Search results

All Australians have human rights. Human rights are universal: they are for everyone, everywhere, everyday. Human rights are based on values such as freedom, equality and dignity and seek to protect our quality of life.

Good functioning of prescribed bodies corporate (PBC)2 is essential to native title. Recognition of native title rights only goes part of the way to redress the historical injustice of land dispossession. Without appropriate means to make decisions about land, the existence of native title makes minimal appreciable difference to Indigenous people.

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

The Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara and other Indigenous people of the town of Yulara, in the shadows of Uluru, had their claim for compensation for extinguishment of native title rejected by Justice Sackville in the Federal Court (the Jango case)1in 2006. The Noongar people (the Noongar case)2 had their claim for native title over the metropolitan area of Perth upheld. Further north, around…

The position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner was established within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1993 to carry out the following functions:

It is crucial to the functioning of the native title system that there are organisations representing Indigenous people and assisting them to gain recognition and protection of native title.

Native title is now well established in Australian law. The native title system was set up in 1994 under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Native Title Act). It is for gaining recognition and protection of native title, and for resolving native title matters. It has been successfully used in many parts of the country.

To develop a nationwide picture of existing government initiatives that address family violence, the Social Justice Commissioner sent correspondence to all State, Territory and relevant Australian government departments[1] requesting information on their policies and programs during the period 2006-2007.

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.

One part of the funding is the ‘respondent funding scheme’ operated by the Attorney-General’s Department. Under this scheme the Attorney-General can grant legal or financial assistance to certain non-claimant parties to enable them to participate in native title proceedings.1

The year 2007 is the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 constitutional referendum. The referendum changed the Australian Constitution however it didn’t specify directions to be taken. In many ways, it could be said that the referendum represented promises to Indigenous Australians for new ways of enjoying human rights, and promises to other Australians that Indigenous citizens could expect a…

This report covers my fourth year as the Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner at HREOC, a position I occupy in addition to my position as the aboriginal and torres Strait islander Social Justice Commissioner. During the period on which I report, Australia elected a new government, ending almost 12 years of a coalition government.

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.