Search results

In the past year Australia's compliance with international human rights obligations has been under scrutiny by United Nations human rights treaty committees through consideration of Australia's periodic reports under four treaties. [1] Much of this attention has focused on issues relating to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This chapter focuses on the dialogue between the Australian government and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Committee or the CERD), which took place in March 2000.

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).

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 Appendix provides an overview of main events since the introduction of the new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs on 1 July 2004. It commences with a summary table and is followed by a detailed description of each event.

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.

In 2006 the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet made a revealing statement about Indigenous affairs. He argued that his own government’s policy performance in the Indigenous portfolio had been a failure. He went further to say that while well intentioned, the policies and approaches of the past 30 years had contributed to poor outcomes for Indigenous people.

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.

Kristina Barnett - Diversity Directions Inc. Diana Collett - Child & Youth Health and South Australians for Justice for Refugees Tina Dolgopol - President of Action for Children Inc Julie Redman - Chair of the Children and the Law Committee, Law Society of South Australia Rosemary Steen - Chair of the Coalition, Children and the Law Committee, Law Society of South Australia Carey Trundle - Children and the Law Committee, Law Society of South Australia

The Terms of Reference required the Review to make recommendations on initiatives to drive cultural change at ADFA regarding the treatment of women. To properly identify these initiatives, the Review needed to assess the culture as it currently exists. Part of this process involved examining the notion of military culture generally and, more specifically, the culture for women at ADFA. The Review ...

The Terms of Reference required the Review to make recommendations on initiatives to drive cultural change at ADFA regarding the treatment of women. To properly identify these initiatives, the Review needed to assess the culture as it currently exists. Part of this process involved examining the notion of military culture generally and, more specifically, the culture for women at ADFA. The Review ...

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]

The Australian Human Rights Commission visited the immigration detention facilities at Villawood from 21 to 25 February 2011. This statement contains a summary of the key observations and concerns arising from the Commission’s visit. It focuses on conditions as they were at that time.

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]

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.

Human rights principles require that Indigenous people's relationships to land, based on traditional laws and customs, be given legal recognition and protection. International legal principles also recognise that Indigenous peoples have economic, social and cultural human rights. Native title, as it is constructed through the Australian legal system, has a limited capacity to meet these human rights standards.