Search results

This submission has been prepared by staff and law students from the Southern Communities Advocacy Legal and Education Service Inc (SCALES). The students worked on this submission as part of a course offered through Murdoch University School of Law in Advanced Clinical Legal Education. This unit is conducted at the School's Law Clinic - SCALES which is also a community legal centre that provides free legal advice, information and representation to low income people living in the Kwinana, Rockingham and Mandurah areas.

The current submission recognises the need to move beyond mere critique of the status quo and focus resources on the development of viable alternatives. To be feasible any such model must satisfy the legitimate concerns of the government while upholding the fundamental right of freedom of movement.

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986 (Cth) I attach a report of my inquiry into a complaint by Ms Stacey Scheff of Justice Action on behalf of federal prisoners detained in NSW correctional centres against the State of NSW, Department of Corrective Services and the Commonwealth of Australia, Attorney-General’s Department.

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.

(a) whether the finding of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 is inconsistent with Australia's international legal obligations, in particular the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, is sustainable on the weight of informed opinion;

State, Territory and Commonwealth native title policies (1) direct the way in which governments conduct negotiations with native title claimant groups and the scope and content of the agreements they make as a result of these negotiations. Such policies may influence whether negotiations will be confined to native title rights and interests as they are legally defined, or whether they address the broader economic and social development needs of the claimant group.

The year under review in this, my fourth Native Title Report, is a year in which the High Court has handed down its decision in several significant native title cases thus elucidating the principles upon which the recognition and extinguishment of native title are determined. 2002 marks the end of a ten year period since the Mabo decision [1] first introduced the dual concepts of recognising and extinguishing native title.

This report to the Attorney-General concerns an inquiry by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") into a complaint made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("the HREOCA"). The subject of this report is a complaint of age discrimination made by Mr Andrew Hamilton who was employed by the Commonwealth in the Australian Defence Force ("the ADF").

While we note your findings, in the Department's view Mr NK has been and continues to be detained lawfully in accordance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act) and his detention has not been and is not arbitrary.

One of the major events of the period covered by this report was the handing down of the decision by the full Federal Court in the Croker Island case (1) on appeal from the decision of Justice Olney. (2) It is the major test case on the recognition of native title sea rights and represents the most authoritative statement of the law in Australia at the present time. It was a split decision and this chapter analyses the human rights implications of the different legal positions adopted by the majority and the minority decisions of the court.

This is a Report of the findings and reasons for findings made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1] (the Commission) following an inquiry conducted by the Commission. The inquiry related to a complaint by Amnesty International Australia (Amnesty) on behalf of Mr PH1, Mr PH2, Mr PH3, Mr PH4 and Mr PH5 (the asylum seekers) against the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth), Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Department).