Sentences with phrase «of rda»

The NTER, with its suspension of the RDA, has damaged this relationship.

I will continue to monitor this situation and advocate for all of the NTER measures to be fully compliant with the provisions of the RDA.

Delays in the reinstatement of the RDA and state / territory anti-discrimination legislation until 31 December 2010.

From June to August 2009 the Australian Government consulted with Aboriginal communities on ways that certain identified NTER measures could be «redesigned», including lifting the suspension of the RDA.

As indicated, the focus of the RDA is on laws which differentiate on the basis of race in order to limit the equal enjoyment of rights.

I discuss the operation of the RDA in its current form and the reasons for retaining its effective protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

[37] The Government's arguments are directed to its understanding of international law standards rather than the standards of the RDA itself.

As Justice Toohey said in Mabo (No 2) in reference to s. 10 of the RDA:

If the vesting occurred after the operation of the RDA, questions arise as to whether the act was invalid under the RDA and would be validated under the NTA.

The suspension of the RDA meant that even if the NTER measures were not special measures, the protections of the RDA did not apply.

5 The effect of RDA s10 upon discriminatory legislation is twofold.

It vividly demonstrates how the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to legislate to override any provision of the RDA with very little accountability.

An example would be a post-1975 grant which, by operation of the RDA, was ineffective to extinguish native title rights and interests.

The key principles on the application of the RDA to the extinguishment or impairment of native title are noted below.

In those tenures the effect of the RDA is to invalidate the particular grant.

[103] Section 10 (3) of the RDA makes it unlawful to manage the property of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people without their consent or prevent them from terminating management by another of land owned by them.

Given the lack of detail in the NIC Principles it is not possible to analyse the involun tary or compulsion aspects of the Principles closely against the provisions of the RDA, although some of the salient points are discussed below.

1 Section 10 of the RDA is the most appropriate section for determining whether legislative or executive acts that authorise dealings with Crown land are discriminatory.

7 Section 10 of the RDA is offended where a law purports to expropriate property held by a particular racial group for purposes additional to or on less stringent conditions (including lesser or no compensation) than those laws justifying expropriation of property held by members of the community generally.

As noted above, the government has acknowledged that one of the reasons that this blanket exemption was inserted into the legislation is to address the consequences of section 10 (3) of the RDA.

Even if the NTA were subject to the operation of the RDA, the failure of the Commonwealth to prohibit racially discriminatory laws under the NTA would not come within its purview.

The Court then found that the provision restricting access was a special measure under s8 of the RDA in that it was taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of a racial group as set out in Article 1 (4) of ICERD.

(a) Is the grant of the mining lease valid either because (i) it occurred before the RDA, (ii) it occurred after the enactment of the RDA but the RDA does not render it invalid or (iii) the RDA does render it invalid and the validation provisions of the NTA validate this otherwise invalid act?

10 Section 10 of the RDA is concerned with the equal enjoyment of human rights, not simply the enjoyment of legal rights.

The validation provisions of the NTA validate acts otherwise invalid as a result of the RDA and prescribe the effect that such discriminatory acts will have on native title.

6 The twofold effect of the RDA on discriminatory State law also applies to discriminatory Territory laws.

As previously explained [34] the only relevance of the RDA to the NTA is to determine whether and in what way the validation provisions might apply.

Section 10 of the RDA seeks to determine whether laws are discriminatory.

The effect of the RDA would be to extend the benefit conferred on other titleholders to native title holders.

1) The Commonwealth can override the protection of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) through subsequent legislation: The 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) imply a repeal of the operation of the RDA in relation to native title.

However, no such power exists in the legislation in order to restore the application of the RDA.

In all such cases, whether before or after the enactment of the RDA or the NTA, the human rights guaranteed at international law to own property alone and in association with others, to inherit property and to be immune from the arbitrary deprivation of property, are violated.

As demonstrated in Table No 2, the NTA reversed the operation of the RDA in this respect and in the case of commercial leases native title was extinguished in any case as a result of the application of the validation provisions.

Nor could section 10 of the RDA be used to challenge the validity of any laws introduced by the Northern Territory Government under the auspices of the NTER legislation.

If, as a result of this repeal, the RDA can no longer be said to be consistent with or an implementation of ICERD then the constitutional basis of the RDA under the external affairs power is put into question.

That is because inconsistency between the RDA and NTA results in an implied repeal of the RDA to the extent of the inconsistency.

The effect of the RDA is to either render these interests invalid or to require that compensation be paid to the traditional owners of the land.

Where the vesting took place after 1975 (as it did in three instances in Miriuwung Gajerrong) the vesting was not invalid by the operation of the RDA even though it was discriminatory.

Accordingly, powers unambiguously authorised by the NTA are freed from the constraints of the RDA and the standards of CERD.

In relation to extinguishment under the confirmation provisions, NTA s23J has the effect of conferring upon native title holders an entitlement to compensation only where the statutory extinguishment exceeds the extinguishment that would have occurred either at common law or where compensation would have been available by virtue of the RDA.

It appears that the remit of the RDA is wide, acting to protect substantive Indig enous rights to property, whether classed as legal or human rights.

deemed the measures contained in each Act, and any acts done under or for the purposes of those provisions, to be special measures for the purposes of the RDA

[120] In essence, the provisions stated that all of the measures introduced through the legislation were to be characterised as «beneficial» and therefore exempt from the prohibition of racial discrimination in Part II of the RDA.

[The purpose] is to limit, so far as possible, the entitlement to compensation to cases where the «act» is invalid by reason of the RDA and is subsequently validated by s14 of NTA or s8 of the State Act.

In each of these case studies, the creation of the non-Indigenous interests occurs after the enactment of the RDA (31 October 1975).

If, after the commencement of the RDA in 1975, the Crown has enacted or amended legislation, granted or varied licences, created or extinguished any interest in relation to land or waters or created a contract or trust in relation to land or waters [9] and this act discriminates against native title rights and interests under the RDA, these acts would be invalid.

The inclusion in legislation enacted in 2007 by the Australian Parliament of a provision specifically excluding the operation of the RDA is disappointing to say the least.

For example, the Commonwealth's Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation exempts the Queensland government from the operation of the RDA in the operations of the Family Responsibilities Commission.

It said the rise of digital technology had seen hate speech increase in Australia since the 1995 introduction of the RDA, and described such speech as «antithetical to ethical journalism».

The Court thought it might apply to «a post-1975 grant which, by operation of the RDA, was ineffective to extinguish native title rights and interests» [13] but did not see the non-extinguishment principle in the NTA as mandating a similar approach in the common law.