Search results

Indigenous imprisonment rates in Australia are unacceptably high. Nationally, Indigenous adults are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous people[1] and Indigenous juveniles are 28 times more likely to be placed in juvenile detention than their non-Indigenous counterparts.[2]

The year under review in this, my fourth Native Title Report, is a year in which the High Court has handed down its decision in several significant native title cases thus elucidating the principles upon which the recognition and extinguishment of native title are determined. 2002 marks the end of a ten year period since the Mabo decision [1] first introduced the dual concepts of recognising and extinguishing native title.

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.

Focused age assessment interviews can be a useful technique for assessing age. Interviews of this kind have been used in Australia in a range of different ways since late 2010.

On 13 April 2000, the Senate requested the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into all aspects of the agreement between the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth regarding the Territory’s mandatory sentencing regime; the consistency of mandatory sentencing regimes with Australia’s international human rights obligations; and Western Australia’s mandatory sentencing regime.[1]

In most cases of forcible removal government officials and agents were responsible for the removal under legislation or regulations. However, there were early cases of removal of children by missionaries without the consent of the parents. In Victoria the absence of government oversight of welfare services enabled churches and other non-government agencies to remove children from their families without any court order or other official approval.

That there be established a regular federal parliamentary committee of inquiry into the progress of the new arrangements in Indigenous affairs and progress in achieving whole-of-government service delivery to Indigenous communities.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has now completed its update of the Guideline on the Application of the Premises Standards first issued in March 2011.

The issue of Indigenous people and racism is among the most complex and divisive in Australia today. The source of this complexity and division is to be found in the history of race relations in Australia, which commenced with the illegitimate acquisition of sovereignty in 1788 under the auspices of the doctrine of terra nullius. Over successive generations policies and practices have aimed to eliminate Indigenous people, to 'smooth the pillow' of what was seen as a dying race, and later to assimilate Indigenous people within the white culture.

The President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) is responsible for the investigation and conciliation of complaints lodged under federal anti-discrimination and human rights law. Staff of HREOC’s Complaint Handling Section (CHS) assist the President to investigate and resolve complaints. The CHS also provides information to the public about the law and the complaint process through the Complaint Information Service and a range of community education and training activities.