Suchergebnisse

This article examines the practice by the Howard government from 2003 of invoking a paradigm of urgency in the introduction and enactment of multiple examples of counter terrorism legislation, with claims that review and remediation of that legislation best occur after rapid enactment. Speedylegislative passage was frequently accompanied by few amendments, a discounting of parliamentary and other review recommendations and a contrasting unwillingness or neglect to subsequently review and amend enacted legislation to strengthen safeguards and increase accountability. Byexamining selected major examples of counter-terrorism legislation, a comprehensive understanding of the applications of urgency as a legislative mechanism in counter-terrorism law reform from the Howard years can beobtained. These applications range between the obtaining of immediate political advantage and an ongoing concentration of executive power. Several serious and distinctive features adversely impacting upon representative democracy were also generated by this urgency paradigm in counter-terrorism legislative enactments. The Rudd government has inherited the considerable legacy of this urgency bound legislative agenda. Questions now arise as to whether proper review of that legislation will occur and whether the culture of urgency will persist in a different government's legislative responses to terrorism.

The October 2003 deportation of French terror suspect Willy Brigitte highlights the legal and political usages of recently conferred and controversial counter- terrorism detention and questioning laws. This article explores the executive con- tention upon a comparison with the French system, Australian detention and questioning powers require significant expansion. Executive usages of the Brigitte incident in response to terrorism display alarming trends steadily eroding rule of law principles and undermining the institutions and practices of Australian democracy. The article analyses ASIO detention and questioning powers and subsequent and possible expansions. It demonstrates that the constant review, reworking and revisiting of those powers is a more overt politicisation of counter-terrorism responses, employs executive mandated review at the expense of more measured, deliberative and democratic practice and leads to the attrition of rights as the legislation's "balance" is continually contested. The indefinite nature of the terrorism threat and the restraint on such responses as political only, in the absence of a bill of rights, makes these developments of real concern. The article argues, through several illustrations, that claims for expanded detention and questioning powers have been inappropriately presented. The article concludes that there is neither a rational nor substantiated case for the claim to loosen constraints on already unprecedented counter-terrorism detention and questioning powers.

The revelation in 2004 of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has refocused attention on the legal structures and conditions of the indefinite detention of persons in US military custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base in Cuba. Two features are important in this re-focus. In 2003, Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of Guantanamo Bay, was sent to Iraq to 'gitmoize ' (ie to apply the Guuantanamo detention management principles) to Abu Ghraib. Secondly, it has become apparent that serious human rights abuses within Us military custody are more properly seen within a context of the ascendancy of asserted US executive power in establishing an extra-legal system of classification and detention, with exceptionialism in that system to international human rights standards.

In International Human Rights Law, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights defines the right to health as the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Millions of people use traditional and complementary medicine ('T&CM') to realise their right to health. This article analyses whether the scope of the right to health includes T&CM. Although not expressly provided for in the legally binding treaties, there is substantial evidence in international law to infer a right to T&CM as part of the right to health. The article analyses some of the failings of T&CM policy and regulation in Australia and offers a draft convention article in the recently proposed Framework Convention on Global Health ('FCGH') which codifies an express and legally binding right to T&CM. This would assist States Parties address the policy, legislative and regulatory gaps that currently exist regarding T&CM. A clear duty imposed on States Parties would ensure everyone including indigenous peoples have access to quality, safe, culturally appropriate, and effective T&CM health care facilities, goods and services. States Parties including the Australian Government might then more effectively harness the potential contribution of T&CM, and fundamentally reorientate health systems towards significantly more cost-effective wellness and people centred health care in realising the right to health for all.

This paper explores the significance of the Uluru Statement from The Heart and its place in the post settlement Indigenous journey. It is also relevant to the nation's journey towards reconciliation. The initial rejection of the Uluru Statement by the Government was a blow to indigenous Australians, and an examination of the reasons for opposing a constitutional enshrined Voice to Parliament is needed. It is argued that the Voice to Parliament is of value both symbolically and practically. Understanding the reasons why some sections of the Australian community find any constitutional recognition proposition difficult is a key to successfully achieving such recognition.