Search results

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.

On 21 June 2007, the Australian Government announced a ‘national emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory’ from sexual abuse and family violence.[1] This has become known as the ‘NT intervention’ or the ‘Emergency Response’. The catalyst for the measures was the release of Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, titled Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: ‘Little Children are Sacred’.

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

Introduction Part A: Structure of this report Part B: Summary of findings and recommendations Part C: The complaints by Mr El Masri Part D: The Commission’s human rights inquiry and complaints function Part E: Mr El Masri’s detention from 14 November 2002 to 14 October 2005 Part F: The detention of Mr El Masri on 28 November 2006 Part G: The detention of Mr El Masri in MSU Part H: Use of force on 8 August 2005 Part I: Restrictions on Mr El Masri’s telephone calls Part J: Visits by Mr El Masri’s family Part K: Findings and recommendations Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Functions

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of an inquiry by the former President of the Commission into complaints made by immigration detainees against the Commonwealth of Australia. The former President found that the Commonwealth had breached the human rights of the complainants pursuant to articles 10(1) and 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This year the High Court will decide fundamental issues about the nature of native title and the extent to which it is protected by the common law. In hearing the appeal of the Miriuwung, Gajerrong and Balangarra peoples from the decision of the Full Federal Court in Western Australia v Ward (1) the court will be called upon to arbitrate an old dispute that has never been settled; that between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people as competing claimants for land. In this arbitration process the survival of non-Indigenous interests is assured.

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]

It has now been over two years since the federal government introduced new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs. One of the catchcries of the new arrangements is that they are aimed at ‘harnessing the mainstream.’ This is to be achieved by removing or reducing the barriers that prevent Indigenous peoples from accessing existing mainstream services on an equitable basis.

8.1 The profiles indicate a growing awareness by custodial and medical staff of issues concerning the proper treatment of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous prisoners. However, implementation of the recommendations is uneven. Some recommendations have not been implemented in any jurisdiction.

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.