Search results

This discussion paper briefly discusses federal laws which exclude same-sex couples from accessing financial and work-related entitlements. The paper discusses the following areas of federal law:

DR OZDOWSKI: This is one of a series of hearings to be conducted around Australia. My name is Dr Sev Ozdowski and I am the Human Rights Commissioner and I am assisted in the Inquiry by two colleagues of mine, Mrs Robin Sullivan who is to the left of me, the Queensland Children's Commissioner. To the right of me is Dr Trang Thomas who is a Professor of Psychology at Melbourne Institute of Technology. Also at the table is sitting Ms Vanessa Lesnie who is Secretary to the Inquiry.

As discussed in Chapter 1, Australia’s international human rights obligations require that individuals who say that they are children be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as minors unless there is proof to the contrary. In the case of unaccompanied children, this should lead to consideration by the State of what steps need to be taken to ensure their special protection and care.

DR OZDOWSKI: I would like to formally open the second day of hearings in Adelaide. This is one of the hearings conducted around Australia for the National Inquiry into Children in Detention. My name is Sev Ozdowski, I'm the Human Rights Commissioner. With me is Mrs Robin Sullivan to my left, who is Queensland Children's Commissioner, and Dr Trang Thomas, on my right, is Professor of Psychology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. They are Assistant Commissioners helping me with the Inquiry.

We are deeply dissatisfied with the performance to date by various government agencies... there does not appear to be any process beyond monitoring to ensure that effective implementation takes place...

Social Justice Report 2011 Back to Contents Appendix 2: Chronology of Events Relating to the Administration of Indigenous Affairs 1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011 DATE EVENT / SUMMARY OF ISSUE 2 July 2010 Torres Strait Islander sea rights recognised by Federal Court The Federal Court recognised the Torres Strait Regional Sea Claim Group’s native title rights over about 37 800sq. km of sea between Cape ...

During the reporting period, Australian governments continued to develop tenure reform policies for Indigenous land. Governments frequently describe these policies as a means of promoting home ownership and economic development on Indigenous land. The reality is not so simple.

On 21 June 2007, the Australian Government announced a ‘national emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory’ from sexual abuse and family violence.[1] This has become known as the ‘NT intervention’ or the ‘Emergency Response’. The catalyst for the measures was the release of Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, titled Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: ‘Little Children are Sacred’.

The reporting period for this Report is 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Throughout this period, there was significantly more activity in native title law and policy than I witnessed in the first five years of my term as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.

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 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.

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.

4.1 Nationalities of the children in detention 4.2 Reasons for seeking asylum 4.3 Age of children in detention 4.4 Unaccompanied children 4.5 When did the children arrive in Australia? 4.6 How long are children kept in detention? 4.7 Movement of children across the detention network 4.8 Mental health and wellbeing of children in detention 4.9 Detention is a dangerous place 4.10 Rates of self-harm ...