Search results

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 Al Jenabi.

Where a complaint is made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) alleging breaches of human rights and discrimination in employment, the President or his delegate may report to the Attorney-General where conciliation cannot resolve the matter and an inquiry has satisfied the President there has been a breach of human rights or discrimination in employment. The Legal Section assists the President or his delegate to inquire into the complaints and prepare reports to the Attorney-General.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) came into force in March 1993 complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) have shown significant inconsistencies between anti-discrimination law and current building law in Australia .

During 2005, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, made statements to the effect that the Australian Government was interested in supporting Indigenous Australians to explore opportunities to lease or buy communal lands for private or personal use. The government's premise was that if Indigenous people were encouraged into private ownership of communal lands they would be able to build economic independence and wealth, and in doing so alleviate poverty.

There were a lot of families on the outside who were saying my daughter hasn't come home, my son hasn't come home. You had a lot of families still fighting and then you had the bloody welfare saying to these families, `We're not doing what was done in the sixties'. Bomaderry Home was left open as a big secret by the government and the welfare. And it must have been one of the best kept secrets that the Government kept. It was hard for the people on the outside to prove we was there when the government said we weren't.

This report draws upon the extensive work the Australian Human Rights Commission has undertaken in the area of Australian law, policy and practice relating to asylum seekers, refugees and immigration detention. The Commission’s work has included conducting national inquiries, examining proposed legislation, monitoring and reporting on immigration detention, and investigating complaints from ...

This table includes summaries of every native title determination that occurred during this period, and notable or interesting agreements; it does not include every Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) registered or other native title agreements made over this period, due to the large volume. A snapshot of applications, determinations and ILUAs from this period is provided at the end of this table.

The failure in Australia to perceive native title and land rights as the basis on which to address Indigenous economic and social development has been evident at legal, policy and administrative levels. Legally, the increasingly narrow interpretation of native title by the High Court has, as Noel Pearson has pointed out, stripped native title of much economic meaning or benefit.

On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Mabo v Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. This decision constitutes the first recognition of indigenous property rights at common law in Australia. The Court rejected the previously existing view that Australia was terra nullius (or land belonging to no-one) upon settlement by Europeans in 1788.