Search results

back to contents Chapter 5: Addressing family violence in Indigenous communities There is no issue currently causing more destruction to the fabric of Indigenous communities than family violence. This has been acknowledged by all levels of government in recent years, with a number of significant inquiries and initiatives undertaken or commenced at the federal, state and territory level to address its impact. The intensive scrutiny and public awareness of this issue has not, however, led to sufficient commitments of resources and effort to date.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, agreement-making can be an expression of free, prior and informed consent and the beginning of cooperative relationships with governments and other parties.

The circumstances of Indigenous peoples were virtually invisible at the United Nations approximately thirty years ago. Very little attention had been devoted to their situation and their claims were by and large unheard in international fora. Since the early 1970s, however, Indigenous peoples have made significant inroads towards the recognition of their rights and acceptance of their legitimate place within the international community. The results, while incomplete, have been nothing short of extraordinary.

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

Australian law requires the detention of all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa (unlawful non-citizens). This means that immigration officials have no choice but to detain persons who arrive without a visa (unauthorised arrivals), or persons who arrive with a visa and subsequently become unlawful because their visa has expired or been cancelled (authorised arrivals). Australian law makes no distinction between the detention of adults and children.

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.

It is with great pleasure that I present my second Native Title Report as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. I launched my first Report, the Native Title Report 2010 in February 2011. These reports are produced each year in accordance with the requirement under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act) for me to report annually on the impact of the Native Title Act on the exercise and enjoyment of the human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[1]

</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.

Water is vital to life, essential to agriculture and a valuable energy source which may be utilised in the mitigation of climate change impacts. Water is extremely valuable globally to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and is used for many different purposes. Water is also important to both for different reasons.