It was my duty to save him”. Ali sold his Toyota truck to pay the Kabul-based people smuggler $14000 to get Akbar to Australia. Akbar slipped past the border into Pakistan and took a flight to Jakarta. On an overcrowded fishing boat his attempt to reach Australia went horribly wrong. The boat broke down and began to sink.
As a new society, with everything needing to be built from scratch, there was a lot of opportunity in Australia to ‘do well’. Australian workers were in a good position because there was a shortage of
A lawyer, who is one of the attendees, suggested claiming land rights through the court system as a test case. Eddie Mabo was chosen as a leader by the Murray Islanders to challenge the legal rights of the land in the High Court. However the court decided on the case that Eddie Mabo had no rights to succeed the land. Eddie Mabo was overwhelmed, but he kept on trying all legal procedure and he appealed it to the High Court of Australia. In January 1992, when he was only fifty-six years of age, he died of cancer.
c) I don’t believe my organization complies with all of the requirements because I don’t work so this does not apply. d) No one is responsible in my organization to make sure these compliance laws are met because once again I do not work so this does not apply. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): a) It is important because it helps everyone out in a time of need and also keeps personal information safe from the public unless authorized. b) It impacts your IT environment because it lets everyone know what is supposed to be private or what how they are protected in a time of need. c) I don’t believe my organization complies with all of the requirements because I don’t work so this does not apply.
Moreover, Horatio has no evidence that the HR department treated him in a negative manner and he will not win. If Horatio stays, with the company, the other employees will be overworked therefore, there is no time to train a person with no knowledge or education in HR. Horatio has the burden to prove that in the Title VII complaint, prima facie case of racial discrimination was the reason for
Australian Citizenship Fatima Ali, 19 March, 2012 Allison Holland’s reading discusses Australia’s history mainly from federation onwards, and the events that shaped the definition of Australian citizenship. Holland argues that citizenship has been ill-defined and in the past used to exclude others, namely Indigenous Australian’s, women and non Anglo-Celtic people. Although they were regarded as British subjects, Aboriginals did not obtain Australian citizenship after federation in 1901. They could not obtain any benefits from the government, had no voting rights and were not counted in the national census, thus excluding them as part of the population. It wasn’t unlit 1948 that Aboriginals were awarded citizenship, however did not gain
We, the imprisoned asylum seekers of Australia, respectfully appeal to the people of the world to hear our story, understand our plight and emanate to our assistance. We left our homes because we had no choice but to flee from brutal, dictatorial regimes and deprived human rights. We believed we would receive a fair hearing in Australia, but our pleas of asylum have been unjustly refused. We have been detained in detention for a very long time, many of us for more than three years and our situations show no sign of changing. The only solution we are offered by the Australian government is to return to the persecution we once fled.
The interoperability was never put into place for reasons that can only be speculated on. There are assumptions that Grant Holcomb the architect of the proposed system had a conflict of interest that may have profited him. There are also allegations that Greg Meffert, Nagin's chief technology officer, stated that the technology wouldn't work. Many controversial issues of being unethical by several parties involved in this system caused a delay that unfortunately wasn’t in play for Katrina. Interoperability is dangerous to the concept of Federalism because although New Orleans was granted money to fund the system by the national government, at the state level, it was never implemented.
‘Australia does not need a Bill of Rights, whether constitutionally entrenched or by ordinary statute. Such a Bill would reduce parliamentary sovereignty, politicise the judiciary, increase the costs of the legal system, complicate human rights protections and constitutional arrangements and encourage trivial and vexatious complaints. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence that such a Bill would significantly enhance Australia’s human rights protection given Australia’s good record on human rights protection, particularly when compared internationally and given Australia’s commitment to parliamentary democracy.’ Regrettably many of the premises in this argument, however sound they may seem, do not hold up when examined. Australia has been regrettably seen as a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to the issues of human rights On one hand it championed and was given responsibility in 1948 to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has since been a leading member of the UN in adopting their Treaties. However the most recent period since September 11 2001, legislative and executive practice, has seen the erosion of human rights in Australia.
Australia stands alone internationally in perpetrating this injustice. The Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) excludes asylum seekers from their legal rights. It grants the Court the ability to deliver judgment on any issue, including the case as a whole, if they believe it has no reasonable grounds for success. This may seem reasonable, however the definition of ‘no reasonable grounds for success’ is as follows: For the purposes of [these sections], a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be: (a) hopeless; or (b) bound to fail; for it to have no reasonable prospect of