http://hdl.handle.net/10453/293 Thu, 23 May 2013 10:39:45 GMT 2013-05-23T10:39:45Z http://hdl.handle.net/10453/12602 Anything Goes, Nothing Sticks: Radical Impulse and Archival Stillness Dados Nour Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10453/12602 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10453/12599 Indigenous Property Matters in Real Property Courses at Australian Universities Graham Nicole Indigenous land laws, Indigenous perspectives on Anglo Australian property law and native title are often taught as optional or even irrelevant to real property in Australian law schools. Conventional pedagogical choices in many property law courses maintain this perspective through a restrictive curriculum schedule; through the limited provision of information about these matters in course readings; by neglecting the significance of language to property law generally and specifically to the historical development of property in Australian within the context of colonisation. In so doing, many property law courses diminish the radicalism and opportunity that Indigenous land laws offer the Anglo-Australian system of rights-based property which abstracts ownership from responsibility to land and water resources. This article suggests a pedagogical approach that is more inclusive of Indigenous laws and Indigenous perspectives on the Anglo-Australian law of real property. Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10453/12599 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11863 The Disavowal of Context: Sentencing Lex Wotton Anthony Thalia Almost thirty years ago in the case of R'v Neal (1982),1 members ofthe HighCourt recognised that an Indigenous defendant's assault (swearing and spitting) on a reserve officer inYarrabah, Queensland, needed to be understood in its paternalistic aQd racist context. Two ofthe four High Courtjudges acknowledged. that racist tensio.os onreserves that provoke 'violent' crimes against non-Indigenous officers can be factors that reduce the offender's criminal sentence; because they reduce the culpability of the Indigenous offender. Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11863 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10543 Daniels v The Attorney-General:children with special needs and the right to education in New Zealand Varnham Sally The nature of the right to education and the extentto which it is judicially enforceable has recently been atissue before the New Zealand High Court and the Court of Appeal, in the case of Daniels v. Ihe Attorney-General' In Septemberrooo a parent ofLinda Daniels, a child with special educational needs, applied to the High Court for judicial review ofthe special education policy known as Special Education 2000 (SE2000) which had been introduced in 1998 by the then Minister of Education In the period before the hearing in the High Court in December 2 001 the plaintiffwas joined by 14 other parents of children with special educational needs. Essentially the plaintiffs wanted their children to have the choice of attending special education facilities where mainstreaming was.inappropriate or ineffective The plaintiffs alleged that the policy of SE2000, pursuantto which these facilities were disestablished, infringed the right to equal education ofchildren with special educational needs as provided by the Education Act 1989 (NZ) Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10543 2004-01-01T00:00:00Z