Search results

In today's world, with an increasing focus on greed and building individual wealth, advocacy for the human rights agenda couldn’t be more important. Over the years, HREOC has produced outstanding reports, like Bringing them home, with important recommendations. To fail to act on those recommendations diminishes Australia as a nation, and all of us as individuals.

The strong, vibrant and committed Noongar peoples of the South West corner of Australia had their native title determination over Perth returned to square one. The Full Federal Court found that the first judge had made a number of errors in his decision and have sent the case back for consideration by a new judge, leaving the Noongar peoples uncertain about the future of their rights over the land. This is despite the Western Australian government openly acknowledging the Noongar peoples as the Traditional Owners of the land.

It is common in the legal commentary to refer to child sterilisation as if it is a gender neutral issue, [1] but the overwhelming majority of sterilisations and certainly all the cases heard by relevant Australian courts and tribunals, involve female children with intellectual disabilities. There is social problem at the centre of the debate about sterilisation.

I attach a report of my inquiry into complaints by Mr Huong Hai Nguyen and Mr Austin Okoye against the Commonwealth of Australia and GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd, pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

ChilOut was established in July 2001 by a group of concerned parents and citizens who felt compelled to advocate and act on behalf of children and their parents living in Australia's immigration detention centres (IDC).

In 1863 the area now known as the Northern Territory came under the control of South Australia. By 1903 the whole area was leased to non-Indigenous people. As there were few non-Indigenous women, relationships between the Indigenous women and non-Indigenous men were relatively common. The consequence was a growing population of children of mixed descent who were usually cared for by their mothers within the Aboriginal community.

This report has focused on proposals for the leasing or alienation of Indigenous land, with a specific focus on the Indigenous Land Tenure Principles released by the National Indigenous Council (NIC). The purpose of this Chapter is to discuss these Principles from a human rights perspective, with a particular focus on the right to development.

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.

a) Rates of incarceration of Indigenous women b) Recidivism rates among Indigenous women c) Types of crime committed by Indigenous women d) Over-policing e) Sentencing patterns for Indigenous women f) Characteristics of Indigenous women who are imprisoned

On 27 July 2000, the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory Government signed an agreement for the establishment of a juvenile pre-court diversion scheme in the Northern Territory (NT). This agreement arose specifically as a response to the continued criticism of the NT’s mandatory minimum imprisonment laws and their impact on juveniles and Indigenous people. By establishing the pre-court juvenile diversionary scheme, the NT has belatedly joined most other states and territories in Australia in providing such options for dealing with juvenile offenders.

As part of events to mark the tenth anniversary of entry into force of the Disability Discrimination Act the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is conducting a series of forums on employment discrimination issues.

In the High Court’s formulation of native title in Mabo (No 2), [1] delivered on 3 June 1992, it was made clear that in the past, governments could validly grant interests in land that would extinguish native title. These grants could be made without payment of compensation to native title holders. [2] At least that was as far as the common law was concerned. The Court did not need to consider the effect of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) (‘RDA’) on laws and grants after the RDA came into force on 31 October 1975.

1. INTRODUCTION 2. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS FOR MINORS OF AUSTRALIA'S MANDATORY DETENTION 3. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR UNACCOMPANIED MINORS IN DETENTION 4. ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION 5. CONCLUSION