Complaints

Annual Report 2002-2003: Chapter 4

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Annual Report 2002 - 2003

Chapter 4: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner

Dr William Jonas AMDr William Jonas AM was appointed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in April 1999. He is also the acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, a position held since September 1999.

Statement from the Commissioner

January 2003 marked the tenth anniversary of the creation of the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. There have been many achievements in these 10 years, and many significant challenges which remain or which have emerged over the period.

The position of Social Justice Commissioner was created by the Australian Parliament at a time of great upheaval for Indigenous people. In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and HREOC’s National Inquiry into Racist Violence had both identified significant human rights concerns about the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Both reports highlighted the necessity for an ongoing independent monitoring mechanism for the human rights situation of Indigenous peoples. The government at the time explained that the position was created to provide an annual state-of-the-nation report and provide a national and independent perspective on the extent of the disadvantage and the action that needs to be taken.

Looking back on these 10 years, we can see great advances in the level of awareness and acceptance of Indigenous issues and in recognition of Indigenous peoples’ unique position as the first peoples of this land. This acceptance, however, remains contested and is by no means universal.

It is also a simple statement of fact that there has been inadequate progress in addressing Indigenous disadvantage over the past decade and worrying signs that the situation may regress in relation to significant issues. For example, life expectancy has begun to decline for Indigenous people in Australia and still exists at levels comparable to the rate for non-Indigenous Australians in the year 1900. Incarceration rates and rates of over-representation in custody for Indigenous peoples have increased since the Royal Commission over 10 years ago. The deteriorating situation of contact of Indigenous women with criminal justice processes, and the clear connections between incarceration and substance abuse, is particularly worrying in this regard. There has also been limited improvement in health statistics over the past decade.

These factors, and the limited progress achieved through the constrained native title system, have led me to express major concerns in the annual social justice and native title reports to federal Parliament. These concerns have been heard by the Parliament, with the Senate following up the recommendations of my Social Justice Report 2001 about the reconciliation process by establishing an Inquiry into national progress towards reconciliation. The terms of reference of the Inquiry include examining the response of the Government to the recommendations of the 2000 and 2001 Social Justice Reports.

My focus over the past year has been on three main areas: promoting an understanding of the applicability of human rights to setting targets and benchmarks for addressing the inequality faced by Indigenous peoples; promoting the recognition of Indigenous cultural identity as the bedrock for progressing Indigenous issues; and assisting in the development of Indigenous community capacity to articulate and protect the human rights of Indigenous people.

There have been significant developments in the past year in putting into place processes for reporting on the extent of marginalisation faced by Indigenous peoples, and on progress in addressing it. To date, these developments have not led to the establishment of concrete goals and targets for government achievement on Indigenous issues. As a result, we don’t know what the government’s vision is for what Indigenous communities should look like in five, 10 or 20 years and of what they consider would be an acceptable level of achievement and improvement in living conditions.

The current approach is missing a critical, evaluative component. Human rights standards are capable of addressing this deficiency and so I have focused on promoting an understanding of the importance of human rights obligations in this regard. I convened a workshop on benchmarking reconciliation from a human rights perspective in October 2002 to this end. It was a successful workshop, which illustrated the complexity and difficulty of the issues faced. Follow up workshops on specific issues have been planned for during the course of the coming year. I have also been heartened by the interest of various parliamentary committees, such as the committee inquiring into national progress towards reconciliation, on this issue during the year.

I have also focused on approaches for recognising Indigenous cultural identity as the bedrock for progressing Indigenous issues. This is an issue that underlies the analysis in my Native Title Report each year. I have also looked at this issue in the context of building Indigenous community capacity to be self-determining and in recognising Aboriginal Customary Law (particularly in a community development and criminal justice context).

I have engaged in a number of processes during the year relating to mining and resource exploitation and the recognition of Indigenous identity. In particular, I have promoted discussion of corporate responsibility in the mining industry and have emphasized the point that mining and the recognition of Indigenous human rights and identity are not antagonistic, but should be seen as able to co-exist and form the basis of strong partnerships. During the year I launched a series of principles to guide resource development on Indigenous land, based on human rights standards. The extensive interest and support for these principles has been encouraging.

