Search results

One of the underlying goals of international and Australian laws relating to children with disabilities is to provide the highest possible level of support and assistance in the least restrictive way. Laws, policies and programs should be designed to ensure that children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate, to the maximum extent possible, in all aspects of the general community.

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).

Indigenous imprisonment rates in Australia are unacceptably high. Nationally, Indigenous adults are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous people[1] and Indigenous juveniles are 28 times more likely to be placed in juvenile detention than their non-Indigenous counterparts.[2]

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.

Human rights principles require that Indigenous people's relationships to land, based on traditional laws and customs, be given legal recognition and protection. International legal principles also recognise that Indigenous peoples have economic, social and cultural human rights. Native title, as it is constructed through the Australian legal system, has a limited capacity to meet these human rights standards.

The interim paper, Valuing Parenthood: Options for paid maternity leave set out an extensive range of objectives that paid maternity leave could meet. [242] Many of these objectives were dependent on the structure of the scheme that was implemented.

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 ...

DR OZDOWSKI: It is 9.30 so we will start another day off, formal hearings. My name is Dr Sev Ozdowski and I'm the Human Rights Commissioner. To my right is Dr Trang Thomas, Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and to my left Mrs Robin Sullivan, Queensland's Children's Commissioner. Both of them do assist me with the Inquiry as Assistant Commissioners. Also, on my left Ms Vanessa Lesnie who is Secretary to the Inquiry.

I have completed my report of an inquiry into the complaint made pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) by Mr Parvis Yousefi, Mrs Mehrnoosh Yousefi and Manoochehr Yousefi.