Search results

</B>While the native title system is able to deliver social and cultural outcomes through determinations of native title, Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) are one of the only ways in which native title holders can pursue economic development.

This timeline focuses on one particular aspect of the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families. This material identifies some significant laws and practices that made removal lawful and includes writing and artwork from members of the Stolen Generations and their families which illustrate their experiences of these policies. This section uses as its primary resource Bringing them home, the report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.

In my role as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner I am required to produce two annual reports on Indigenous human rights issues – the Social Justice Report and the Native Title Report.

The need for a long-term approach and bipartisan support across the political divide [for addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage] was stressed by those attending consultations across Australia and in the hundreds of written submissions to the review. First Australians and those working with them are rightly cynical about new government reform and how long it will last. The ...

Imagine the sea rising around you as your country literally disappears beneath your feet, where the food you grow and the water you drink is being destroyed by salt, and your last chance is to seek refuge in other lands...[1]

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.

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.

In accordance with its supervisory responsibilities and Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) on its national inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.

It is simple to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in laws conferring financial and work-related benefits: amend the definitions describing a couple to include same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

...the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner report on the operation of the [NTA] and its effect on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.

The High Court's decisions in Yarmirr [1], Miriuwung Gajerrong [2], Wilson v Anderson [3] and Yorta Yorta [4] clarify the law with respect to the recognition and extinguishment of native title. The consequences of the law of native title for Indigenous people are now starkly apparent. It is thus timely that the 2002 Native Title Report evaluates these principles against the human rights standards to which Australia is committed under international law. Such an evaluation reveals fundamental shortcomings within the native title system.