Search results

It is a story of colonisation; the threat of losing our cultural authority to manage our societies; and the despair that has come from that disempowerment. It is a story of grief and trauma and the continued pain of living with grog, drug and violence.

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.

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’.

The twin pillars of the government's approach to Indigenous policy in 2003 continued to be practical reconciliation, with its emphasis on service delivery in core areas of disadvantage, and mutual obligation, with its emphasis on reciprocity and individual responsibility. Through both of these policies, the government has identified moving Indigenous people beyond welfare dependency and enabling Indigenous participation in program delivery and design as key features of its approach.

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of my inquiry into complaints made by Ms Susan Campbell that the human rights of her daughter were breached by the Commonwealth of Australia. I have found that acts or practices of the Commonwealth were inconsistent with or contrary to the human rights of Ms Campbell’s daughter as provided for in Article 3(1) and 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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.

COMMISSIONER OZDOWSKI: Welcome to everyone. I would like to formally open this public hearing, the first of a series of hearings to be conducted around Australia. My name is Sev Ozdowski and I am the Human Rights Commissioner of Australia, and I have with me two Assistant Commissioners; to my right Professor Trang Thomas who is Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and to my left Dr Robin Sullivan who is Queensland Commissioner for Children. I also have two counsel assisting.

10.1 Education Key findings of Review ADFA provided undergraduates with limited education about healthy and respectful relationships, issues regarding consent, the meaning and appropriateness of sexist language and behaviour, and issues regarding controlling and threatening behaviour. The 2011 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey indicated that incidents of inappropriate conduct and inappropriate ...

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of my inquiry into a complaint against the Commonwealth of Australia. I have found that the respondent failed to provide the complainant with a safe place of detention whilst she was detained at the Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre and that such failure constituted a breach of her human rights pursuant to article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I attach a report of my inquiry into complaints by Mr Huong Hai Nguyen and Mr Austin Okoye against the Commonwealth of Australia and GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd, pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

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 Terms of Reference required the Review to make recommendations on initiatives to drive cultural change at ADFA regarding the treatment of women. To properly identify these initiatives, the Review needed to assess the culture as it currently exists. Part of this process involved examining the notion of military culture generally and, more specifically, the culture for women at ADFA. The Review ...

The Terms of Reference required the Review to make recommendations on initiatives to drive cultural change at ADFA regarding the treatment of women. To properly identify these initiatives, the Review needed to assess the culture as it currently exists. Part of this process involved examining the notion of military culture generally and, more specifically, the culture for women at ADFA. The Review ...

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.