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 Parvis Yousefi, Mrs Mehrnoosh Yousefi and Manoochehr Yousefi.

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.

The SDA is amended to extend the prohibition of sexual harassment; allow for representative complaints; bring industrial awards under the act and introduce conciliation as a method for addressing victimisation.

It is important to note that most tenures and interests continue to affect native title even after they have ceased. So, for instance, an area of land may currently be unallocated crown land, but all previous tenures/interests in that land will have permanently affected, and possibly extinguished, native title rights (unless the land comes within the few exceptions under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (&#145;NTA&#146;) &#150; sections 47, 47A &amp; 47B). The following table summarises tenures examined in Miriuwung Gajerrong [1] and Wilson v Anderson. [2]

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.

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), children in detention have the right to 'Rest &amp; Play'. The main focus of this submission is to promote the services of the NSW Playground Advisory Unit in order to support these rights.

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.

As the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, one of my primary responsibilities is to report annually on the impact of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) on the exercise and enjoyment of the human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[1] I fulfil this responsibility by producing the annual Native Title Report.