Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay Example for Free

Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay Introduction During the 2010 Federal election, both major political parties campaigned on indigenous affairs. Following the ALP’s victory, Prime Minister Gillard established an independent Expert Panel to â€Å"to investigate how to give effect to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. † Two schools of thought have dominated the national conversation of how this should be achieved. One view is that an amendment to the preamble of the constitution will provide safe and symbolic recognition. The alternative view is that more substantive reform is required to secure equality before the law. On January 16 2012, the Panel presented the Prime Minister their report and proposed five amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution. This paper will evaluate the five proposals and the reasons offered by the Panel. Each amendment will be analysed on its symbolic significance and potential legal ramifications. Finally this paper will conclude on how to best give Indigenous Australians recognition within the constitution. Constitutional Recognition For the panel, constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians means removing provisions in the Constitution that contemplate racial discrimination. Whether intended or not, the five proposals address the broader issues of racial discrimination and equality before the law within the Commonwealth Constitution. Repealing section 25 In its report, the Panel indicates that 97. 5% of all submissions approve of repealing section 25. Section 25 reads: For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. On face value, section 25 appears racist as it contemplates States excluding voters on the grounds of race. This interpretation has been affirmed by Chief Justice Gibbs in McKinlayss case (1975). Section 25 must be read with section 24 to ascertain the real intention of the framers. Section 24 specifies that the number of lower house representatives is determined by dividing the total number of people of the Commonwealth by twice the number of senators and then dividing the population of each state by that quota. Therefore, by racially excluding voters the numerical input of the State’s population is reduced; the State’s federal representation decreases and discriminatory states forgo greater federal representation. Although section 25 was intended to penalise racially discriminatory states, a State was able to enact discriminatory legislation by drafting laws that did not disenfranchise all members of a racial group. For instance, New South Wales denied certain classes of indigenous people the right to vote. The panel states that this proposal is technically and legally sound. Many constitutional commentators agree but there is a small minority who have identified possible legal consequences. In 1980, Justice Dean included section 25 as a provision guaranteeing the right to vote. The right to vote is not constitutionally entrenched. Parliament has authority to determine the electoral process pursuant to section 30. It is unclear whether the High Court would find legislation that disqualified people of certain races from voting invalid because of the section 7 words directly chosen by the people and section 24. Theoretically, it may be argued that section 25 should not be removed until the right to vote is constitutionally entrenched. However, this view is highly unorthodox and section 25 should be repealed. Repealing section 51 (XXIV) Section 51(xxvi) authorises the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to â€Å"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws†. The Panel recommends removing section 51(xxvi) as it contemplates discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was denied purchasing Pastoral property from the Crown. The Queensland Minister for Lands reasoned that the government did not view favourable proposals to acquire large areas of land for development by Aborigines in isolation. Koowarta argued that the Minister was in breach of sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Joh Bjelke-Petersen challenged the constitutional validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The Premier argued that s51(xxvi) does not confer power to make laws which apply to all races. A majority of the High Court found that sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 were invalid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). The Hindmarsh Island Bridge case illustrates parliament’s ability to enact adversely discriminatory laws in relation to race. The case concerned whether the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) could remove rights which the plaintiffs enjoyed under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). The Ngarrindjeri women argued that the races power only allowed parliament to pass laws that are for the benefit of a particular race. The Commonwealth argued that there were no limits to the power. The High Court found that as the Heritage Protection Act was validly enacted under s 51(xxvi), the same head of power could support a whole or partial repeal. The High Court was divided on whether S 51(xxvi) could only be used for the advancement or benefit of a racial group. In his judgement, Justice Kirby found that section 51 (xxvi) does not extend to the enactment of laws detrimental to or discriminatory against, the people of any race (including the Aboriginal race) by reference to their race. Justices Gummow and Hayne said that there was no basis for reading s51(xxvi) as not permitting adverse discrimination. In summary, Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth did not confirm that laws enacted under section 51 (xxvi) must be beneficial. Since then, it has generally been accepted that s 51 (xxvi) gives the Commonwealth power to discriminate either in favour or against members of a particular race. The removal of S51 (xxvi) would be a significant symbolic gesture to Indigenous Australians as they are the only group to whom section 51(xxvi) laws have been enacted. Not all laws passed under s 51 (xxvi) have been adversely discriminatory. