Search results

This Chapter considers options for addressing lateral violence in environments that concern our lands, territories and resources. Although this is the beginning of the conversation, the Chapter aims to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities some ideas about how to address lateral violence through the establishment of strong structural foundations and principles. It also seeks to assist governments to help us confront this problem by reinforcing these structures through legislation and policy.

Current federal anti-discrimination laws would generally apply to cyberspace to the extent that discriminatory behaviour (or harassment) online relates to a protected attribute, and could be said to have occurred in one of the stipulated areas of ‘public’ life. This is particularly clear in relation to the prohibition on sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA), as this ...

No Country Recommendation Response Implementation 1 Republic of Moldova Ratify the OPCAT Accepted Not implemented 2 Azerbaijan Speed up process of ratification of OPCAT Accepted Not implemented 3 Maldives Ratify OPCAT and designate a National Preventive Mechanism Accepted Not implemented 4 New Zealand High priority ratification of the OPCAT and establish a National Preventative Mechanism Accepted ...

This timeline focuses on one particular aspect of the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families. This material identifies some significant laws and practices that made removal lawful and includes writing and artwork from members of the Stolen Generations and their families which illustrate their experiences of these policies. This section uses as its primary resource Bringing them home, the report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families.

Over the millennia, Indigenous peoples have developed a close and unique connection with the lands and environments in which they live. They have established distinct systems of knowledge, innovation and practices relating to the uses and management of biological diversity on these lands and environments.

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 Australian Government has signalled that economic development is a central focus for the Indigenous Affairs portfolio this term. The Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs, created in May 2004 to drive and coordinate the federal Government’s Indigenous policies,1 identified as one of three key areas2 for priority action:

Part II - THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULITCULTURAND AND INDIGENOUS AFFIARS (DIMIA) AND THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DEPARMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (DHS) RELATING TO CHILD PROTECTION NOTIFICATIONS AND CHILD WELFARE ISSUES PERTAINING TO CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

As my predecessor pointed out in the Native Title Report 2003, native title is a political process as well as a legal process. Indigenous people enter a relationship with the State on the basis of their identity as the traditional owner group of an area of land. In some cases native title has provided the first opportunity since colonisation for a relationship of this type to be formed.