Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Express Rights |
- explicity written in the constitution -'entrenched' because they cannot be changed or removed without following the process in s128 (via referendum) |
|
|
What are the 5 express rights? |
1. The right to receive 'just terms' when property is acquired by the commonwealth s51 2. The right to trial by jury when tried on indictment for Commonwealth offences s80 3. Free interstate and commerce s92 4. Freedom of religion s116 5. The right not to be discriminated against on the basis of out-of-state residence s117
|
|
|
Implied Rights |
-an entitlement that the High Court finds is suggested within the constitution -not explicitly stated -the court finds the right to be implied by reading two or more sections together, deriving meaning from them |
|
|
Example of implied rights. |
-The Australian Constitution includes the implied right to freedom of communication on political matters. |
|
|
Structural Rights |
-not individual rights -when systems and principles established by the Constitution as a whole protect the public in general from abuse of government power |
|
|
Mabo Case - Facts |
-1992 -The Murray Islands vs. The Commonwealth -Claimed the Merriam people held native title of the groups of islands called Murray Islands. -Europeans never settled the islands and the Murray Islanders have maintained their ties with the land to this day -Unlike most indigenous communities, their law allowed them to own land individually -the land was divided into recognisable areas, each with an owner -Mabo claimed that the Merriam peoples' traditional right to own land had not been extinguished by the Queensalnd Government. - Mabo asked the High Court to recognise that they were the owners of the land
|
|
|
Mabo Case - Decision |
-The High Court overturned the doctrine of terra nullius -Decided that the Murray Islanders were entitled to exclusive possession and enjoyment of their lands -Recognizing that native title could exist under Austrlian common law -The High Court ensured that the outcome of this case did not solely apply to the plaintiffs' land. -The decisions also applied to land on the mainland of Australia, provided the Indigenous people could prove their right to the land. |
|
|
Mabo Case - Impact |
-Established native title -Native Title Act 1993 -upheld native title -tried to safeguard existing freehold and leasehold titles -allowed for compensation to be paid where native title had been extinguished -The Native Title Act established the National Native Title Tribunal to determine land rights claims
|
|
|
Mabo Case - Conflicting Attitudes |
-the decision devided the nation -some felt it was long overdue and justice had finally been delivered to the Indigenous peoples - others thought the decision left the majority of Indigenous peoples with no claim |