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case), sections 8 and 11 of The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) were held to be constitutionally valid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). As a result, the Franklin River Hydroelectric Dam could not be constructed in a place considered spiritually significant by Aboriginal people. A repeal of section 51 (xxvi) might not invalidate the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. Other powers, specifically the external affairs power in s51 (xxix), would support this legislation under the principle of dual characterisation. Other beneficial legislation may not be supported under the same principle. In Western Australia v The Commonwealth, the court found The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) constitutionally valid pursuant to section 51 (xxvi). The court did not find it necessary to consider any other heads of power. Australias endorsement of the UN Deceleration on the Rights of Indigenous People may provide scope to support the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) under the external affairs power. However, it seems reckless to gamble with legislation that establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. Repealing section 51 (xxvi) will also limit the Commonwealths ability to pass new laws for the advancement of Indigenous Australians. For these reasons, the Panel proposes that the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) must be accompanied by a new head of power with respect to Indigenous Australians. Inserting section 51A The preamble to S51A is the first recommendation which actually addresses the important contributions of Indigenous Australians. Section 51A also allows the Commonwealth to makes laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Similar to section 51(xxvi), the power contained within section 51A is not subject to any conditions. This is somewhat of a double edged sword. All laws currently passed under section 51 (xxvi) have only been enacted with respect to Indigenous Australians. As the power is not subject to any restriction, all legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) would most likely be supported by section 51A. Alternatively, section 51A could be used to enact legislation that is adversely discriminatory. The Panel states that the preamble which acknowledges ‘the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will mitigate this risk. However, a preamble is only used to resolve an ambiguity within a text. The power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not particularly ambiguous. The Panels predicts laws passed pursuant to s 51A would be assessed on whether they broadly benefit the group concerned. The actual word used is advancement which would be interpreted differently to benefit. Furthermore, the High Court is not always ready to embrace a value judgement such as one based benefit’. Credit should be given to the Panel for this proposal. The preamble to Section 51A constitutionally recognises the history, culture and contributions of Indigenous Australians. The new head of power will likely ensure that current legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) will continue to operate. Section 51A also removes parliament’s power to enact laws with regards to a person’s race. This proposal addresses the apartheid nature of our constitution. However, Section 51A is not the white knight which was hoped for. It will be the courts who decide whether this new power is ambiguous. If Section 51A is found to be ambiguous, the courts will have significant discretion in interpreting the meaning of â€Å"advancement†. To overcome these issues, the panel has recommended that a racial non-discrimination provision (S116A) be added to the constitution. Inserting section 116A There are both policy and legal issues concerning section 116A. Firstly, Australia has a history of avoiding constitutional entrenchments of rights. The proposed anti-discrimination provision only protects racial groups. Section 116A may be viewed as privileging anti-racial discrimination over anti-sex discrimination or anti-homophobic discrimination. The first legal consideration is which groups will be protected by section 116A. Jewish people are recognized as an ethnic group but Muslims are not. It is uncertain whether Muslims would receive the same protection as Jews. Furthermore, would a person who converted to Judaism receive identical protection as a person who was born Jewish? The second legal issue is how Section 116A will affect existing state and commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. For example, Anti-discrimination state law authorise discrimination in the employment of actors for reasons of authenticity. In addition, sections 12 and 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) permits people to discriminate when they are searching for someone to share or work with in their home. Once again, it will be for the court to decide if these provisions are constitutionally invalid. The panel has affirmed that S116A (2) will support laws enacted under s 51 (xxvi) and section 51A. Like section 51A, section 116A could be interpreted by the courts in ways that were not intended. The courts will have significant discretion in determining what â€Å"is for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage†. An important issue for the Indigenous community is the Northern Territory Intervention. In Wurridjal v Commonwealth, the high court upheld the