1. Controversies, challenges, and change -- 2. Indigenous Courts -- 3. Problem solving courts -- 4. Coroners' Courts and death investigations -- 5. The Family Court -- 6. Civil courts and tribunals -- 7. Children and young people in court -- 8. Juries in the digital age -- 9. Bail decisions -- 10. Victim participatory rights -- 11. Injustices and inequitable outcomes -- 12. Delaying justice -- 13. Prosecution in the Magistrates' Courts -- 14. Politics, parliament and public influence over the courts -- 15. Courts and the media -- 16. Debates and future directions.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
Current policies that guide Indigenous higher education in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia focus on the importance of achieving 'outcomes'. These policies include the Universities Australia (UA) Indigenous Strategy 2017-2020, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 and the NT Department of Education's A Share in the Future Indigenous Education Strategy 2015-2024. Looking back at various Indigenous higher education policies over the past fifty years, however, it appears that achieving 'outcomes' was not always the goal. To understand why approaches to Indigenous higher education policy in the NT and at the national level exist as they do today, and to understand what has and has not worked in the context of historical change, it is important to reflect on how policy has evolved. Changing governments, shifting socio-political discourses, and various Indigenous advocates have all had considerable and cumulative effects on Indigenous higher education policy. In this paper, we use a discursive narrative approach to chronologically outline the evolution of Indigenous higher education policy in the NT.
Examines evolution of foreign relations in light of financial meltdown of Asian economies between 1997-98; argues that policy was misread during the Menzies era (1949-72) and questions acceptance of Whitlam's self-proclaimed revolution in foreign affairs after 1972.
This paper reports on a critical aspect of research findings from a three-year study conducted among Indigenous people living in and around the town of Kuranda in Northern Queensland, namely the role and impacts of welfare within the domestic economy of families. The research arose from a recognition of the difficulties faced in getting welfare services to Indigenous people, particularly youth and children. The focus of the survey has been on the relationship between the social security system, the domestic economies of families and their households, and Indigenous child-care arrangements. The survey documented sources of income, household composition and mobility and child-care patterns for approximately 30 households in Kuranda over a three-year period, using information from annual interviews with key reference people in each household. The paper details the extent and nature of the reliance on welfare transfers among families and the households in which they live, highlights some of the main factors and patterns involved, and considers the apparent consequences for families and their children. The results raise issues for policy makers and local organisations considering changes to policy and service delivery to Indigenous communities in the current era of welfare reform. A set of key issues for policy reform are considered including: the consequences of the tight integration of welfare and other government transfers within the domestic economy of families and their households; the circumstances of extended families and their children under welfare; the position of young adults; the need for a flexible definition of participation and mutual obligation; and the current and potential role of the Community Development Employment Projects scheme.
The plan to ratify the new Criminal Code in Indonesia is responded by Australia through issuing a travel advice policy in 2019. There has a concern that this policy will have an impact on the tourism sector in Indonesia, especially Bali, because the Australian tourists are recorded as dominating the visits. By using the concept of travel advice and foreign policy, this study aimed to analyze the travel advice policy issued by Australia from the perspective of International Relations and its impact on the tourism in Bali. This study used qualitative descriptive method and the primary data collection was done through interviews with the hoteliers in Bali and Australian tourists visiting Bali. From the perspective of International Relations, it is found that Australia's travel advice is a foreign policy that has a purpose based on Australia's national interests. This policy has no impact on Australian tourist visits because it is not a binding policy. The Australian tourists' have their own opinion about Bali and the decisions to visit affected by the clarity information from targeted state or destination.
Overview: As a matter of principle, ACEL-ANU strongly supports the establishment of an entrenched Bill of Rights1 that establishes enforceable civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights within the ACT as outlined within the Committee's terms of reference. Some of the most compelling and cogent reasons and persuasive arguments for taking such action in the face of reasoned resistance can be found in influential texts by Philip Alston, Hilary Charlesworth, Bede Harris, and George Williams - amongst others - and will not be rehearsed in any detail in this submission. Suffice that it to say here that the ideas of individual liberty and human rights have been the grand innovation of the state under the rule of law, at first as moral imperatives and later through establishment by law. As experience has made plain, however, "without a political guarantee of legal recourse, there are no individual rights but only pious profession of the value of human beings". Accordingly, it is only by recognising rights as elements of law - through protection, for example, by a Bill of Rights - that those rights serve as an effective limit on power under the rule of law. By establishing a Bill of Rights a society protects its members against in at least two ways. First, it protects against despotism -- government acting against the will of its constituents. Second, and much more importantly, it protects against "acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents." This protection against the tyranny of the majority is the very thing that detractors of rights use most frequently to claim that rights are undemocratic and also undermine notions of parliamentary sovereignty. Such a claim is, if not demonstrably no as a general proposition, particularly specious under the present circumstances of this Inquiry – an Inquiry in which the people can help choose its own destiny and decide on what rights, if any, should be given legal status to serve as a protective agent in the community. This brings us to the crux of the matter. The remainder of this submission concentrates on an item that goes unmentioned in the terms of reference -- whether a right to a safe, clean and healthy environment ought to be protected by an ACT Bill of Rights. The Australian Centre for Environmental Law submits that such a right is vital in the contemporary world. In a democratic country such as Australia, environmental pollution may be one of the most significant threats to the realisation of basic human rights. Government action and inaction in the field of environment implicates core international human rights, including the right to life, the right to security of the person, and more controversially, a general right to a safe environment. A cursory survey of environmental statistics in Australia indicates that too often Australia is failing to provide adequate environmental protection necessary to ensure that rights to human life, health and safety do not suffer. As an example, some Australian studies have found a relationship between the levels of pollutants in the outdoor air and increased death rates, attendances at hospital emergency departments or hospital admissions. Thus, there is a clear need to include the environment in the ACT Bill of Rights, if for no other reason than to make certain that other core rights, such as the right to life, are effectively implemented. For the purpose of this submission, the broad area of environmental human rights can be broken down into five components: environmental aspects of the rights to life and security of the person, the free-standing right to a healthy environment, the right to a nondiscriminatory allocation of environmental burdens and benefits, indigenous environmental rights, and the right to environmental information, public participation and access to justice.
