Search results

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission occupies a unique place in Australian society. It sits independent of Government, yet it is not what is traditionally known as a non-government organisation (NGO) or an advocate.

There is some evidence to suggest that within the Australian community, the idea that it is unacceptable for a government to maintain an immigration detention regime which provides for the long-term incarceration of children behind razor wire, is finally the prevailing view. The actions of the government in relaxing their hard line stance on immigration detention, as far as children are concerned, are possibly the most conclusive proof of this statement.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act gives HREOC the function of inquiring into complaints concerning breaches of human rights or discrimination in employment. HREOC attempts to resolve such complaints through conciliation where appropriate. If the matter is not resolved through conciliation and the President is satisfied that a breach of human rights or an act of discrimination has occurred, the President reports on the matter to the federal Attorney-General.

Under section 46C(1)(a) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the 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).

4. Research relevant to benchmarking 5. The Commonwealth Grants Commission Report on Indigenous Funding 6. Australian Bureau of Statistics 7. Initiatives at the inter-governmental level related to benchmarking 8. The Steering Committee framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage 9. Governance and capacity building 10. Developments at State and Territory level

a) Do Indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination? b) What is Indigenous self-determination? c) Summary - Defining Indigenous self-determination

In the Social Justice Report 1999, my first report as Social Justice Commissioner, I identified four key themes and challenges that existed in the approach of the federal government to Indigenous policy making at the time. These were moving beyond welfare dependency, accountability, participation and reconciliation.[1] Since the release of that report approximately four years ago, the key themes and challenges facing the government have remained relatively constant.

The landscape of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) is under severe ecological stress. Issues such as salinity, poor water quality, stressed forests, dried wetlands, threatened native species, feral animals and noxious weeds are commonplace within the MDB. The reasons for this dramatic decline in river health are caused by water mismanagement including reversal of natural flow cycles and over allocation of water licences. Generations of bad farm practices such as deforestation have also played a major role in the ecological disaster that is the MDB.[1]

3.1 Introduction In chapters 1 and 2, I look back over the past 20 years that the Social Justice Commissioner position has been in place and think about the journey and our learning over this time. In this chapter, I want to explore how those lessons can take us forward to chart a confident course into the future and how the realisation of our rights can produce long term sustainable improvements ...

Last year I set out my priorities for my term as Social Justice Commissioner.[1] My priorities revolve around the central idea that to address the disadvantage faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and build a more reconciled nation, we need to develop stronger and deeper relationships:

This appendix provides an overview of the main events with regard to the administration of Indigenous affairs to 30 June 2006. It commences with a summary table and is followed by a detailed description of each event.

The Australian Government has signalled that economic development is a central focus for the Indigenous Affairs portfolio this term. The Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs, created in May 2004 to drive and coordinate the federal Government’s Indigenous policies,1 identified as one of three key areas2 for priority action:

Water is vital to life, essential to agriculture and a valuable energy source which may be utilised in the mitigation of climate change impacts. Water is extremely valuable globally to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and is used for many different purposes. Water is also important to both for different reasons.

In my previous two Native Title Reports, I have strongly argued the need to reform the native title system. Stakeholders from all sectors engaged in the native title system have also stressed the need for the Government to take significant steps to ensure that the system meets the original objectives set out in the preamble to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act).

In 2006 the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet made a revealing statement about Indigenous affairs. He argued that his own government’s policy performance in the Indigenous portfolio had been a failure. He went further to say that while well intentioned, the policies and approaches of the past 30 years had contributed to poor outcomes for Indigenous people.

Improving the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a longstanding challenge for governments in Australia. While there have been improvements made in some areas since the 1970s (notably in reducing high rates of infant mortality1) overall progress has been slow and inconsistent. The inequality gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians remains wide and has not been progressively reduced.