Search results

This Annual Report identifies important milestones as well as challenges that remain in human rights protection in Australia. It provides an annual reflection on Australia’s progress in addressing commitments that the Government has made to protect human rights, as well as identifying emerging concerns. The Report is the second in a series of annual reports that are being developed in the lead up ...

Despite the significant positive developments of the past two years, the Commission remains seriously concerned about some aspects of Australian law and policy on asylum seekers, refugees and immigration detention. The Commission is primarily concerned about the prolonged or indefinite detention and lack of durable solutions or substantive visa pathways for certain groups of people in immigration detention. These include stateless persons; refugees who have received adverse security assessments; and refugees who are of interest to or have been charged by the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

In the past year Australia's compliance with international human rights obligations has been under scrutiny by United Nations human rights treaty committees through consideration of Australia's periodic reports under four treaties. [1] Much of this attention has focused on issues relating to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This chapter focuses on the dialogue between the Australian government and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Committee or the CERD), which took place in March 2000.

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).

The Australian Human Rights Commission visited the immigration detention facility in Leonora, Western Australia from 23 to 26 November 2010. This statement contains a brief overview of the key observations and concerns arising from the Commission’s visit. It focuses on conditions as they were at that time.

The recognition of native title by the High Court in 1992 was a significant development in the legal apparatus for protecting Indigenous culture. Under the concept of native title it is possible that sacred and significant sites and objects might be protected, not within the historical category of Aboriginal heritage, but as matters valued in contemporary Indigenous culture with current significance to a people whose culture is ongoing. In addition, under native title such protection could be provided, not as an act of beneficence by government, but as a matter of legal right.

1. The commission's jurisdiction 2. The complaint 3. The complainant's evidence and submissions 4. Respondent's response 5. Documentary material before the commission 6. Conciliation 7. Preliminary findings of Commissioner Sidoti 8. Response to Commissioner Sidoti's preliminary findings 9. My Further Preliminary Findings 10. Respondent's response to my Further Preliminary Findings 11. Section 21 Notice 12. Findings of fact 13. Findings on liability 14. Article 10 15. Article 9(1) 16. Recommendations

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.

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f) and 20(1) 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 (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) and GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd. I have found that acts done on behalf of the Commonwealth were contrary to the human rights of the complainant as provided for in articles 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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 ...

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 ...