Search results

On 13 February 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, on behalf of the Australian Parliament, made a historic and long overdue national Apology to the Stolen Generations. With eloquence and emotion, Prime Minister Rudd said what so many Australians have wanted to say, and what so many Indigenous peoples have needed to hear:

This is my sixth and final Native Title Report as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. This Report covers the period 1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009.

Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that a child's best interests are to be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. The Australian system, whereby the guardian of unaccompanied child asylum seekers is the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, rather than an authoritative, independent statutory body, does not ensure that the requirements of article 3(1) are met.

Recommendation 1: That the Attorney-General amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to empower HREOC to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy.

Native title was recognised by the High Court, nearly ten years ago, on 3 June 1992. The Mabo decision [1] gave recognition to the unique and profound relationship that Indigenous people have always had with their land.

During the reporting period, Australian governments continued to develop tenure reform policies for Indigenous land. Governments frequently describe these policies as a means of promoting home ownership and economic development on Indigenous land. The reality is not so simple.

Climate change has been regarded as a diabolical policy problem globally. The potential threat to the very existence of Indigenous peoples is compounded by legal and institutional barriers raise distinct challenges for our cultures, our lands and our resources.[1] More seriously, it poses a threat to the health, cultures and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples both here in Australia and around the world.

This paper contains a comparison of the policies and procedures of Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada for dealing with children as asylum seekers. This comparison reveals two main differences.

This submission draws substantially on research papers by Eileen Pittaway and Linda Bartolomei which are currently pending publication. The content of this submission may not be reproduced or quoted without the written permission of these authors.