government’s partial repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act under the race powers. The court also upheld the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act pursuant to section 51 (xxix). Due to the principle of dual characterisation, it is unlikely that S116A will provide an avenue for Indigenous people to contest the intervention. S116A is probably the most controversial recommendation as it concerns equality before the law. This issue is probably better dealt with by an expert panel assessing a Bill of Rights. To achieve a similar result, the panel could propose that section 51A has an accompanying provision similar to 116A(2). Insert section 127A. Section 127A is a provision which recognises Indigenous languages as the original language of Australia. A separate language provision is necessary to capture the importance of traditional languages within Indigenous culture. Section 127A also acknowledges that English is the national language of Australia. The Panel rejected a submission suggesting all Australian citizens shall have the freedom to speak, maintain and transmit the language of their choice’. The Panel did not want to give rise to legal challenges regarding the right to deal with government in languages other than English. It is unclear what practical consequence would flow from s127A. Section 127A could be used to secure funding for Indigenous languages on the grounds of national heritage’. Nonetheless, the Panel does not intend for this provision to give rise to new legal rights. S127A is symbolically important and is an appropriate way of constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians. Summary of analysis This analysis concludes that the five proposals put forward by the panel appropriately balance substantive reform and symbolic significance. As a result, the Panel should be congratulated. If the Panel’s goal was to remove overtly racist tones within the Australian Constitution then they have succeeded. If the panels objective was to definitively correct the wrongs of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Intervention then they have failed. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently address racial discriminatory acts passed under other heads of power. Section 116A(2) has been perceived as a tasteful reformulation of the races power. Furthermore, the proposals provides the courts substantial discretion in interpreting terms such as â€Å"overcoming disadvantage†, â€Å"advancement† and â€Å"group†. In essence, the most important issue does not concern symbolic change or substantive reform. It is simply a question of which proposals will gain bipartisan support. Conclusion The panels proposals could succeed at referendum. Firstly, Australians are more likely to support something substantive than purely symbolic. Secondly, this is not an issue which would be perceived as a politicians proposal. Australians are hesitant to support proposals perceived as self-serving. Thirdly, the Panel indicates that its proposals are capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians. Nonetheless, to succeed at referendum, the support from the Federal opposition government and all State governments is essential. It is very easy, and sometimes attractive, for the federal Opposition to oppose a referendum. It can be a useful way of generating a negative public reaction to the government and its agenda. Since 2010, the Coalition has fought the government on nearly every political issue. Even when the parties agree in principle, they have different ways of solving the issue. For example, both parties are for off-shore processing of illegal immigrants but disagree on where and how it should be done. Both parties are committed to recognising Indigenous Australians within the constitution. So far, the LNP has said it will consider substantive reform but has only committed to preambular recognition. The Panel not only recommends substantive reform but also addresses racial equality before the law. It is very uncertain whether the LNP will support a policy so different to their 2010 election promise. The next federal election is only 18 months away. If the referendum and election are held concurrently, there is more incentive for the Coalition to oppose the Panels recommendation. It would be disastrous for the nation if the referendum fails. The ‘gap’ will swell and the international community will view Australia as a nation of racists. It could be argued that the Government should have appointed a bipartisan panel rather than an independent panel. A bipartisan panel may not have produced ‘better’ recommendations to those of the Panel. They would, however, have generated proposals that both parties would stand behind. Bibliography * ABC Television, ‘Asylum seeker stand-off intensifies’, The Midday Report, 20 December 2011. http://www.abc. net. au/news/2011-12-20/bowen-seeks-bipartisan-meeting-on-offshore-processing/3739984 at 29 April 2012. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian Human Rights Commission’, http://www. hreoc. gov. au/social_justice/international_docs/2011_EMRIP * Agreement between the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party, 1 September 2010. * Attwood, Bain and Markus, Andrew, The 1967 Referendum: Race, Power and the Australian Constitution, (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2007). * Behrendt, Larissa, ‘Mind, body and spirit: pathways forward for reconciliation’ (2001) 5 Newcastle Law Review 1. * Brennan, Sean, ‘Constitutional reform and its relationship to land justice’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 2. * Castan, Melissa, Submission to Panel on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (Monash University Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, September 2011). * Castan, Melissa, ‘Constitutional deficiencies in the protection of Indigenous rights: reforming the ‘races power’. ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 25. * Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. * Costar, Brian, ‘Odious and outmoded? ’ Race and Section 25 of the Constitution, in John Chesterman and David Philips (eds), Selective Democracy: Race, Gender and the Australian Vote (Melbourne Publishing Group, 2003). * Davis, Megan, ‘A culture of disrespect: Indigenous peoples and Australian public institutions’ (2006) UTS Law Review 8. * Davis, Megan, ‘Constitutional Reform and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders People: Why do we want it now? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 25. * Davis, Megan and Lino, Dylan, ‘Constitutional Reform and Indigenous Peoples’ (2010) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 19. * D’Cruz,Raylen, ‘ Assessing the Need for a Constitutionally Entrenched Bill of Rights in Australia’ (2007) Student Law Review, Bond University http://epublications. bond. edu. au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=1002context=buslr page 2 at 27 April 2012. * Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, (January, 2012): http://www. youmeunity. org. au/finalreport. * Griffith, Gareth, ‘The Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal People’ (2010) 12 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 4. * Jonas, William, ‘’Unfinished business’: the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights’ (2001) 5 Newcastle Law Review 1. * Karvelas,Patricia, ‘Referendum’s timing fluid’, The Australian, 18 April 2012 http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/referendums-timing-fluid/story-fn9hm1pm-1226330762268. * Kerr, Christian, ‘Libs baulk on referendum support’, The Australian, 30 January 2012 http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571. * Keyzer, Patrick, Principles of Australian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia: 3rd ed, 2010). * Kildea, Paul, ‘More than mere symbolism’, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 2012. * Kirby, Michael, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Australians: Challenge for a Parched Continent, Law Council of Australia, Old Parliament House, Canberra, Friday 22 July 2011 Discussion Forum ‘Constitutional Change: Recognition or Substantive Rights? ’. * Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Discussion Paper, 19 March 2011. * LexisNexis AU, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’90 Constitutional Law’ [90. 1620]. * McHugh, Michael, Australian Constitutional Landmarks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). * McQuire, Amy, ‘Constitutional reform report sparks mixed reviews’, Tracker, 19 January 2012. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Agreement-making: the need for democratic principles, individual rights and equal opportunities in Indigenous Australia’ (2011) 36 Alternative Law Journal 3. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Indigenous constitutional recognition, non-discrimination and equality before the law: why reform is necessary’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 26. * Morse, Bradford, â€Å"Indigenous Provisions in Constitutions Around the World† 2011 Paper located at http://www. youmeunity. org. * Pengelley, Nicholas, ‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act – Must Laws Based on the Race Power be for the Benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders- and What has Bridge Building got to do with the Race Power Anyway’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 144. * Prior, Flip, ‘Recognition poll unlikely, days Dodson’, The West Australian, 11 April 2012. * Rintoul, Stuart, ‘Race power opens Pandora’s box’, The Australian, 22 December 2011 * Rowse, Tim, ‘The practice and symbolism of the ‘race power’: rethinking the 1967 referendum’ (2008) 19 Australian Journal of Anthropology 1. * Sawer, G, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigine’ (1966) 2 FL Rev 17. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 280]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 300]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 430]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 450]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 460]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 480]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 190]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 240]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 7 International Law’ [1. 7. 180]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 1 Constitutional Law’ [19. 1. 230]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 5 Federal constitutional system’ [19. 5. 157. 1]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 160] * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 350]. * Twomey, Ann, Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Explained (University of Sydney Law School Constitutional Reform Unit, 26 January 2012). * Ward, Alexander, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does true recognition require substantive reform? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Review 25. * Watson, Nicole, ‘The Northern Territory Emergency Response – Has It Really Improved the Lives of Aboriginal Women and Children? ’ (2011) 35 Australian Feminist Law Journal 147. * Williams, George, ‘Recognising Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution: what the Constitution should say and how the referendum can be won’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 1. * Winckel, Anne, ‘Recognising Indigenous Peoples in the Preamble: Implications, Issues and Interpretation’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 22. Case List * Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 * Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 * Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 [69]. * Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1988) 195 CLR 337 * Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 * Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 * Leak v Commonwealth (1997) 187 CLR 579. * Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156 [14]; * Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 * Wurridjal v The Cth (2009) 237 CLR 309 Legislation List. