Search results

Climate change has been regarded as a diabolical policy problem globally. The potential threat to the very existence of Indigenous peoples is compounded by legal and institutional barriers raise distinct challenges for our cultures, our lands and our resources.[1] More seriously, it poses a threat to the health, cultures and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples both here in Australia and around the world.

The following section outlines the relevant legal and policy framework, including the international human rights framework. 8.1 International legal framework The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) sets out the rights of people with disability generally and in respect of employment. [25] In particular, article 27 of the CRPD protects the right to work for people with ...

The Government has to explain why it happened. What was the intention? I have to know why I was taken. I have to know why I was given the life I was given and why I'm scarred today. Why was my Mum meant to suffer? Why was I made to suffer with no Aboriginality and no identity, no culture? Why did they think that the life they gave me was better than the one my Mum would give me? </BLOCKQUOTE>

The Commission is an national independent statutory body established under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. It has a President and five Commissioners. The five positions are currently held by three persons. Please refer to the organisational chart on page 16 for further information.

In 1999 and 2000 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the CERD Committee) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the United Nations both criticised the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (the NTA) as limiting the rights of Indigenous people.(1) The committees found that the amendments were discriminatory and recommended that Australia either suspend implementation of the 1998 amendments (2) or amend the NTA anew.(3) No action has since been taken to lessen the discriminatory impact of the 1998 amendments and the true extent of the diminution of native title par

During the 2004 reporting period I have embarked on a series of consultations focusing on the ideas and principles that were contained in a Discussion Paper, released by my predecessor as Social Justice Commissioner in June 2003. The Discussion Paper was entitled Promoting Economic and Social Development through Native Title (at Annexure 1). This chapter seeks to record and develop the ideas and discussions that were generated in the consultation process. 1

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.

The resolution of the debate as to whether the extinguishment of native title by the common law and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (&#145;NTA&#146;) is racially discriminatory, depends upon the interpretation given to its two essential components: extinguishment and discrimination. The interpretation that the High Court has given to the extinguishment provisions of the NTA and its relationship with the common law was the subject of the chapter 2. It is to the second of these components, the meaning of discrimination as it applies to the extinguishment of native title, that I now turn.

The strong, vibrant and committed Noongar peoples of the South West corner of Australia had their native title determination over Perth returned to square one. The Full Federal Court found that the first judge had made a number of errors in his decision and have sent the case back for consideration by a new judge, leaving the Noongar peoples uncertain about the future of their rights over the land. This is despite the Western Australian government openly acknowledging the Noongar peoples as the Traditional Owners of the land.