Address to Tri-State Country Conference, Broken Hill
Commission – General
Address to Tri-State Country Conference,
Broken Hill
Speech delivered by the Hon John
von Doussa QC, President, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 13
March 2004
Introduction
I would like to begin by acknowledging
the traditional owners and Elders of the land on which we're meeting today -
the Wilykali people.
I also want to make mention
of the fact that we are 130kn south west of an area of great significance to
the Aboriginal communities of western NSW, which is now called Mutawintji National
Park - the first park to be handed back to its Traditional Owners under the
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act in 1998. [1]
The caves and overhangs in the park have been transformed into expansive galleries
of Aboriginal rock art, and it comes as no surprise that they have formed the
backdrop for ceremonies for at least 8,000 years.
Mutawintji also warrants special
mention because since the hand-back in 1998, the park has been managed by the
local Aboriginal community in partnership with National Parks and Wildlife Services.
Aboriginal people participate in all of the planning and decisions concerning
the management of the park, so there is a genuine integration of both traditional
and contemporary knowledge and expertise.
I think it is a very encouraging
example of reconciliation in action - and an example of how we can move beyond
the rhetoric to acknowledge in a meaningful way, that Aboriginal people are
the custodians for their cultures and their traditional country.
I have to confess that I am yet to
visit Mutawintji myself, but it is temptingly close!
I also want to thank the South Australian,
Far Western NSW, and North West Victorian Law Societies for inviting me to address
the conference. It provides a welcome opportunity for me to address lawyers
working in rural and remote Australia, and to turn my mind to kinds of human
rights issues that exist in your area of practice.
Whilst there are a lot of parallels
between the kinds of discrimination and inequities that occur in coastal cities
and rural towns, there are also a range of human rights concerns that are unique
to rural and remote Australia.
In almost every aspect of our work,
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (hereafter HREOC) has noticed
that people in rural and remote Australia generally come off second best. Distance,
isolation, lower incomes and minority status all exacerbate the experience of
discrimination, harassment, and lack of services and participation.
Often people are unaware of the fundamental
human rights that they are entitled to enjoy - whether they be in relation to
access to a quality education, basic health services and fresh drinking water,
or the right to freedom from discrimination.
I want to talk later about what the
Commission has done to identify the specific human rights concerns of Australians
in rural and remote areas, and the responses we have recommended and indeed
undertaken to improve their ability to better enjoy their human rights.
But first, I think it is useful to
outline how HREOC deals with individual complaints of unlawful discrimination
- cases that I'm sure come across your desk - so that you can assist your clients
who become involved either as complainants or respondents.
Commission's role and functions
In May last year I stepped
down from my position as a Judge of the Federal Court to accept the role as
President of HREOC. It has been a time of new challenges, such as the need to
balance the legislative and administrative responsibilities that the Commission
has been given by the federal government, with the important role of advocating
for the rights of those on the margins of Australian society.
The Commission occupies
a unique place in Australian society. It sits independent of Government, yet
it is not what is traditionally known as a non-government organisation or an
advocate. It is a statutory authority responsible for the observance of human
rights in Australia. Broadly speaking the Commission's responsibilities include:
- education and public
awareness; - discrimination and human
rights complaints; - human rights compliance;
and - policy and legislative
development.
In practice, these responsibilities
enable the Commission and its staff to undertake a range of investigative, monitoring,
reporting and advocacy roles including:
- resolving complaints
of discrimination or breaches of human rights under federal laws; - holding public inquiries
into issues of national importance, such as the forced separation of Aboriginal
children from their families, a national paid maternity leave scheme or the
rights of children in immigration detention centres; - intervening or acting
as amicus curiae in important legal cases that affect the human rights
of people in Australia; - providing advice and
assistance to parliaments and governments to develop laws, programs and policies; - researching human rights
and discrimination issues; and - developing human rights
education programs and resources for schools, workplaces and the community.
The work of the Commission
is guided by the four federal laws that it is responsible for administering:
- Racial Discrimination
Act 1975 - Sex Discrimination
Act 1984 - Disability Discrimination
Act 1992 - Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986
Complaints
The functions of the Commission
in relation to complaints under the first three pieces of legislation (the race,
sex and disability discrimination Acts) are designed to give effect to Australia's
obligations under international human rights treaties and conventions that the
Government has ratified, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, to name only
a few.
Under these international
instruments, Australia is required to report to the relevant United Nations
treaty body to elaborate on how our anti-discrimination laws and policies are
meeting our international obligations, thereby exposing the Government's record
to international scrutiny.
The race, sex and disability
discrimination laws provide an avenue to make a complaint of discrimination
or harassment in the workplace and various facets of public life. This is, I
imagine, the aspect of the Commission's work that you are most likely to encounter
in your practices.
Last year, the Commission
received inquiries from almost 9,500 people from all over Australia seeking
information about the laws we administer, grounds for complaints and the complaint
process. Most of the inquiries are by telephone, with a smaller number in writing
or by email. We answer all inquiries, including those from lawyers who are seeking
advice on behalf of a client.
HREOC staff outline the
process by which individuals can lodge complaints of discrimination with the
Commission, and how a respondent can go about responding to a complaint.
If a formal written complaint
is made, it is initially assessed to make sure it can be investigated under
the laws for which the Commission has responsibility. After receiving all the
relevant information, the complaint is then reviewed to determine if it should
be terminated because it is lacking in substance, or if it is suitable for conciliation.
Conciliation is intended
to bring the parties together - the complainant and the respondent - to try
and resolve the matter. Conciliation is a confidential process where both parties
are given the opportunity to talk through the issues and reach an agreement.