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth) * Australian Constitution Act 1975 (Cth) * Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) * Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) * Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) * Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) * Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) * Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) * Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) * Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Nsw) [ 1 ]. Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: Discussion Paper March 2011 part 1. 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 2 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 3 ]. Alexander Ward, At the Risk of Rights: Does True Recognition Require Substantive Reform (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 3, 3. [ 4 ]. Ibid. [ 5 ]. Ibid. [ 6 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 7 ]. Ibid [4]. [ 8 ]. Ibid [5. 3]. [ 9 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 25. [ 10 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 11 ]. Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, [36], [44]. [ 12 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 13 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 24. [ 14 ]. Ibid. [ 15 ]. Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. [ 16 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 4 at 25 April 2012. [ 17 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 3 at 23 April 2012. [ 18 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 6 at 25 April 2012. [ 19 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 20 ]. Ibid [6]. [ 21 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 22 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51 (xxvi). [ 23 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 4 at 23 April 2012. [ 24 ]. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168. [ 25 ]. Ibid [169-170]. [ 26 ]. Ibid. [ 27 ]. Ibid. [ 28 ]. Ibid [174]. [ 29 ]. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case) (1998) 195 CLR 337. [ 30 ]. Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth). [ 31 ]. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). [ 32 ]. Ibid. [ 33 ]. Ibid [416-7]. [ 34 ]. Ibid [379-381]. [ 35 ]. Thomson Reuters Legal Online, Halsburys Laws of Australia (at 15 January 1998) 19 Government, 19. 5 Federal Constitutional System [19. 5 – 157. 1] [ 36 ]. Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). [ 37 ]. (1983) 158 CLR 1. [ 38 ]. Ibid. [ 39 ]. Ibid [5 – 8]. [ 40 ]. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) [ 41 ]. Western Australia v The Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373. [ 42 ]. Ibid.

Essay --

Women in India, a crucial issue that most people do not have the knowledge of. When this issue is looked into in depth, it is a variety of things: unfair, brutal, repulsive, and more. Unfortunately, most women in India have been treated unfairly for longer than can be remembered. When it is boiled down, it comes down to one component: religion. To get a primary view of the problem, the following is an example of what goes on every day. A girl, probably in her twenties, was coming home from a movie on the bus. A group of six men then ganged up on her and brutally raped her (Singh, 2013). As stated, events such as these go on almost daily. There are many instances of gender inequality in the dominant religion of Hinduism (Srivastava, 2008). Husbands treat their wives like property, and that is pretty much the root of the issue. A major factor of this subject is the concept of dowry. This concept should be well known before the issue is further dissected. Dowry is an ancient tradition where the husband gains the riches of the wife immediately after they are married (Bedi, 2012). What tends to happen is that the woman’s dowry does not usually satisfy the man, and this leads to devastating violence. Women are then killed in various torturous ways, such as live burning. This also leads to another major element of the problem: female infanticide. This is the unlawful killing of baby girls (BBC, 2014). Women do not want to disappoint their husbands by having a daughter, so they get rid of their unborn or newborn babies. Also, daughters cause a financial burden to the family, so families would want to dispose of them ( BBC, 2014). Also, men are far more educated than women in India, and that leads to more problems. Yes, awfully tragic, bu... ...n. Additionally, it should be known that currently, there is no special law in India against sexual assault or harassment (Pidd, 2012). The attempted solution mentioned prior is very general, and it is geared towards many different countries. India needs a specific, well-enforced law against these sorts of entities; they are not to be taken lightly. Innumerable women suffer from all types of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies because of this. Countries such as the United States could possibly help with this. Stringent procedures must be put into effect when this type of issue is reported. Unlike what is going on now, a law of this manner must be meticulously enforced at all times. If the proper steps are taken, eventually, the issue could subside. For now, the nation’s problems will most likely remain the same, tearing apart society even further.

