Search results

1. INTRODUCTION 2. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS FOR MINORS OF AUSTRALIA'S MANDATORY DETENTION 3. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR UNACCOMPANIED MINORS IN DETENTION 4. ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION 5. CONCLUSION

As part of the Ismaع project, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission) investigated existing initiatives that address anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice at a local, state and federal level across Australia. We conducted research and requested information about current initiatives from seven federal government agencies, 37 state and territory government agencies (including education and police authorities), 83 local governments (mostly in areas with substantial Arab or Muslim populations) and 14 non-government and community organisations.

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2 DDA Definitions 3.2.3 DDA Complaints 3.2.4 Intervention in Court Proceedings 3.2.5 DDA Disability Standards 3.2.6 Granting by HREOC of Temporary Exemptions 3.2.7 Action Plans 3.2.8 Conduct of Inquiries by HREOC 3.2.9 Advisory Notes and Guidelines 3.3 Telecommunications Act 1997 3.4 Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 3.5 Industry Regulation 3.5.1 Australian Communications Authority 3.5.2 Australian Communications Industry Forum 3.5.3 Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Scheme

</B>The Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara and other Indigenous people of the town of Yulara, in the shadows of Uluru, had their claim for compensation for extinguishment of native title rejected by Justice Sackville in the Federal Court (the Jango case)1in 2006. The Noongar people (the Noongar case)2 had their claim for native title over the metropolitan area of Perth upheld. Further north, around Darwin, the Larrakia people (the Larrakia case)3 learned that the common law would not recognise their native title when Justice Mansfied handed down his decision.

The current mandatory detention policy of the Commonwealth of Australia breaches the fundamental principle of the rights of the child which is that children should be able to develop to their full potential. The policy breaches every article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The policy violates the right to health as established by international law.

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.

The failure in Australia to perceive native title and land rights as the basis on which to address Indigenous economic and social development has been evident at legal, policy and administrative levels. Legally, the increasingly narrow interpretation of native title by the High Court has, as Noel Pearson has pointed out, stripped native title of much economic meaning or benefit.

On 13 February 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, on behalf of the Australian Parliament, made a historic and long overdue national Apology to the Stolen Generations. With eloquence and emotion, Prime Minister Rudd said what so many Australians have wanted to say, and what so many Indigenous peoples have needed to hear:

In this Chapter I review key developments within the native title system that occurred throughout the Reporting Period (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011) and consider the impact of these events on the exercise and enjoyment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples&#8217; human rights.

In 1863 the area now known as the Northern Territory came under the control of South Australia. By 1903 the whole area was leased to non-Indigenous people. As there were few non-Indigenous women, relationships between the Indigenous women and non-Indigenous men were relatively common. The consequence was a growing population of children of mixed descent who were usually cared for by their mothers within the Aboriginal community.

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.

4.1 Introduction 4.2 Justice reinvestment in Australia five years on 4.3 Justice targets 4.4 National Justice Coalition 4.5 Conclusion and recommendations 4.1 Introduction The overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as both victims and offenders in the criminal justice system remains one of the most glaring disparities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ...

In its final recommendations, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation proposed that there be a legislative requirement for the Social Justice Commissioner to monitor progress towards reconciliation on an annual basis. In the Social Justice Report 2000 it was noted that while legislative amendment to this end was desirable, this task could be undertaken under my existing functions. Accordingly, I undertook to provide an annual evaluation of progress towards reconciliation as part of the social justice report.

Explore a report prepared for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission into the deaths in custody of Indigenous juveniles.

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Australia's human rights obligations for workers with family and carer responsibilities 3.3 Limitations of federal discrimination law 3.4 The need for law reform 3.5 Conclusion