Search results

There are no protections from vilification and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or sex and/or gender identity in federal law. The potential benefits of such protections are described in Section 6 above. This part describes:

The two recent High Court decisions in Miriuwung Gajerrong [1] and Wilson v Anderson [2] have clarified some important issues regarding the extinguishment of native title under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’) and its relationship with extinguishment under the common law. They also provide some important insights into the meaning of discrimination as it responds to the specific issues raised by the recognition of native title, a proprietary interest which is inherent to a particular racial group.

This will be how we assess the success or otherwise of the reconciliation process in years to come. The reconciliation process has the potential to be as significant, and difficult, as the process that led to the joining together of the states into one indissoluble federation in 1901. It challenges us to adapt the structures of society in ways that ensure that first nation peoples can participate fully, be welcomed and have our cultures respected. Integral to this process is an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past and an acceptance of the need for a restructured relationship.

All Australians are equally entitled to enjoy the rights, benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. In our society, every person should feel free from discrimination of any kind and have the right to share in the nation's land, resources and wealth. The entitlements and freedoms of all people are recognised in human rights instruments, many of which have been freely signed and ratified by Australia, and in some instances are now a part of Australian law.

Native title was recognised by the High Court, nearly ten years ago, on 3 June 1992. The Mabo decision [1] gave recognition to the unique and profound relationship that Indigenous people have always had with their land.

The 'right to negotiate' is a fundamental right assured by the Commonwealth Native Title Act (the 'NTA') and reflected in international human rights standards. Yet in practice the capacity of native title parties to exercise their 'right to negotiate' is determined by factors other than the mere existence of the right. Given the primary role of state and territory governments in land administration, their policies regarding the administration of the right to negotiate have a significant impact on native title parties' capacity to exercise their 'right to negotiate'.

The ownership, particularly communal ownership of land by Indigenous people began in 1976 with the introduction of land rights legislation in the Northern Territory (the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA (NT)).