Search results

This is a report to the Attorney-General on inquiries made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into a complaint made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act) of discrimination in employment on the ground of age. The complaint was made by Ms Akiko Ishikuni against the Japan Travel Bureau (Australia) (JTB).

Indigenous peoples from all over the world have suffered the long-standing effects of colonisation. Consequently, we continue to struggle with the challenges that I have raised in this Report; particularly those that concern our identity, culture and access to and protection of our lands, territories and resources.

When I commenced writing this chapter in 2008, Australia did not have a national Indigenous languages policy. However in August 2009, for the first time in Australia’s history, the Commonwealth Government launched a strategy for preserving Indigenous languages: Indigenous Languages - A National Approach 2009 (National Approach). The National Approach sets out the Commonwealth Government’s plan to preserve Indigenous languages through targeted actions. They are:

Securing sustainable and just economic outcomes for Aboriginal traditional owners and residential communities in the remote regions of the Northern Territory has been an elusive goal for national and Territory governments, various public agencies and community groups for many years. The increasing value and intact environmental nature of much of the Indigenous estate across the North of Australia in a carbon trading context offers opportunities that could create sustainable on-country development for traditional owners in the region through new and exciting economies.

<ul> <li><a href="#Heading263">1.1 Introduction </a></li> <li><a href="#Heading282">1.2 Machinery of Government changes </a></li> <li><a href="#Heading323">1.3 The 2014 Budget</a></li> <li><a href="#Heading504">1.4 Leadership, representation and engagement</a></li> <li><a href="#Heading568">1.5 Constitutional recognition</a></li> <li><a href="#Heading641">1.6 Indigenous Jobs and Training Review</a></li> <li><a href="#Heading702">1.7 Closing the Gap</a></li> <li><a href="#Heading777">1.8 Stolen Generations </a></li> <li><a href="#Heading807">1.9 International developments</a></li></ul>

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.

This will be how we assess the success or otherwise of the reconciliation process in years to come. The reconciliation process has the potential to be as significant, and difficult, as the process that led to the joining together of the states into one indissoluble federation in 1901. It challenges us to adapt the structures of society in ways that ensure that first nation peoples can participate fully, be welcomed and have our cultures respected. Integral to this process is an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past and an acceptance of the need for a restructured relationship.

Under section 46C(1)(a) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the Social Justice Commissioner is required annually to submit a report to the Attorney-General on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights by Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders (the Social Justice Report).

The recognition of native title by the High Court in 1992 was a significant development in the legal apparatus for protecting Indigenous culture. Under the concept of native title it is possible that sacred and significant sites and objects might be protected, not within the historical category of Aboriginal heritage, but as matters valued in contemporary Indigenous culture with current significance to a people whose culture is ongoing. In addition, under native title such protection could be provided, not as an act of beneficence by government, but as a matter of legal right.

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]

On 3 April 2009, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Minister for Indigenous Affairs) delivered a formal statement in support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration).[1] In this statement, the Minister acknowledged that ‘[w]e need to find more ways of hearing Indigenous voices’.[2]

The Unlocking Doors Project was a series of forums, workshops and consultations conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission throughout 2006, which brought Muslim peoples and communities in New South Wales and Victoria into a dialogue with Police. This dialogue sought to strengthen Muslim peoples’ relationship with law enforcement agencies and build on the capacity of the police to respond to the incidents of racial and religious hatred and abuse currently being experienced by Muslim peoples.

This is the third successive Social Justice Report to report on the implementation of the new arrangements for Indigenous affairs at the federal government level. The past two Social Justice Reports have emphasised the importance of governments ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making that affects our lives. This includes the development of policy, program delivery and monitoring by governments at the national, as well as state, regional and local levels.

Protecting the best interests of a child is one of the most important principles of international law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in particular. This chapter focuses on whether federal law currently protects the best interests of a child being raised by lesbian or gay parents.