Wind Energy And Hydroelectric Energy Environmental Sciences Essay

Wind energy is among the universe ‘s fastest-growing and most normally used beginnings of energy.From this portion, wind energy ‘s advantages like its low cost and being environmental will be explained in item. 2.1 Low-cost Energy Harmonizing to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, clean air current power costs $ 50 megawatt per hour.That means, tackling air current energy is really inexpensive as compared to the dodo fuels that have skyrocketing prices.To give an illustration, coal energy costs $ 104 and atomic energy costs $ 107 megawatt per hr ( U.S Department of Energy ) .So, air current energy has become low-cost plenty to vie with fossil fuels.If a family used air current power for % 25 of its demands, it would pass merely $ 5 dolars per month for it and the monetary value is still dropping. ( Renewables-Wind Energy ) . Furthermore, wind power has no fuel costs and negligible costs for maintenance.In air current energy, there is no fuel usage like other energy beginnings, it is merely utilizing air current which is ever available and costless.While other energy beginnings needs tonss of money to keep, weave energy is really economical.Building a atomic works or a watering dike may necessitate a immense sum of money , but wind farms and air current turbines are inexpensive.Moreover, air current energy has no clean-up costs.So, there are no C revenue enhancement or C cap and trade system which make C emanations more expensive like the other energy sources.To sum up, wind energy is rather low-cost energy beginning with supplying cost benefits.2.2 EnvironmentalOne of the best and most valuable advantages of air current energy is that it is wholly pollution free.Compared to the environmental effects of traditional energy beginnings, the environmental effects of air current power are about not existing.Firstly, wind energy does non bring forth waste merchandises that require disposal or gas emanations which contribute to air pollution and planetary clime alteration. Besides of course produced, CO2 is besides produced when fossil fuels like coal and natural gas are burned to bring forth electricity.However, utilizing air current to bring forth electricity reduces CO2 emanations. Harmonizing to a stud y, weave energy saves about 122 million dozenss of CO2 every twelvemonth ( Global Wind Energy Council ) .As we use more and more of air current energy, less and less fossil fuels will be burnt. This, in consequence, means less pollution. Wind energy besides does non devour or foul water.While other energy beginnings like hydroelectric energy that needs H2O to run or atomic energy which drops its waste into H2O, wind energy brings us healtier seas and lakes.Another environmental benefit of the air current energy is, it uses merely a fraction of the land.So, bing land utilizations such as agriculture and graze can go on unaffected. â€Å" Wind turbines can be built on farms or spreads, therefore profiting the economic system in rural countries, where most of the best air current sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can go on to work the land because the air current turbines use merely a fraction of the land, † states the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( U. S. Department of Energy, April 2005 ) .Having said these, it will non be incorrect to state that wind energy provides electricity without harming the environment.III.HYDROELECTRIC ENERGYHydroelectric energy is known for being widely used signifier of renewable energy which uses H2O to bring forth electrical power.Although it is believed that hydroelectic energy provides benefits, it besides comes with the large disadvantages such as dike failures and relicensing.3.1 Dam FailuresBecause big conventional dammed-hydro installations hold back big volumes of H2O, a failure due to hapless building, terrorist act, or other cause can be ruinous to downriver colonies and infrastructure.Also good design and building are non an equal warrant of safety.Dam failures have been some of the largest semisynthetic catastrophes in history.To give an illustration, the Banqiao Dam failure in Southern China straight resulted in the deceases of 26,000 people, and another 145,000 from epidemics ( Application of the Meth od of Characteristics to the Dam Break Wave Problem, Chanson, H.,2009 ) . Millions were left homeless. Besides, the creative activity of a dike in a geologically inappropriate location may do catastrophes such as 1963 catastrophe at Vajont Dam in Italy, where about 2000 people died ( The Vajont Dam Disaster,2006 ) .In decision, when it comes to failure of a dike, hydroelectric energy can make an uncontrallable catastrophe.3.2 Relicensing ComplexityEvery 30 to 50 old ages, private hyrdoelectric dikes are re-evaluated.In this measure, relicensing is a really complex process.Relicensing was infrequent until 1993, but so The