Search results

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of my inquiry into a complaint against the Commonwealth of Australia. I have found that the respondent failed to provide the complainant with a safe place of detention whilst she was detained at the Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre and that such failure constituted a breach of her human rights pursuant to article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The application of human rights principles to native title has been the subject of an ongoing dialogue taking place both nationally and internationally in the reporting period.

In recent years there have been significant developments at the international level that impact upon the recognition and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples. Most notably, there have been: i) reforms to the machinery of the United Nations (UN) and the emphasis given to human rights within that system; ii) the making of global commitments to action, through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People; and iii) the further elaboration of human rights standards as they apply to indigenous peoples.

On my right is Professor Trang Thomas, Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and on my left Mrs Robin Sullivan, who is also the Queensland Children's Commissioner. Before the hearing commences I would like to note the following matters. First, the issue of confidentiality and privacy. The Commission believes it is important to respect the privacy of individuals and to protect children in particular. Even where individual cases have been made public elsewhere, individual's names should not be named in this hearing.

This report contains a summary of observations by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Graeme Innes AM, and staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) following visits to Australia’s immigration detention facilities, and to people in community detention, between June and September 2008. The contents of the report are based on direct observations made during the visits, and on discussions with staff and immigration detainees.

For more than a decade, the Australian Human Rights Commission has called for reforms to Australia’s system of mandatory and indefinite immigration detention – both in light of the impacts it has on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and because it leads to breaches of Australia’s international human rights obligations. During this time, the Commission has investigated numerous complaints from people in detention and conducted two national inquiries into the mandatory detention system.[1]

Actually what you see in a lot of us is the shell, and I believe as an Aboriginal person that everything is inside of me to heal me if I know how to use it, if I know how to maintain it, if I know how to bring out and use it. But sometimes the past is just too hard to look at. Confidential evidence 284, South Australia.

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of my inquiry into a complaint made by Ms KJ on behalf of herself and her son MJ. I have found there to have been an act done on behalf of the Commonwealth which was inconsistent with and contrary to the human rights of MJ.

This chapter explains how the provisions of international human rights treaties protect same-sex couples and their children, in the context of accessing financial and work-related entitlements. In particular, this chapter focuses on the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It also describes how the breach of that right can interfere with a range of other basic human rights, for example, the right to social security. The chapter also explains how discrimination against parents on the grounds of sexual orientation can impact on the rights of their children.

Most children come to Australia with their parents, but some come alone, either sent by their family for their protection or because they have lost their family in a crisis.

Part D of the paper focuses on how a paid maternity leave scheme would actually operate were it to be introduced in Australia. The emphasis, as in the rest of the paper, is on the feedback that HREOC has received through submissions and consultations. Each Chapter canvases the views that were expressed in relation to each component of a national paid maternity leave scheme.

[1] The full text of the Bilateral Agreement is available online at: http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Publications/Files/Bilateral_Agreement.pdf, accessed 24 January 2008. [2] Andrews, K., (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations), CDEP 2006-07 To Build On Success, Media Release, 1 July 2006. [3] Bishop, J., (Minister for Education, Science and Training), Early childhood focus for Indigenous education, Media Release, 7 July 2006, available online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B001070706.asp, accessed 24 January 2008.

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 Prashant Cherkupalli.

Under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), a non-citizen’s visa may be cancelled if they do not satisfy the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister) or the Minister’s delegate that they pass the ‘character test’.

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

This chapter considers some of the Commonwealth’s practices regarding the use of wrist x-ray analysis as a means of assessing chronological age for the purposes of criminal prosecution. It highlights situations where the reliance on wrist x-rays as evidence of age was contrary to stated Australian Government policy; or where it contributed to individuals who were in fact children, or who are likely to have been children, spending long periods of time in detention, including in adult correctional facilities.

The Complaint Handling Section had a productive year investigating and conciliating complaints of alleged discrimination and human rights breaches; providing information to the public about federal anti-discrimination and human rights law through its Complaint Information Service and community education and liaison program; and providing complaint investigation and resolution skills training to state equal opportunity, anti-discrimination authorities, other Australian Public Service agencies and private companies.