Search results

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner acknowledges the work of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission staff (Fabienne Balsamo, Katie Kiss, Hamish McLeod, Jemma Hollands, Dianne Biaggini, Anna Dawson, Christina Kenny, Julia Mansour, Kirsty Champion and Darren Dick).

This is the third successive Social Justice Report to report on the implementation of the new arrangements for Indigenous affairs at the federal government level. The past two Social Justice Reports have emphasised the importance of governments ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making that affects our lives. This includes the development of policy, program delivery and monitoring by governments at the national, as well as state, regional and local levels.

Despite the High Court’s landmark decision, Australian courts, governments and non-Indigenous people have struggled to accept fully the rights of Indigenous peoples to their lands, waters and territories. In successive court decisions, our cultures have been viewed through a non-Indigenous lens, with our rights separated and eliminated one by one.

Members of the National Indigenous Council (NIC) will meet with Land Councils/Native Title Representative Bodies (3 June 3005) to advance their discussions on the issues surrounding Indigenous land tenure.

Introduction Pre and post-release programs for Indigenous women exiting prison An overview of Indigenous women in corrections Intersectional discrimination - Addressing the distinct experiences of Indigenous women Post-release programs for Indigenous women exiting prison - common themes from consultations Policy and programs relating to Indigenous women exiting prison Post-release housing programs for Indigenous women exiting prison Healing programs for Indigenous women exiting prison Conclusion Endnotes Introduction

Whether Indigenous peoples are able to gain full recognition and protection of their native title rights and interests, depends significantly on the process by which native title applications are resolved.

Improving the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a longstanding challenge for governments in Australia. While there have been improvements made in some areas since the 1970s (notably in reducing high rates of infant mortality1) overall progress has been slow and inconsistent. The inequality gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians remains wide and has not been progressively reduced.

[1] Adapted from Jackson S, Indigenous Interests and the National Water Initiative: Water Management, Reform and Implementation, Background Paper and Literature Review, Report for the IWPG (2007), p 42. At: http://www.nailsma.org.au/nailsma/publications/downloads/NAILSMA_NWI_Review_UPDATEDec07.pdf (viewed 17 December 2008).

</B>While the native title system is able to deliver social and cultural outcomes through determinations of native title, Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) are one of the only ways in which native title holders can pursue economic development.

Specific examples The Memorandum of Understanding between the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Government and the East Kimberley Regional Partnership Agreement, discussed in Chapter 3 of the report, describes a collaborative approach to support Indigenous economic development in eight trial sites across Australia.

These issues highlight some concerns I have with the operation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act), how it is interpreted by the common law and how the native title system is operating. They seriously impact on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights of Indigenous peoples.

The DKCRC is dedicated to improving conditions for all desert Australians and it recognises that there have been past instances of Aboriginal people&#8217;s knowledge and intellectual property being misappropriated and exploited. The DKCRC Board also recognises that the DKCRC&#8217;s objectives will only be achieved by working in equitable partnership with Aboriginal people. Such partnerships include knowledge sharing in research and potentially the creation of new intellectual property.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, agreement-making can be an expression of free, prior and informed consent and the beginning of cooperative relationships with governments and other parties.

&lsquo;CATSI&rsquo; is an acronym for the Commonwealth&rsquo;s Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth), which came into effect on 1 July 2007. The Act &lsquo;primarily provides for the incorporation and regulation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations&rsquo;. It replaces the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth) (the ACA Act).

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&#8217;s Indigenous People; and iii) the further elaboration of human rights standards as they apply to indigenous peoples.

Land granted is freehold title (estate in fee simple) which is held by an Aboriginal Lands Trust. As a result of recent amendments,1 this land is now capable of being alienated.

NSW*: 2 under section 190F(6) and 1 non-compliance QLD**: 5 under section 190F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 5 non-compliance 1 under section 84D of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

The federal Government has made a commitment to &lsquo;normalise&rsquo; Indigenous communities by increasing Indigenous home ownership and reducing reliance on subsidised rental accommodation.

Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, twelve determinations of native title were made by the Federal Court. Ten of these were made by consent, one was unopposed and one was litigated.[1]