Search results

This submission will focus on the current Australian immigration detention regime as it applies to minors. The regime will be examined based on data and information made available by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“DIMIA”) and supporting documentation ranging from government publications, the Flood Inquiry and testimonies given to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission “HREOC” under oath.

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to work and other Measures) Bill 2005 and the Family and Community Services Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005 (together 'the Bills')

The immigration status that results in the detention of children under Australian law also affects their entitlements to various services on release from detention, after they have been recognised as refugees. As discussed in Chapter 6 on Australia's Detention Policy, most children detained in immigration detention facilities for long periods are detained because they arrive in Australia without a visa (unauthorised arrivals). More than 90 per cent of those children are subsequently found to be refugees and are therefore released on temporary protection visas (TPVs).

It is a story of colonisation; the threat of losing our cultural authority to manage our societies; and the despair that has come from that disempowerment. It is a story of grief and trauma and the continued pain of living with grog, drug and violence.

This appendix provides an overview of the main events with regard to the administration of Indigenous affairs to 30 June 2006. It commences with a summary table and is followed by a detailed description of each event.

Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding ... Convention on the Rights of the Child, Preamble

Just send my children to school, and let them be in freedom. They should live in a human good atmosphere, they should learn something good, and not the things they are learning here.(1)

a) A minimalist response to symbolic issues b) The perceived divisiveness of self-determination c) An emphasis on perceived areas of agreement d) Misrepresenting progress towards practical reconciliation

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 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 report contains a summary of observations by the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) following its July 2009 visit to Australia’s immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island. It follows the Commission’s 2006, 2007 and 2008 annual reports on inspections of immigration detention facilities.[1]

This is a paper prepared by Amnesty International for the HREOC Inquiry into children in immigration detention centres. In particular, this paper sets out Amnesty International's concerns with the detention of children, having regard to the international human rights treaties to which Australia has committed itself.

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:

As my predecessor pointed out in the Native Title Report 2003, native title is a political process as well as a legal process. Indigenous people enter a relationship with the State on the basis of their identity as the traditional owner group of an area of land. In some cases native title has provided the first opportunity since colonisation for a relationship of this type to be formed.

On 13 April 2000, the Senate requested the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into all aspects of the agreement between the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth regarding the Territory’s mandatory sentencing regime; the consistency of mandatory sentencing regimes with Australia’s international human rights obligations; and Western Australia’s mandatory sentencing regime.[1]

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.