Search results

This submission aims to highlight a number of issues for children in immigration detention arising from the Department of Human Services' (DHS) involvement in child protection, health service provision to children and their families, settlement support and care of unattached minors.

The twin pillars of the government's approach to Indigenous policy in 2003 continued to be practical reconciliation, with its emphasis on service delivery in core areas of disadvantage, and mutual obligation, with its emphasis on reciprocity and individual responsibility. Through both of these policies, the government has identified moving Indigenous people beyond welfare dependency and enabling Indigenous participation in program delivery and design as key features of its approach.

Native title is an intersection of two different legal systems and cultures. The way in which Australia chooses to give recognition to the relationship that Indigenous people have with their land, and the range of options it considers to express that relationship, are matters that affect the human rights of Indigenous people.

This is a paper prepared by Amnesty International for the HREOC Inquiry into children in immigration detention centres. In particular, this paper sets out Amnesty International's concerns with the detention of children, having regard to the international human rights treaties to which Australia has committed itself.

This Appendix provides an overview of main events since the introduction of the new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs on 1 July 2004. It commences with a summary table and is followed by a detailed description of each event.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that around half of the 50 million displaced persons in the world are children. Around 10 million of these children are under the care of UNHCR. Approximately 100,000 separated children roam Western Europe.(1) During 1999 alone, more than 20,000 separated children applied for asylum in Western Europe, North America or Australia.(2) Of those 20,000 unaccompanied children, 46 travelled to Australia to seek asylum. In the same year a further 202 children sought asylum in Australia with their families.(3)

As I reflect on the events that have taken place during the reporting period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, I see cause for optimism whilst also acknowledging there are still some areas that remain a concern. Over the last year we have reached some major milestones. For instance, we have seen the election of the two co-chairs and a board to the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (National Congress), and we are also now engaged in a conversation with the Australian people about how we go about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution.

DR OZDOWSKI: Welcome to everyone. I think there is no need again to administer the oath or affirmation. As with yesterday, we will do it only in the case of new witnesses coming, but please understand that the principles associated with the oath or affirmation do stand up. Also, I would like to ask witnesses in order to finish on time, that they will focus on questions and try to answer, and to reply as directly as possible. Okay, could I ask Mr Wigney to start asking questions, and my understanding is that we are starting with the issue of family and family relations.

Learn about how Australia has entered international human rights obligations to stop pregnancy and return to work discrimination against women.

Part 1: What are the new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs?

The Complaint Handling Section (CHS) is responsible, through the President, for investigating and conciliating complaints lodged under federal anti-discrimination and human rights law. The CHS also delivers a Complaint Information Service. Accordingly, the CHS plays a key role in fulfilling the Commission's objective of delivering an Australian society in which human rights are protected.

The resolution of the debate as to whether the extinguishment of native title by the common law and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’) is racially discriminatory, depends upon the interpretation given to its two essential components: extinguishment and discrimination. The interpretation that the High Court has given to the extinguishment provisions of the NTA and its relationship with the common law was the subject of the chapter 2. It is to the second of these components, the meaning of discrimination as it applies to the extinguishment of native title, that I now turn.