Finally, I have focused on processes for assisting in the development of Indigenous community capacity to articulate and protect the human rights of Indigenous people. During the year, I completed an ambitious training program for Indigenous workers in criminal justice related areas. The National Indigenous Legal Advocacy Courses were accredited by the Queensland Training Accreditation Council on 30 June 2002 and are now available to be taught nationally. The courses replace the National Indigenous Legal Studies Curriculum, previously developed by the Commission. The courses are designed to assist Indigenous people involved in areas as diverse as community justice panels, night patrols and community justice initiatives, to government agencies to Indigenous legal services. The commitment and dedication of representatives of legal services, educators, government agencies and others to developing the courses, and the enthusiasm for implementing them nationally leaves me optimistic that the courses will form a valuable contribution to capacity building and skills development for Indigenous communities.

There remains much work to be done. Indigenous peoples’ human rights continue to face grave challenges. There is also a high degree of uncertainty about processes currently underway reviewing fundamental aspects of the relationship of the federal Government with Indigenous peoples (such as the review of ATSIC; the creation of the interim agency, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services; and mainstreaming of Indigenous service delivery).

The coming year will see a continued focus on these issues by my office. And it will see a continued focus on providing the national and independent perspective on government progress and the action that needs to be taken to fully protect Indigenous peoples’ human rights that is so patently needed, as much as it was 10 years ago when the Social Justice Commissioner’s position was first established.

Monitoring and reporting

Social Justice Report 2002

Social Justice Report 2002

Under section 46C(1)(a) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is required annually to submit a report to the Attorney-General on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights by Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders (the Social Justice Report).

 

The Social Justice Report 2002 is the fourth by Commissioner Jonas. It was transmitted to the Attorney-General on 24 December 2002, and tabled in Parliament on 19 March 2003.

The report commends the following positive developments in Indigenous policy over the reporting year:

  • the commitment of governments at all levels to partnerships with Indigenous peoples, including through statements of commitment to negotiate service delivery arrangements with Indigenous organisations and commitments to negotiate justice agreements
  • the commitment of the federal Government to principles for the equitable provision of services to Indigenous peoples as part of its response to the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s report on Indigenous funding
  • recognition by governments of the central importance of capacity building of Indigenous communities and of supporting and developing Indigenous governance structures
  • the commitment of the Council of Australian Governments to processes for addressing Indigenous disadvantage, including: the establishment of a framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage; the formulation of action plans at the inter-governmental level in specific areas, and; a trial in 10 communities of a whole-of-government approach to service delivery, and
  • support of the federal Government at the international level to the effective operation of the newly-created UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Overall, however, the report finds that the past year has been another difficult one for Indigenous peoples:

In trying to provide a snapshot of the status of Indigenous policy making and achievements by governments over the past year, it is difficult to see any consistent forward trend. There have been marginal improvements in some statistical indicators, but deterioration in others. The policy approaches of governments are ultimately full of inconsistencies, ad hoc developments, and commitments that not only remain unmet but which are not adequately supported by institutional developments.

The report identifies two particularly worrying trends that have been confirmed over the past year at the federal level. The first is a continuation of the antagonistic and adversarial approach to Indigenous policy by the federal Government:

Substantial bi-partisan support for reconciliation and directions in Indigenous policy has been undermined by the limited focus of the government. Those areas on which there is common ground are relatively few – and basically relate to agreement on the need to overcome Indigenous disadvantage – and there is even less agreement on what are the best ways to address such issues.

The second worrying trend is the relegation of Indigenous issues to a second tier issue for the government. While reconciliation was a priority for the second term of the government, it does not even rate a mention in recent announcements of the government’s strategic long term vision for Australian society:

Indigenous issues are not treated as a national priority, and there are no public commitments to timeframes for achieving results in areas on which there is substantial agreement – such as Indigenous disadvantage.

The report notes that at the state and territory levels there is much goodwill being expressed with extensive commitments to partnerships with Indigenous peoples. These partnerships remain works in progress and it is unfortunate that they have not yet been accompanied by the necessary institutional support or action.

The one true highlight of the past year, as identified in the report, has been the demonstration through a range of processes that Indigenous peoples are not going to sit back and wait for governments’ to solve the various problems faced in communities and are actively working for their own solutions.

Chapter 2 – ‘Self-determination: the freedom to live well’ – examines the core principles which underpin the federal Government’s approach to Indigenous affairs. Since 1998, the Government has openly rejected self-determination as the basis of policy formulation. This chapter provides an overview of international developments on Indigenous self-determination and compares this to the way the Government explains its policy approach in order to identify its limitations and considers options for reform.

