Search results

Thank you for your letter received on 2 January 2002 in which you enclose a copy of the terms of reference of the Commission's National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.

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.

Sexual harassment is unlawful under the SDA and complaints of sexual harassment are managed by HREOC under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("HREOCA"). This Chapter provides a short overview of the public policy framework which governs sexual harassment and examines some of the implications of the survey results for public policy, particularly in comparison with the findings from A Bad Business.[131]

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Australia's human rights obligations for workers with family and carer responsibilities 3.3 Limitations of federal discrimination law 3.4 The need for law reform 3.5 Conclusion

The framework of principles presented in chapter 2 of this Report puts the economic and social development of the traditional owner group at the centre of the native title process. It seeks to build the power and capacity of the traditional owner group to direct and achieve its own economic and social development. It sees the native title system as a tool to assist traditional owners in this process. The framework also envisages that other stakeholders in the native title system will assist the group in achieving its goals.

This appendix contains an extract from the findings of Coroner Chivell in the inquests of the South Australian Coroner's Court into the deaths of three Anangu on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands between 1999-2001.[1] The full findings of the Coroner can be accessed online at the following address:http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/ courts/coroner/findings/findings_2002/kunmanara_ken.finding.htm

</B>The Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara and other Indigenous people of the town of Yulara, in the shadows of Uluru, had their claim for compensation for extinguishment of native title rejected by Justice Sackville in the Federal Court (the Jango case)1in 2006. The Noongar people (the Noongar case)2 had their claim for native title over the metropolitan area of Perth upheld. Further north, around Darwin, the Larrakia people (the Larrakia case)3 learned that the common law would not recognise their native title when Justice Mansfied handed down his decision.

We refer to our telephone conversation with [name removed] on 3 May 2002 from your office agreeing to an extension of time to enable our agency to lodge its submission on the adequacy and appropriateness of Australia&#8217;s treatment of child asylum seekers and other children, who are, or have been held in immigration detention.

The Association of Major Charitable Organisations welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.