Prerogative Power In Australia

The Mabo Decision was a turning point for the recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. From recognising ownership of traditional lands to raising awareness of racial discrimination, it affected the Indigenous Australian society in various ways.

Freedom of movement is also broadly recognised in international law and bills of rights. Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of each state. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that ‘Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.’ Governments and then subsequently the courts, have a duty to ensure that a person 's freedom of movement is not unjustifiably restricted by others, including persons or companies. This right applies to all persons lawfully within Australian and not just Australian

INTRO: So, what is a republic? A republic is a democratic nation in which the highest public office is held not by a monarch, who inherits the position by birth, but instead by a citizen chosen on merit. Australia is a monarchy because it was colonised by the British in 1788. With them, they brought their lifestyles, culture and system of government. This type of government has remained up to this day.

Ever since the first settlers arrived in Australia right up to the end of the 20th century indigenous Australians had limited rights compared to whit Australians. One of the biggest problems was that there were different laws and treatment of aboriginals depending on what state they resided in. The year of 1967 was a big year for indigenous rights as a referendum was held to give the federal government the power to make laws for all aboriginals. Many factors and events influenced the overwhelming success of 1967 Referendum but the Freedom Rides of 1965 was the most important of these events in making the referendum the most successful in Australia’s history.

Australia is the only country to have a system of mandatory detention where every single parent, man, woman, child who arrives here without a valid visa or illegal visa must undergo immigration detention immediately.

Australia is said to be a multicultural and multiracial country. So why can’t we, as a country and as a nation, say yes to immigrants fleeing from a different country? As immigration to Australia is supposably apart of our history and it would be wrong not to continue on with the actions of our ancestors.

We are told that Australia is the “blessed country”. A country where our most appealing asset is our multicultural community and diverse society. In our anthem, we sing: “for those who come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”. Ironically, this line is in the second verse, which most people barely ever sing. Perhaps this reveals the true attitude Australia has towards asylum seekers. People who flee from countries which are oppressing them, escaping for their lives. Australia’s inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and the mandatory detention policy means that asylum seekers are locked in a detention centre until they are processed, which can take years.

Australia has been labelled as the country of mateship, fair-go and tolerance, but the mistreatment of Asylum seekers in Australia denies these values. In our anthem we sing “For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”. It ironic isn’t it? As when Asylum seekers arrive in Australia we do not offer a hand of mateship instead we use punitive matters such as sending them to mandatory detention, which shows how xenophobia is manifested in Australia (Ariyawansa,

In Australia, refugees and asylum seekers are treated like the enemy in a war: the target of a highly resourced, military-led “deterrence” strategy complete with arbitrary detainment, detention camps, guards to terrorise them, forced deportations and the violent suppression of those who protest. Australia is failing to meet the standards required when regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. It is fact that asylum seekers make up less than 3% of Australia’s annual immigration yet the idea is being distorted to that of which they will overpopulate a country that prides itself on being a multicultural society. I want to shed light on the misconception that asylum seekers are not ‘legal’ when in actual fact it is a human right to seek freedom.

The more powerless and vulnerable the individual, the more significant their ethical claim. Since each person, paying little respect to one's lawful status or geographic area, has a transcendent dignity that must dependably be regarded, individuals progressing ought to appreciate the full scope of human rights, and others have an obligation to see that they are regarded, secured and satisfied. "Refugees and asylum seekers are humans, and should enjoy the whole range of human rights. Unless there are compelling reasons to believe that refugees or asylum seekers represent a serious danger to the common good, they should not be interned. Furthermore they should have access to work and thus the opportunity to fulfil their duty to contribute to the common good” (Australians Human Rights Commission, 2014). Correspondingly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights depend on dignity, equality and mutual respect – regardless of your nationality, your religion or your beliefs. Your rights are tied in with being dealt with reasonably and treating others decently, and being able to make on decisions about your own life. These fundamental human rights are: Universal; They have a place with every one of us; They can't be detracted from us, Indivisible and independent Governments should not have the capacity to choose

This analysis looks at refugees and the social justice issue of Australia’s discriminatory treatment of refugees traveling to Australia seeking asylum. Australia’s current treatment of Asylum seekers includes taking them from an already extremely stressful environment and detaining them in remote detention facilities where they have limited interaction with family and friends. In some instances, this includes children and young people.

The ‘Bringing Them Home Report’ was a significant event for the civil rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as what they experienced between 1910 to 1970 was something no human being should have to go through, The Stolen Generations suffered a great deal of traumatic experiences. On 11 of May 1995 change, had to take place as this wasn’t a lifestyle a human being should live, the inquiry period began for The Bringing Them Home Report. It was a National Inquiry that looked into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. It was a complicated

Out of all the branches the legislative branch has the most power. They have to over view the president 's actions and decisions, if they don 't agree with it they can stop him. They control the taxes money, and relationships between states. They have the power to declare way, and make their own laws. The other branches have limited power and higher supervision, but the legislative branch has enough power to control itself. They make the rules for the country and they can make it to benefit

Today, our society live freely by following our right and freedom, our rights to do and our freedom to say. However, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffered and are still suffering through a long journey to be accepted in Australia as one. Different events occurred during the 90s to today, such as the Mabo decision, referendums and protests. The Bringing Them Home report was a significant event for the civil rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people. The Bringing Them Home report was the result of a national inquiry that includes 680 pages created in 1997. The report is dedicated to those who were affected by the forcible removal from Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander families. It had positively impacted the civil rights movement in Australia in two major ways through the Stolen

The case of Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2013) 216 FCR 241 presents a valuable example of a real-life situation that highlights the significance of understanding and interpreting the law that applies to Australian Migration practice. The case was about whether a valid visa application has been made by the appellant in accordance with Regulations 2.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) which required applications for particular visa be made at an “office of immigration” in Australia.