Chapter 3 – ‘National progress towards reconciliation in 2002 – an equitable partnership?’ – provides a progress report on reconciliation over the past year. It notes developments at the inter-governmental level, the federal Government’s responses to the documents of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the government’s agenda for reconciliation. Ultimately it questions the basis on which the Government seeks to engage with Indigenous peoples, and the lack of equality in the partnerships that it seeks to enter.

Chapter 4 – ‘Measuring Indigenous disadvantage’ – provides a detailed analysis of current approaches to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. It draws on significant international developments in countering poverty and economic marginalisation, as well as international human rights standards. The chapter also considers in-depth the framework for measuring Indigenous disadvantage that is currently being prepared for the Council of Australian Governments. There are some clear contrasts between the limiting framework of practical reconciliation and the more focused and accountable approach based on international guidance and standards.

Chapter 5 – ‘Indigenous women and the criminal justice system – A landscape of risk’ – focuses on Indigenous women and their experiences of contact with criminal justice processes. This chapter paints a disturbing picture of the lack of support provided to Indigenous women in many areas of society and its consequent impact through criminalisation. The lack of attention to these issues by policy makers to date is a matter of great shame.

Chapter 6 – ‘International developments in the recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples’ – notes the extensive developments in the recognition of Indigenous rights at the international level. These are considered within two main contexts – the current review taking place within the United Nations of all the existing mechanisms at the UN dealing with Indigenous issues; and the International Decade for the World’s Indigenous Peoples, which is now in its final two years. This review illustrates how Australia has moved towards the most conservative end of the spectrum in addressing Indigenous rights.

The report then concludes with an appendix which summarises partnerships and agreements that have been entered into between Indigenous peoples and state or territory Governments in recent years.

The report, an executive summary and media pack for the release of the report can be accessed from the Commission’s website at www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sjreport_02/

Native Title Report 2002

Native Title Report 2002Under section 209 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), the Commissioner is required annually to submit to the Attorney-General a report on the operation of the Native Title Act and the effect of the Act on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.

The Native Title Report 2002 is the fourth by Commissioner Jonas, and was transmitted to the Attorney-General on 21 January 2003 and tabled in Parliament on 19 March 2003.

The report considers developments in the law of native title as a result of the High Court decisions of Yarmirr, Miriuwung Gajerrong, Wilson v Anderson and Yorta Yorta. These decisions clarify the law with respect to the principles of recognition and extinguishment of native title. The report evaluates these principles against the human rights standards to which Australia is committed under international law. Such an evaluation reveals fundamental shortcomings within the native title system. Reform is necessary to ensure that the law of native title is consistent with international law and while this can occur through legislative amendment at the state or federal level, other approaches, such as agreements, are discussed as providing a means by which Indigenous rights and interests can be recognised and protected.

Chapter 1 – Recognition of Native Title – analyses the principles elaborated in the High Court decisions in Yarmirr, Miriuwung Gajerrong and Yorta Yorta by which the law of native title gives recognition to traditional owners of land. Emerging from these decisions is a concept of recognition as not simply the law providing a vehicle for Indigenous people to enjoy their culture and property rights, but rather one where the law becomes a barrier to their enjoyment and protection. The recent Federal Court decision in De Rose also demonstrates this trend towards limiting the recognition of Indigenous relationships to land. These decisions are inconsistent with international law, which requires a state to maintain and protect Indigenous culture, to ensure racial equality and to ensure the effective participation of Indigenous people in decisions that affect them.

Chapter 2 – Extinguishment of Native Title – analyses the law in relation to the extinguishment of native title as clarified in the High Court’s decisions in Miriuwung Gajerrong and Wilson v Anderson. In those decisions the Court made it clear that the primary source for determining the extinguishment of native title is the Native Title Act. Native title is extinguished either completely or partially wherever an inconsistency arises between the enjoyment of rights to land created by the non-Indigenous legal system and the enjoyment of rights over land created by the traditional laws and customs.

Chapter 3 – Discrimination and Native Title – examines the way in which the High Court applies the Racial Discrimination Act to the creation of tenures after 1975 and its effect on native title rights. The High Court made it clear in the Miriuwung Gajerrong decision that extinguishment of native title, whereby pre-existing Indigenous interests give way to newly created non-Indigenous interests, is discriminatory. The report concludes that, applying the High Court’s own analysis, the extinguishment of native title, both under the Native Title Act and at common law, is not only discriminatory at international law but fails to meet the standards of equality under domestic law.

