Search results

Dr William Jonas commenced duty as acting Race Discrimination Commissioner in September 1999 in addition to his duties as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.

1.1 Introduction In last year’s Social Justice and Native Title Report , I raised concerns about the changes resulting from the 2014-15 Budget and the restructure to Indigenous Affairs through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS). Despite initial concerns about how these changes would impact our communities, I indicated that the streamlining of programs and the move away from a ‘one size fits ...

The Commission’s vision is of and for an Australian society in which the human rights of all people are respected and promoted. Our task is to find practical, pragmatic ways to turn the rhetoric of human rights into an everyday reality for all Australians and build a more tolerant and inclusive community. As this report indicates, this past year has been a period of substantial achievement as we strive towards this goal.

The recognition and protection of native title and the participation of Indigenous people in decisions affecting their land are critical priorities within a human rights framework.

The Commission is a national independent statutory body established under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. It has a President and five Commissioners. The five positions are currently held by three persons.

In its final recommendations, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation proposed that there be a legislative requirement for the Social Justice Commissioner to monitor progress towards reconciliation on an annual basis. In the Social Justice Report 2000 it was noted that while legislative amendment to this end was desirable, this task could be undertaken under my existing functions. Accordingly, I undertook to provide an annual evaluation of progress towards reconciliation as part of the social justice report.

This paper gives a brief overview of the mandatory detention laws currently operating in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. It examines their operation and gives some insights into how they have impacted on particular groups including young people and Indigenous Australians. It gives a critique of mandatory detention by reference to Australia's international human rights obligations, with particular emphasis on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The paper cites a number of recent reports and articles dealing with this subject.

Last year’s Social Justice Report noted that to date there has been insufficient attention by governments to processes which ensure greater Indigenous participation and control over service design and delivery as part of an overall strategy to redress Indigenous disadvantage and economic marginalisation. I observed that:

Thank you for the opportunity to make submissions to the Ministerial Inquiry to identify strategies to increase resource exploration in Western Australia - the Bowler Inquiry. Enclosed is a copy of my submission which contains several recommendations.

1.1 Background to this report 1.2 Compliance with human rights obligations 1.3 Conduct of visits 1.4 Overview of immigration detention facilities 1.5 Response by Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

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.