Search results

1.1 Background to this report 1.2 Compliance with human rights obligations 1.3 Conduct of visits 1.4 Overview of immigration detention facilities 1.5 Response by Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

The application of human rights principles to native title has been the subject of an ongoing dialogue taking place both nationally and internationally in the reporting period.

Part D of the paper focuses on how a paid maternity leave scheme would actually operate were it to be introduced in Australia. The emphasis, as in the rest of the paper, is on the feedback that HREOC has received through submissions and consultations. Each Chapter canvases the views that were expressed in relation to each component of a national paid maternity leave scheme.

This paper outlines major international research findings of the past ten years reflecting knowledge gathered about the psychological health of child and adolescent refugee/asylum seekers. In doing so, several key areas of consistency are identified. First, with the majority of research in this area centered on the prevalence of psychopathology, and particularly post-traumatic stress symptoms, it has been clearly demonstrated that refugee children and adolescents are vulnerable to the effects of pre-migration, most notably exposure to trauma.

This submission will focus on the current Australian immigration detention regime as it applies to minors. The regime will be examined based on data and information made available by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“DIMIA”) and supporting documentation ranging from government publications, the Flood Inquiry and testimonies given to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission “HREOC” under oath.

The prohibition on discrimination in employment is a relatively recent, but now well-established, feature of the Australian legal environment. Laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace in Australia date back to 1966 when South Australia introduced the Prohibition of Discrimination Act 1966 (SA), to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race in aspects of employment and in the provision of goods and services.[1]

On my right is Professor Trang Thomas, Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and on my left Mrs Robin Sullivan, who is also the Queensland Children's Commissioner. Before the hearing commences I would like to note the following matters. First, the issue of confidentiality and privacy. The Commission believes it is important to respect the privacy of individuals and to protect children in particular. Even where individual cases have been made public elsewhere, individual's names should not be named in this hearing.

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.

The deceased had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving while disqualified. He was placed in what the Coroner described as an enclosed cell, in which occupant vision is impossible, at around 3.00am and told he would remain there for a period of four hours.

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’ human rights.