Search results

1. The provisions made by Australia to implement its international human rights obligations regarding child asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors

Until December 2009, Ali Jasmin lived with his family in Bala Uring, a small village on the island of Flores, Indonesia. His family bought fish from the local fishermen and sold them at the market. Ali had completed seven years of schooling and worked as a fisherman in a little town not far from his home.

The first twelve months of the federal government's new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs has ended. The primary focus of this period has been on abolishing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and creating new processes to engage with local Indigenous communities and coordinate mainstream delivery of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Twelve months on, the new arrangements remain in a transitional phase. It will be a number of years before they are fully locked into place.

In its final recommendations, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation proposed that there be a legislative requirement for the Social Justice Commissioner to monitor progress towards reconciliation on an annual basis. In the Social Justice Report 2000 it was noted that while legislative amendment to this end was desirable, this task could be undertaken under my existing functions. Accordingly, I undertook to provide an annual evaluation of progress towards reconciliation as part of the social justice report.

It is highly likely that at least one worker in your workplace will, at some point in time, have a long or short-term mental illness. While you do not need to become an expert in mental health, having a better understanding of what mental illness is (including its possible effects on a worker) enables you to be more effective in handling issues that may arise.

The twin pillars of the government's approach to Indigenous policy in 2003 continued to be practical reconciliation, with its emphasis on service delivery in core areas of disadvantage, and mutual obligation, with its emphasis on reciprocity and individual responsibility. Through both of these policies, the government has identified moving Indigenous people beyond welfare dependency and enabling Indigenous participation in program delivery and design as key features of its approach.

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]

5.1 Europe and the UK 5.2 United States 5.2.1 Americans with Disabilities Act 5.2.2 Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act 5.2.3 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 5.3 World Summit on the Information Society

On 27 July 2000, the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory Government signed an agreement for the establishment of a juvenile pre-court diversion scheme in the Northern Territory (NT). This agreement arose specifically as a response to the continued criticism of the NT’s mandatory minimum imprisonment laws and their impact on juveniles and Indigenous people. By establishing the pre-court juvenile diversionary scheme, the NT has belatedly joined most other states and territories in Australia in providing such options for dealing with juvenile offenders.