Search results

The issue of participation of people with disability in the open workforce has been the subject of much public debate in recent months. This is largely the result of the 'Welfare to Work' package announced in the May 2005 Commonwealth Budget. However, the issue is a longstanding one, as indicated in the submissions to the Inquiry.

The resolution of the debate as to whether the extinguishment of native title by the common law and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’) is racially discriminatory, depends upon the interpretation given to its two essential components: extinguishment and discrimination. The interpretation that the High Court has given to the extinguishment provisions of the NTA and its relationship with the common law was the subject of the chapter 2. It is to the second of these components, the meaning of discrimination as it applies to the extinguishment of native title, that I now turn.

Protecting the best interests of a child is one of the most important principles of international law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in particular. This chapter focuses on whether federal law currently protects the best interests of a child being raised by lesbian or gay parents.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that around half of the 50 million displaced persons in the world are children. Around 10 million of these children are under the care of UNHCR. Approximately 100,000 separated children roam Western Europe.(1) During 1999 alone, more than 20,000 separated children applied for asylum in Western Europe, North America or Australia.(2) Of those 20,000 unaccompanied children, 46 travelled to Australia to seek asylum. In the same year a further 202 children sought asylum in Australia with their families.(3)

The strong, vibrant and committed Noongar peoples of the South West corner of Australia had their native title determination over Perth returned to square one. The Full Federal Court found that the first judge had made a number of errors in his decision and have sent the case back for consideration by a new judge, leaving the Noongar peoples uncertain about the future of their rights over the land. This is despite the Western Australian government openly acknowledging the Noongar peoples as the Traditional Owners of the land.

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]

2.1 Mandatory immigration detention It is mandatory under the Migration Act for every non-citizen who is in Australia without a valid visa to be detained, regardless of his or her individual circumstances. [24] Once detained, unlawful non-citizens must remain in detention until they are either granted a visa or removed from Australia. [25] The majority of unlawful non-citizens are detained in ...

The deceased was in the psychiatric unit at Long Bay Prison. He approached a nurse on 25 July 1989 at 2.30pm and stated he was feeling ill. She gave him advice as to the illness and provided him with medication. He later approached another nurse and said he wanted to return to his cell. The nurse checked with a prison officer and he was taken to his cell at about 3.30pm. At 4.10pm he was discovered hanging in his cell.

The deceased had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving while disqualified. He was placed in what the Coroner described as an enclosed cell, in which occupant vision is impossible, at around 3.00am and told he would remain there for a period of four hours.