Search results

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

Australian law requires the detention of all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa (unlawful non-citizens). This means that immigration officials have no choice but to detain persons who arrive without a visa (unauthorised arrivals), or persons who arrive with a visa and subsequently become unlawful because their visa has expired or been cancelled (authorised arrivals). Australian law makes no distinction between the detention of adults and children.

This chapter addresses the impact of the detention environment on the mental health of children and the measures taken to address their mental health needs. Consistent with the breadth of protection given to the welfare of children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Inquiry uses the term mental health to describe the psychological well-being of children as well as diagnosed psychiatric illness.

The circumstances of Indigenous peoples were virtually invisible at the United Nations approximately thirty years ago. Very little attention had been devoted to their situation and their claims were by and large unheard in international fora. Since the early 1970s, however, Indigenous peoples have made significant inroads towards the recognition of their rights and acceptance of their legitimate place within the international community. The results, while incomplete, have been nothing short of extraordinary.

This report contains a summary of observations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) during its 2010 visit to the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island.