The Commonwealth has the legislative capacity to limit the extent to which extinguishment affects Indigenous interests in land and to ensure compliance with international and domestic standards of equality, recognition and respect for Indigenous cultural identity and non-discrimination. These standards can be applied to both recognition and extinguishment of native title.

Chapter 4 – Implications of Miriuwung Gajerrong and Wilson v Anderson – considers the implications of the High Court decisions in Miriuwung Gajerrong and Wilson v Anderson. These cases result in the extinguishment of native title over a significant area of land. In New South Wales, the finding that perpetual grazing leases completely extinguish native title will affect 15 out of the 20 native title applications lodged in the Western Division. In Western Australia, where eight percent of the state is held within the conservation estate, the extinguishment of native title on nature reserves will affect many Indigenous people. Such findings undermine the exercise and enjoyment of culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and seriously inhibit the exercise of rights of self determination and effective participation in relation to traditional country. The finding in these cases invites a policy response. In consideration of these issues, the 2002 Native Title Report offers a policy framework, supported by key human rights standards, that may assist state Governments and Aboriginal groups in achieving a just and appropriate resolution of this finding.

Chapter 5 – Native Title: the way forward – proposes ways of addressing the shortcomings in the native title system. The clarification of the principles of recognition and extinguishment of native title by the High Court marks the end of the developmental phase of native title law. The 2002 Native Title Report finds that the law fails to meet the human rights standards required at international law. It is thus appropriate that a process of re-evaluation takes place at the political level.

From a human rights perspective there are two factors which must direct the reform of the native title system. First, all decisions affecting native title must be taken with the free and informed consent of Indigenous people. This requires the establishment of a process for the effective participation of Indigenous people as part of the broader reform process. Where the capacity of Indigenous people to participate is hampered, either through limited resources or limited decision-making structures, provision must be made to address these deficiencies to enable genuine negotiation to take place. Second, the benchmarks for reform must be the human rights of Indigenous people.

The chief mechanism by which the Native Title Act effects both the protection of native title and its extinguishment is through prescribing what state and territory laws are valid and the conditions and effect of their validity. State and territory governments are then authorised to enact legislation which extinguishes native title in accordance with the Native Title Act. Thus there are two legislative tiers by which the extinguishment of native title takes place: first at the level of Commonwealth legislation and the nature of the authority that this legislation gives to state and territory Governments; and second at the level of state and territory legislation and the enactment of legislation that extinguishes native title. There is a third tier by which the extinguishment of native title may take place – through agreements between stakeholders. These three tiers need to be addressed in any reform process.

An executive summary, the full report and a media pack for the release of the report can be accessed from the Commission’s website at https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice

Promoting awareness and discussion of human rights issues

The Social Justice Commissioner is required under section 46C(1)(b) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to promote discussion and awareness of human rights in relation to Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders.

Benchmarking reconciliation and human rights workshop

The Commissioner convened a workshop on 28–29 November 2002 on human rights approaches to benchmarking reconciliation. The workshop sought to apply human rights principles (relating primarily to economic, social and cultural rights) to domestic policy formulation in relation to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. It particularly sought to respond to the draft framework for measuring Indigenous disadvantage being prepared for the Council of Australian Governments by the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth State Relations.

The workshop was attended by representatives from the Productivity Commission, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Commonwealth Grants Commission, Department of Education, Science and Technology, Centrelink, as well as academics and representatives of NGOs.

An edited version of the workshop documents were included in the Social Justice Report 2002 (Chapter 4 – Measuring Indigenous disadvantage). The issues paper prepared for the workshop and report of the workshop are available from the Commission’s website at www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/benchmarking/report.html.

A follow-up workshop on benchmarking health and human rights has been organized for September 2003 in partnership with the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Perth.

Mining Certification Evaluation Project

The Commissioner is participating in a project coordinated by the World Wildlife Fund, aimed at developing auditable performance standards in relation to social and environmental aspects of mine sites. These standards would form the basis for conducting an independent audit of mine sites based on the notion of sustainability, human rights and corporate responsibility. The project utilises multi-stakeholder processes to determine whether criteria can be developed with the consensus of a broad range of stakeholders including industry, government, unions, human rights organisations, non-government organisations, and academics.

The recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law

The Commissioner made a submission to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee inquiry into the recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law in May 2003. The submission contains:

  • an overview of recent developments in Indigenous policy which are relevant to Aboriginal Customary Law and which provide guidance as to how Aboriginal Customary Law might appropriately be recognised
  • relevant human rights principles for determining the circumstances in which Aboriginal Customary Law should be recognised formally or informally
  • considerations for recognising Aboriginal Customary Law in a manner that protects the rights of Aboriginal women
  • the relevance of building Aboriginal community capacity and supporting Indigenous governance mechanisms in order to recognise, strengthen and provide support to Aboriginal Customary Law, particularly within the context of criminal justice and family violence issues
  • case studies of capacity building and recognising Customary Law, and
  • recommendations for advancing formal and informal recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law in the Northern Territory.

The submission is available from the Commission’s website at: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/customary_law/
nt_lawreform.html

Inquiry into national progress towards reconciliation

Recommendations 11 and 12 of the Social Justice Report 2001 recommended that:

  • the government formally respond to the annual Social Justice Report each year in Parliament (within 15 sitting days of tabling)
  • the Senate to raise a motion of inquiry into matters raised in the annual Social Justice Report if the government does not provide a formal response within 15 sitting days of the report’s tabling, and
  • the Senate to establish an inquiry into national progress towards reconciliation in light of the Social Justice Commissioner’s concerns about the inadequate response of the government to the Social Justice Report 2000 and to the documents of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

On 26 August, the 15th sitting day since the Social Justice Report 2001 was tabled in Parliament, Senator Ridgeway moved a motion which was passed for the establishment of an Inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into national progress towards reconciliation. The terms of reference for the inquiry included examining the adequacy of the response of the government to the matters raised in the Social Justice Report 2000 and Social Justice Report 2001 relating to reconciliation.

On 25 November 2002, the Commissioner made a submission to the Committee. The submission outlined a human rights framework for reconciliation and to ensure government accountability, and a national progress report on reconciliation.

On 4 April 2003, the Commissioner appeared before a public hearing of the Committee in Sydney. The Committee’s report will be tabled in the Senate in August 2003. The Commissioner’s submission is available online from: www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/reconciliation/
submissions/sublist.htm

Inquiry into capacity building in Indigenous communities

On 4 October 2002, the Commissioner made a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Inquiry into capacity building in Indigenous communities. The submission outlined a human rights framework for supporting Indigenous community capacity building and supporting Indigenous governance mechanisms.

The Commissioner appeared before the Committee at a public hearing in Redfern on 8 April 2003. The Commissioner’s submission is available online at: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/indigenouscommunities/
subslist.htm

Inquiry into Impediments to Resource Exploration

On 16 July, the Commissioner made a submission to the Federal Standing Committee on Industry and Resources Inquiry into Impediments into Resource Exploration. The Commissioner also appeared before that Committee on 19 June.

The submission proposes that economic development and human rights are not necessarily antagonistic and that increasingly the market is requiring companies to adopt sustainable and responsible policies to resource development. This means that the human rights of Indigenous people must become an integral part of the economic development of a region, including development of mineral resources.

International activities

Section 46C(3) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 states that in the performance of the Commissioner’s functions, the Social Justice Commissioner may consult with international organizations and agencies, particularly international Indigenous organisations.

In accordance with these provisions, Commissioner Jonas visited Canada and New York in May 2003. The Commissioner attended the second session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York in May 2003. The Commissioner made three interventions in the forum under the themes of economic and social development, environment and human rights. The interventions highlighted issues of human rights significance in the Forum’s interaction with United Nations agencies and setting out key considerations for how the forum should operate from an Australian Indigenous perspective. Information about the permanent forum is available at: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/internat_develop.html.

Commissioner Jonas also met with Indigenous organisations and government agencies in British Columbia, Ontario and Ottawa in May 2003 to discuss Canadian developments on issues relating to Aboriginal community governance, Aboriginal title, treaty making processes and responding to the impact of residential schools.

In March 2003, Commissioner Jonas represented the President of the Commission at an international conference on Indigenous Peoples’ rights at Soochow University, Taipei and met with Indigenous organisations. The Commissioner also met with the Hong Kong Human Rights Commission.

In December 2002, the Commissioner made a submission to the United Nations on the review of human rights mechanisms relating to Indigenous issues. The submission noted the under-funding of Indigenous issues at the international level and supported the continued existence of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. An edited version of the submission was included as Chapter 6 in the Social Justice Report 2002.