Hydropower Reform Coalition formed to take advantage to reconstruct river ecosystems through the relicensing procedure ( Renewables-Hydroelectric Energy ) .When doing relicensing, non merely the power coevals of a dike is considered, but besides protection of wildlife, equal renewal to energy conversation and protection of the environmental quality.Taking everything into history, constructing a dike costs you a batch money and clip, but relicensing may be take long plenty to reactivate it.IV.ADVANTAGES OF WIND ENERGY OVER HYDROELECTRIC ENERGYAfter adverting air current energy and hydroelectric energy, it is clip to compare these two most normally used energy beginnings.4.1 Cost/Efficiency RateFirst of wholly, both energy beginnings have negligible cost when they are compared to other energy sources.For case, wind energy costs merely $ 5 dollars for a family every month and hydroelectric energy ‘s cost of electricty is constant.But when they are compared in electricity produced, weave energy stairss frontward. Most modern turbines installed today are estimated to hold a 20 twelvemonth life during this clip, major constituents have been designed to run 24 hours a twenty-four hours during this clip period. In general, a individual air current turbine will change over about 20 per centum of the energy in air current to electricity. The most efficient production occurs between five and 20 stat mis an hr of air current speed.This means wind energy is more efficient than any other energy beginnings ( AWEA ) .However, hydroelectric dikes have a burden capacity which means after a point, dam capacity is reached and it can non keep more H2O to conversation.In short air current energy provides more electrical power with less cost than the hydroelectric energy.4.2 Building ProcedureWhen constructing a new energy beginning, its edifice procedure is an of import factor.A big fraction of land is required to keep a H2O dike, and it can non be ever found easily.Hydroelectric dikes should be established near H2O beginnings such as lakes or seas.It besides requires tonss of clip to construct it.It takes months or possibly old ages to set up merely one hyrdoelectric dam.Also its licensing is a procedure which requires some time.On the other manus, air current turbines are so simple to construct and they can be established about anypla ce in the universe, it merely needs air current and it needs such a small time.As it is clear from the comparing, there is no uncertainty that the air current energy has no negative effects on budget and environment, in resistance to the bad effects of hydroelectric energy.

The And Nature Vs. Nurture Debate Essay - 2174 Words

Contrasting Culture â€Å"[The] capacity for disgust, like all natural capacities, can be built on culture.† (Appiah 54) Are identities constructed because of surroundings, or are they molded based on one’s own individual thoughts and actions? This is the ultimate question; a variation of the nature vs. nurture debate. One can make the assumption that a person is molded by what he or she sees around him happening in the world, or by reading and learning from past events. In CORE this semester, we read plenty of books, all with the common theme of identity. Throughout all three units there were better examples of identity, and there were not so good examples of identity. However, another common theme is an individual’s identity getting compromised by what he or she is exposed to on a daily basis. A person builds his idea of himself based off of what he sees around him. As sad as this fact is, very few people are not influenced by outside sources. One of the biggest influencers t oday is social media. Now, some may say that social media is not considered culture. However, most of people living in the world today have some form of social media. In It’s Complicated a book by Danah Boyd discusses the use of social media and the effects that it has on young people today. The book covers a wide variety of different topics in the realm of social media and focuses a lot on how teens and young adults interact with each other through social media. It goes into detail on the societalShow MoreRelatedNature Vs. Nurture Debate1427 Words   |  6 Pagesparents use authoritarian methods and punishment.