Search results

I attach a report of my inquiry into complaints by Mr Huong Hai Nguyen and Mr Austin Okoye against the Commonwealth of Australia and GSL (Australia) Pty Ltd, pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

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.

back to contents Chapter 5: Addressing family violence in Indigenous communities There is no issue currently causing more destruction to the fabric of Indigenous communities than family violence. This has been acknowledged by all levels of government in recent years, with a number of significant inquiries and initiatives undertaken or commenced at the federal, state and territory level to address its impact. The intensive scrutiny and public awareness of this issue has not, however, led to sufficient commitments of resources and effort to date.

In recent years a mutual obligation approach has been adopted to reform public policy on welfare and employment issues. There has been much discussion about the applicability of this approach within an Indigenous policy context. It is seen by many as consistent with Indigenous cultural values such as reciprocity and an emphasis on community, as well as suggesting an antidote to the damage caused by intergenerational poverty, of which long-term welfare dependency and a crippling short-term local cash economy are often features.

The failure in Australia to perceive native title and land rights as the basis on which to address Indigenous economic and social development has been evident at legal, policy and administrative levels. Legally, the increasingly narrow interpretation of native title by the High Court has, as Noel Pearson has pointed out, stripped native title of much economic meaning or benefit.

Native title is an intersection of two different legal systems and cultures. The way in which Australia chooses to give recognition to the relationship that Indigenous people have with their land, and the range of options it considers to express that relationship, are matters that affect the human rights of Indigenous people.

The reasoning of the High Court in Wilson v Anderson [1] and Miriuwung Gajerrong [2] provides a comprehensive analysis of the operation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’). It is detailed and legally complex. In discussing NSW crown land legislation, Justice Kirby made the following observation about the NTA and the native title system:

All Australians are equally entitled to enjoy the rights, benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. In our society, every person should feel free from discrimination of any kind and have the right to share in the nation's land, resources and wealth. The entitlements and freedoms of all people are recognised in human rights instruments, many of which have been freely signed and ratified by Australia, and in some instances are now a part of Australian law.

In recent years there have been significant developments at the international level that impact upon the recognition and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples. Most notably, there have been: i) reforms to the machinery of the United Nations (UN) and the emphasis given to human rights within that system; ii) the making of global commitments to action, through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People; and iii) the further elaboration of human rights standards as they apply to indigenous peoples.

Australia is a wealthy nation. In 2003, Australia ranked fourth in the United Nations Human Development Index (1) indicating Australians enjoyed one of the highest qualities of life in the world. Overall, Australia ranks equal fourth with the highest life expectancy at birth (79.0 years) suggesting Australians are among the healthiest people in the world. (2)

I have completed my report of an inquiry into the complaint made pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) by Mr Parvis Yousefi, Mrs Mehrnoosh Yousefi and Manoochehr Yousefi.

The 'right to negotiate' is a fundamental right assured by the Commonwealth Native Title Act (the 'NTA') and reflected in international human rights standards. Yet in practice the capacity of native title parties to exercise their 'right to negotiate' is determined by factors other than the mere existence of the right. Given the primary role of state and territory governments in land administration, their policies regarding the administration of the right to negotiate have a significant impact on native title parties' capacity to exercise their 'right to negotiate'.

In this Chapter I review key developments within the native title system that occurred throughout the Reporting Period (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011) and consider the impact of these events on the exercise and enjoyment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ human rights.

Bringing Them Home - the Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (the National Inquiry) - made 54 'head' recommendations, 83 recommendations in total [1], to address what was referred to as 'the continuing devastation of the lives of Indigenous Australians'. The implementation of most recommendations requires action to be taken by the Commonwealth Government and/or State or Territory Governments.

4. Research relevant to benchmarking 5. The Commonwealth Grants Commission Report on Indigenous Funding 6. Australian Bureau of Statistics 7. Initiatives at the inter-governmental level related to benchmarking 8. The Steering Committee framework for reporting on Indigenous disadvantage 9. Governance and capacity building 10. Developments at State and Territory level