In November 2002, the Commissioner submitted a working paper for consideration at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Working Paper on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The focus of the paper was the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. The paper is available online at: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/international_docs/
self_determination.htm

An International Indigenous issues section has been maintained as part of the Social Justice Commissioner’s website during the past year. The website provides simple access to relevant United Nations documents on Indigenous issues and international scrutiny of Australia’s Indigenous affairs policies. The site is accessible at: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/internat_develop.html

Research and educational programs

Under section 46C(1)(c), the Social Justice Commissioner is required to undertake research and educational programs for the purposes of promoting respect for, and enjoyment and exercise of, human rights by Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders.

Principles to Guide Resource Development on Indigenous Land

On 30 May the Commissioner launched a joint publication with Griffith University entitled Development and Indigenous Land: A Human Rights Approach. The publication is a booklet comprising principles that were developed by a forum of Indigenous people held in Alice Springs in May 2002 concerning resource development on Indigenous land. The principles are based on the human rights of Indigenous people.

The principles address issues such as recognition and respect, Indigenous involvement in environmental management, cultural heritage protection, and the need for developers to respect the integrity of Indigenous decision-making processes. A central requirement is that developers obtain the prior informed consent of Indigenous communities affected by any development proposal. A copy of the principles can be accessed from the Commissioner’s website at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/corporate-responsibility

National Indigenous Legal Advocacy Courses

On 30 June 2003, the Queensland Training Recognition Council accredited the National Indigenous Legal Advocacy Courses until 29 June 2008.

The National Indigenous Legal Advocacy Courses (NILAC) are a series of nationally-accredited training courses which aim to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with the competency and skills to work in a legal environment and to understand their human rights.They were developed in response to Recommendation 212 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and are designed to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples with an interest in criminal justice issues.

The NILAC replaces the National Indigenous Legal Studies Curriculum, which had previously been developed by the Commission and which was reviewed in order that it met revised national accreditation standards.

Three qualifications can be offered to students who enrol in institutions licensed to deliver the courses:

1. Certificate III in National Indigenous Legal Advocacy: This provides students with competency in general office and administrative duties in a legal environment.

2. Certificate IV in National Indigenous Legal Advocacy: This provides students with the skills to work as Indigenous Legal Advocates or as Field Officers in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services.

3. Diploma of National Indigenous Legal Advocacy: This provides students with skills in office administration and management, and detailed knowledge of legal matters necessary to work as a Senior Field Officer or Senior Indigenous Legal Advocate in a law-related workplace.

The courses have been developed for the vocational training sector. They can be offered by Institutes of TAFE and Indigenous community-controlled education organisations.

Education providers must obtain a licence from the Commission to deliver the courses, or individual units of competency within the courses.

The NILAC training courses were developed by the Indigenous Studies Product Development Unit of TAFE Queensland on behalf of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. Development of the courses was funded by the Commission with assistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ($50 000 grant in 2002–03) and the Australian National Training Authority ($10 000 towards a mapping exercise in 1999).

The development of the NILAC was overseen by a Curriculum Development Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of government, industry, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, representatives of anti-discrimination, equal opportunity and human rights commissions, educators and National Indigenous Studies Curriculum course graduates.

The courses will be reviewed after 12 months in order to make any necessary changes to the course structure and content.

Information about the courses, including course overviews, licensing processes for intending training providers and a list of registered trainers is available online at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/projects/nilac-national-indigenous

Speeches

A selection of public addresses made by, or on behalf of, Commissioner Jonas during 2002–03 are listed below and are available online at www.humanrights.gov.au/speeches/social_justice/

Family violence in Indigenous communities – breaking the silence?, University of New South Wales Law Journal Forum, HREOC, Sydney, 25 July 2002.

Recognising Aboriginal sovereignty – implications for the treaty process, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, National Treaty Conference, Canberra, 27 August 2002.

Native Title and the Treaty Dialogue, HREOC and International Law Association treaty seminar, Sydney, 10 September 2002.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Ten Years On: The Ongoing Role of Government, Victorian Aboriginal Justice Forum, Melbourne, 20 September 2002.

Restoring identity – achieving justice for the stolen generations, launch of Public Interest Advocacy Centre report, Sydney, 27 September 2002.

Launch – Black Lives Government Lies, Brisbane, 12 February 2003

Indigenous Employment and Family Violence in Australia – Issues and Initiatives, Soochow University Taipei, Taiwan, 5 March 2003.

Geography and Human Rights, Geography’s New Frontiers Conference, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 22 March 2003.

Development and Indigenous Land: A Human Rights Approach, launch of HREOC/Griffith University publication on corporate responsibility, Sydney, 30 May 2003.

Social Justice The Native Title, Native Title Representative Bodies Conference, Alice Springs, 4 June 2003.