† The nature Vs nurture debate has been around since 1690 created by the philosopher John Locke who believed we as humans do not have natural, inborn ideas; that our minds are a blank page, upon which experience shall write. Nurture is everything and nature is simply nothing. â€Å"Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inherita nce and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factorsRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture Debate878 Words   |  4 Pagespersonalities and traits produced by genetics or shaped by the environment? Or, is there a relationship between nature and nurture with regards to child development? The debate continues. While some believe â€Å"nature and nurture work together, others believe they are separate and opposing influences† (McDevitt, 2010). Nature vs Nurture In regards to the nature vs. nurture debate, â€Å"this debate is a major issue in many social science disciplines and is concerned with the influence that biology, geneticsRead MoreNature Vs Nurture Debate1291 Words   |  6 PagesHow is the nature vs nurture debate related to a consideration of the mental disorder, schizophrenia? INTRODUCTION Schizophrenia is categorized by thoughts or experiences that seem abnormal with reality, disorganized speech or behaviour and decreased participation in regular daily activities. Difficulty with memory and concentration are sometimes also present. The two hit hypothesis generally refers to a genetic vulnerability, which is known as the first hit, triggered by something in the environmentRead MoreNature Vs Nurture Debate1343 Words   |  6 Pagescontroversial to psychologist since the phrase was created in 1869 is â€Å"Nature vs Nurture†. Although the debate was started well before then, 1869 was the first time it was tied to the debate. The nature vs nurture debate is over whether you get your behavior from genetics, what you inherited from your biological parents, or if they are learned characteristics, what you learn from the environment and what you get taught. The debate can be traced back to early western philosophy and is still relevantRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture Debat e1332 Words   |  6 PagesNature vs Nurture debate is one of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology. The debate is about to know if our personality and talents come from our parent or environment? The coding of genes in each cell in humans determine the different traits that we have, more physical attributes dominance like ear size, eye colour, , height, hair colour and other traits. However, it is still not known whether the more abstract attributes like, intelligence, sexual orientation, personality, preferencesRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture Debate1863 Words   |  8 PagesNature vs. Nurture Albert Camus once said, â€Å"Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.† But what makes man what he is? Is it his sheer genetic makeup, or is it the way he was raised? The nature vs. nurture debate has raged on for centuries, but neither side has been able to prove their point indefinitely. Even today we see displays of the contrast between genetics and learned behaviors, in athletics, in intelligence, in behavior, in medical history, and in work ethic. Each personRead MoreThe Debate On Nature Vs Nurture Essay1435 Words   |  6 Pagesdubious history of the debate on nature vs nurture continues to be a controversy, more and more psychologists start to rise from both sides of the argument. The earliest evidence can be traced back to the time of John Locke, who believes that our minds are blank slates and only experience can write override it. Despite the main focus of the issue being how environment transact to influence development, psychologists today cont inue to argue on the issue of nature vs nurture. Intelligence is more ofRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture Debate2114 Words   |  9 PagesNature vs. Nurture Albert Camus once said, â€Å"Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.† But what makes man what he is? Is it his sheer genetic makeup, or is it the way he was raised? The nature vs. nurture debate has raged on for centuries, but neither side has been able to prove their point indefinitely. Even today we see displays of the contrast between genetics and learned behaviors, some of which are athletics, intelligence, medical histories, etc. Every person is completelyRead MoreThe Nature Vs. Nurture Debate2673 Words   |  11 Pagesamount of social interaction is going to have a positive benefit, for young kids or any age. One of the most famous debates in Psychology is the Nature vs. Nurture debate, which has been going on since the time of Aristotle. The aspect within this debate comes to the question of; did the aspects of our behavior become because we inherited our characteristics from our parents know as the Nature? The other question leads up to our behavi or of; did we get our characteristics from what we learned from theRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture : The Debate Of Nature Versus Nurture895 Words   |  4 PagesNature vs. Nurture The debate of nature versus nurture has been an ongoing debate for a long time. When applying this argument to education there is no proven winner. The nature side of the coin believes that a person is born the way that they are. This could include intelligence level or personality traits such as being outgoing or shy. The other side of the argument of nurture believes that the type of upbringing that someone has will play a large role in the way they develop. It is thought