There is little understanding within Australian society of the requirement to and legitimacy of adopting special measures.

Government policy does not acknowledge the applicability to Indigenous people of the right to self-determination. In 1997 the cruel Howard government actively rejected self- determination as the basis of Indigenous policy.
Key reports which make recommendations for redressing Indigenous disadvantage, including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and Bringing them home, .....
the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, have ’NOT’  been fully implemented.
Many recommendations, particularly those concerning the application of the principle of self-determination, have been actively rejected.
The Social Justice Package, the third component of the government’s response to the Mabo decision (alongside the Native Title Act and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund), has been abandoned.
Following broad consultations with Indigenous peoples, peak Indigenous organisations had proposed that the social justice package involve measures to redress Indigenous disadvantage and to recognise the unique status of Indigenous people.
The Australian Law Reform Commission report, PathwayPathways to Justice–Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, was tabled in Parliament in March 2018.
https://t.co/eOqOtedwo6
The ALRC found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men are 14.7 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous men. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 21.2 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous women.
The ALRC was asked to consider laws and legal frameworks that contribute to the incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and inform decisions to hold or keep Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody.
Implementation of ALRC recommendations will reduce the disproportionate rate of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and improve community safety.
The recommendations:
Promote substantive equality before the law for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Promote fairer enforcement of the law and fairer application of legal frameworks;
Ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership and participation in the development and delivery of strategies and programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in contact with the criminal justice system;
Reduce recidivism through the provision of effective diversion, support and rehabilitation programs;
Make available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders alternatives to imprisonment that are appropriate to the offence and the offender’s circumstances; &
Promote justice reinvestment through redirection of resources from incarceration to prevention, rehabilitation and support, in order to reduce reoffending and the long-term economic cost of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
While the problems leading to the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in prisons are complex, they can be solved.
Law reform is an important part of that solution. Reduced incarceration, and greater support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in contact with the criminal justice system, will improve health,
social and economic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and lead to a safer society for all.

The Report represents findings from 11 months of research, 149 national consultations and more than 120 submissions.
It is critical we acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples understand the problems leading to their over-incarceration.
Facilitating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to develop and deliver appropriate strategies, initiatives, and programs are a feature of the ALRC recommendations.
Pathways to Justice is available at https://t.co/hkd8nS7hR9.

A Summary Report is also available.
https://t.co/D8VbFR8BHS
@threadreaderapp please unroll

More from Kirsti Miller

Would having the testosterone limit for transgender women at 10nmol/L (5-10 times what’s considered “typical” for women) give them a massive advantage over their cisgender opponents?


Absolutely not, is recognized an XY chromosome body is seen as unhealthy <12nmol/L or less. A XY female as they lose the ability to produce natural occurring testosterone, falls into a range of 0.4nmol/L.

Which we know too, the individual falls into menopause at 9.6nmol/L, and due to complete androgen deprivation eventually into the position of that would equate a XX female = who had had a complete hysterectomy including her gonads.

We can be assured, one this is extremely unhealthy – Moreover, and most important, we can be assured that there are no women either XX and or XY competing internationally like this.

This is not for anyone a desired state and for the participation high performance sport eventually impossible to participate longterm.

More from Society

So, as the #MegaMillions jackpot reaches a record $1.6B and #Powerball reaches $620M, here's my advice about how to spend the money in a way that will truly set you, your children and their kids up for life.

Ready?

Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/

Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/

The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth.
https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/

Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4

Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:

1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like