 1992 Mabo court case recognised the principal of Native Title, and thus the notion of terra nullius was overturned.
Might be worth explaining terra nullius in more detail, giving the definition perhaps, but that's a nitpick. Native Title recognised the continuing connection and rights to the land, and this acknowledgment means, for Aboriginal people. reconnection with their cultures and with their Dreaming stories, an essential component of Aboriginal spirituality.
Try to link it more specifically to the Land Rights movement, not Aboriginal spirituality as a whole. Mabo did not give Aborigines rights they did not have before, rather it belatedly recognised rights to ownership of land which Aborigines had possessed for thousands of years before 1788 and an essential component of their spirituality. Wik in 1996 held that a pastoral lease did not always extinguish Native Title, and that in some cases could survive the grant of a lease. However, if there was any conflict between the rights of the pastoralist leaseholder and the Native Title holder, the pastoralists rights would prevail.
This last sentence is probably not necessary without a judgement - You could explore how this is a limit to the importance of the Wik Decision. Both Mabo, Wik and the recognition of Native Title were important in to the land rights movement, the land being the medium through which Aboriginal spirituality could again be reconnected to.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Really solid response Snew!! Covers all the main points I'd expect and makes an obvious assessment, nicely done! I'd give it a 4/5 right now, just barely missing out on that top mark because the links to the Land Rights Movement are a just a touch weak. You mention it in the first sentence, and the last, but nowhere in between. Don't get me wrong, all the pieces are there, but it seems to me like you are jumping straight to spirituality from the decisions, where you should be referring to Land Rights Movement in between!
Oh, and don't forget to talk about the
Native Title Act (1993) specifically! Important part of this sort of response
Home
Help
Search
Login
