Search results

On 27 July 2000, the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory Government signed an agreement for the establishment of a juvenile pre-court diversion scheme in the Northern Territory (NT). This agreement arose specifically as a response to the continued criticism of the NT’s mandatory minimum imprisonment laws and their impact on juveniles and Indigenous people. By establishing the pre-court juvenile diversionary scheme, the NT has belatedly joined most other states and territories in Australia in providing such options for dealing with juvenile offenders.

In its final recommendations, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation proposed that there be a legislative requirement for the Social Justice Commissioner to monitor progress towards reconciliation on an annual basis. In the Social Justice Report 2000 it was noted that while legislative amendment to this end was desirable, this task could be undertaken under my existing functions. Accordingly, I undertook to provide an annual evaluation of progress towards reconciliation as part of the social justice report.

The past year has been one of great contrasts. On the one hand, we have experienced the apparent harmony and healing of the walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and similar walks in other states and on the other hand, the national outpourings of grief and anger at the death of a 15-year-old boy in custody in Don Dale Detention Centre in Darwin in February.

This will be how we assess the success or otherwise of the reconciliation process in years to come. The reconciliation process has the potential to be as significant, and difficult, as the process that led to the joining together of the states into one indissoluble federation in 1901. It challenges us to adapt the structures of society in ways that ensure that first nation peoples can participate fully, be welcomed and have our cultures respected. Integral to this process is an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past and an acceptance of the need for a restructured relationship.

In the past year Australia's compliance with international human rights obligations has been under scrutiny by United Nations human rights treaty committees through consideration of Australia's periodic reports under four treaties. [1] Much of this attention has focused on issues relating to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This chapter focuses on the dialogue between the Australian government and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Committee or the CERD), which took place in March 2000.

This report identifies the necessity to adopt a human rights approach to reconciliation, as well as shortcomings in Australia's performance on human rights issues as they relate to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This chapter emphasises processes and mechanisms that enable reconciliation to be implemented within a human rights framework. It identifies crucial commitments and processes that governments must engage in to progress meaningful reconciliation in the coming years.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee conducted an inquiry this year into the federal government's implementation of recommendations made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Bringing them home. The inquiry considered proposals for the establishment of an alternative dispute resolution tribunal for members of the stolen generations; and considered the consistency of the government's response to the recommendations with the reconciliation process and the aspirations and needs of members of the stolen generations.

1) Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD): additional information to Australia's 10th, 11th and 12th periodic reports under CERD, March 2000;

1. The Committee considered the tenth, eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Australia, submitted as one document (CERD/C/335/Add.2), at its 1393rd, 1394th and 1395th meetings (CERD/C/SR.1393, 1394 and 1395), held on 21 and 22 March 2000. At its 1398th meeting, held on 24 March 2000, it adopted the following concluding observations.

Freedom Day is the name given to the annual commemoration of the Wave Hill Walk Off. The 40th anniversary of the Walk-off was held in late August 2006.

Economic development can and does happen on Indigenous land, and when the preconditions are right, Indigenous Australians can and do achieve great things on the land, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma said today following the tabling of the Native Title Report 2006.

In 2006, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner conducted a national survey of Indigenous Australians living on Indigenous land. There were 54 survey respondents, which included traditional land owners, as well as other Indigenous Australians with interests in land and land-use. The survey questions asked Indigenous respondents to identify their aspirations for their land and to identify their capacity to earn an income from the land. The survey findings are as follows:

In 2006, the Australian Government added a new section 19A to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA) to provide that (with Ministerial consent) a Land Trust may grant a 99-year headlease over an Aboriginal township to an approved entity of the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory Government.

The federal Government has made a commitment to ‘normalise’ Indigenous communities by increasing Indigenous home ownership and reducing reliance on subsidised rental accommodation.

Specific examples The Memorandum of Understanding between the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Government and the East Kimberley Regional Partnership Agreement, discussed in Chapter 3 of the report, describes a collaborative approach to support Indigenous economic development in eight trial sites across Australia.

This, my first report under s209 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA), is part of a larger project that commenced prior to my appointment as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in July 2004. The project aims to investigate how native title can be utilised to improve the economic and social conditions of Indigenous peoples' lives.

During the 2004 reporting period I have embarked on a series of consultations focusing on the ideas and principles that were contained in a Discussion Paper, released by my predecessor as Social Justice Commissioner in June 2003. The Discussion Paper was entitled Promoting Economic and Social Development through Native Title (at Annexure 1). This chapter seeks to record and develop the ideas and discussions that were generated in the consultation process. 1

The consultations with Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs) and a limited number of other stakeholder groups, discussed in detail in chapter 2, focused on the Discussion Paper issued in June 2004 entitled Promoting Economic and Social Development Through Native Title (at Annexure 1). The Discussion Paper proposed the following principles for promoting economic and social development through native title agreements:

The framework of principles presented in chapter 2 of this Report puts the economic and social development of the traditional owner group at the centre of the native title process. It seeks to build the power and capacity of the traditional owner group to direct and achieve its own economic and social development. It sees the native title system as a tool to assist traditional owners in this process. The framework also envisages that other stakeholders in the native title system will assist the group in achieving its goals.

This paper considers how the native title system might operate more effectively to assist traditional owner groups realise their goals for economic and social development. It relies on human rights principles to build a framework for economic and social development. This framework integrates ethical principles, such as equality and respect for Indigenous culture, with the economic and social factors that determine how well Indigenous people live in their communities.