Search results

On 13 February 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, on behalf of the Australian Parliament, made a historic and long overdue national Apology to the Stolen Generations. With eloquence and emotion, Prime Minister Rudd said what so many Australians have wanted to say, and what so many Indigenous peoples have needed to hear:

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of my inquiry into a complaint by Mr Zacharias Manongga Consul for the Northern Territory, consul of the Republic of Indonesia that the human rights of Indonesian Fishers detained on vessels in Darwin Harbour were breached by the Commonwealth of Australia.

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.

Issues Paper 3, which was issued on the launch of the Inquiry, discussed the incentives and disincentives regarding employment of people with disability from the perspective of employers.

One of the major events of the period covered by this report was the handing down of the decision by the full Federal Court in the Croker Island case (1) on appeal from the decision of Justice Olney. (2) It is the major test case on the recognition of native title sea rights and represents the most authoritative statement of the law in Australia at the present time. It was a split decision and this chapter analyses the human rights implications of the different legal positions adopted by the majority and the minority decisions of the court.

A stable and enduring basis for a dynamic and long term relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people over land is emerging through negotiation and agreement-making. Native title agreements are increasingly seen as an important tool in defining the rights of native title holders over their land. But here, as in other aspects of native title, there is concern that there are currently no mechanisms to safeguard human rights principles. Substantive, just and equitable outcomes are only achieved if there are minimum standards in place to recognize and protect these principles.

The most comprehensive statement of this right is Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).1 Article 12 states:

A century ago, the Australian people engaged in a debate about creating a nation. They held meetings...They wrote articles and letters in newspapers. Many views were canvassed and voices were heard. The separate colonies, having divided up the land between them, discussed ways of sharing powers in order to achieve a vision of a united Australia. The result was the Australian Constitution, establishing the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

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:

The Complaint Handling Section (CHS) is responsible, through the President, for investigating and conciliating complaints lodged under federal anti-discrimination and human rights law. The CHS also delivers a Complaint Information Service. Accordingly, the CHS plays a key role in fulfilling the Commission's objective of delivering an Australian society in which human rights are protected.

Lateral violence is a multilayered, complex problem and because of this our strategies also need to be pitched at different levels. In Chapter 3 I have looked at the big picture, with the human rights framework as our overarching response to lateral violence. In this Chapter I will be taking our strategies to an even more practical level, looking at how we can create environments of cultural safety and security to address lateral violence.