They are not required to have legal representation, but may do so if they wish.
We stress that the Commission
is an independent and unbiased mediator in these discussions. Our goal is try
and resolve the complaint in a fair and timely process with the minimum expenditure
and stress for either party. We hold these conciliation conferences throughout
Australia - in capital cites and country towns.
If a complaint cannot be
conciliated, it will be terminated by the President. The termination of a complaint
triggers the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court
to deal with the complaint. The complainant then has the option to go to court,
however the matter has to be lodged within 28 days of the complaint being terminated.
As I indicated earlier,
the Commission also inquires into complaints under the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission Act, but does so following a very different process
to the one I have just described.
Complaints under the HREOC
Act are generated by either:
- alleged breaches of human rights
by the Commonwealth (such as a federal government department) against accepted
international standards; or - discrimination in employment (both
public and private organisations) on a range of grounds, such as age, religion,
sexual preference, political opinion, trade union activity and criminal record.
Complaints received under this Act
can also be resolved by conciliation between the parties. However, if the matter
cannot be conciliated, they cannot proceed to court. Rather the Commission can
present a report to federal Parliament outlining the key issues and recommendations
to resolve the complaint.
Last year we received 1,236 formal
complaints under all of the legislation we administer, and 84 per cent of them
were finalised within 12 months of being lodged. One in three complaints was
resolved through conciliation and the breakdown of these complaints is:
- Racial Discrimination Act - 182
- Sex Discrimination Act - 380
- Disabilities Discrimination Act
493 - HREOC Act - 181
Pregnancy discrimination
Having outlined the broad
parameters of the Commission's complaint handling processes, I want to look
more closely at the sorts of complaints we receive and how they are dealt with.
In the last year, there
was a significant rise in complaints because of discrimination in relation to
pregnancy or family responsibilities. One of the reasons for this was the fact
that the Commission had conducted a National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry, which
was followed by discussion of a paid maternity leave scheme.
The media coverage that
these issues received had the clear effect of educating women about their rights
in the workplace.
So much so that 35% of
complaints received under the Sex Discrimination Act last year - in other words
380 complaints - related to pregnancy discrimination.
Of course, the circumstances
of each complaint are unique, but many of them have similar elements. The details
in the following complaint that came to the Commission recently are indicative
of the types of practices that can generate a complaint of discrimination on
the grounds of pregnancy, and how it can be conciliated to the satisfaction
of both parties through the Commission.
'Anne' started full-time
work as an office administrator with a small training consultancy company in
September 2001. She claimed that three months later she advised the company
director that she was pregnant and was suffering from pregnancy related illness.
She said that when she told the Director this his response was to the effect:
"Look, this will jeopardise your position".
Anne claimed that a few
weeks later when she advised the Director that she was ill again, he told her:
"That's it. I have had enough. Pack your things and go", and terminated her
employment. Anne claimed that the company signed a separation certificate which
indicated that her employment was terminated due to her pregnancy and frequent
illness.
The company's management
denied that Anne was discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy and
associated illness. They said they had accommodated Anne's medical appointments
and given her sick leave. They also said that Anne had resigned and that the
details on the separation certificate had been completed by Anne prior to being
signed by the company.
The complaint was eventually
resolved through conciliation, with the company agreeing to provide the complainant
with written and verbal references and an ex-gratia payment of $6 000.
Human resource issues in
the workplace concerning pregnancy have been well canvassed in recent years,
especially in HROEC's report following the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry
entitled Pregnant and Productive: It's a right not a privilege to work while
pregnant, published in August 1999. That report was followed by HREOC publishing
Pregnancy Guidelines to help workplace participants to understand and
fulfil their obligations under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ("the SDA").
Those guidelines are readily available on the HREOC website.
Section 3.4 of the Guidelines
deals with the return to work after maternity leave. This is another important
issue where there have been several court decisions in recent months. The Guidelines
correctly make two observations:
"Under industrial relations
laws, awards and agreements as well as the federal Sex Discrimination Act, an
employee is generally entitled to return to the position she held prior to commencing
leave or to a comparable available position if her original job has ceased to
exist ..."; and
"An employee returning
from maternity leave may also wish to work part-time or on a job-share basis.
Awards, agreements, and some State laws specifically allow for a return to part-time
work after maternity leave by agreement with the employer. In some situations,
an employer may be deemed to have made a discriminatory decision if a reasonable
request for part-time work is refused."
Then follows a comment
that there is a growth of precedent in this area. That growth in precedent has
continued. In the last two years, there have been one Federal Court and six
Federal Magistrates Court decisions concerning discrimination under the SDA
alleged by women either seeking to return to work following maternity leave,
or seeking to vary working hours to meet family responsibilities connected with
a young child.
The cases are Thomson
v Orica Australia Pty Ltd,[2] Rispoli v Merck
Sharpe & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors,[3]
Song v Ainsworth Game Technology Pty Ltd ,[4]
Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Ltd (No. 2), [5]
Mayer v Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, [6]
Evans v National Crime Authority [7] and
Kelly v TPG Internet Ltd. [8]
A number of points emerge
from these decisions.
In each case the employee
after a strenuous denial on the issues that went to trial was found to have
unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in one or more respects. Significant
monetary awards were made in all but one of the cases.
Within the reasons for
decision there is discussion of both direct and indirect discrimination. The
SDA renders unlawful both types of discrimination in the workplace on the grounds
of the sex or marital status of the aggrieved person, and on the ground of pregnancy
or potential pregnancy. [9] In the case of family
responsibilities, the SDA only renders unlawful direct discrimination on that
ground, and then only if the discrimination results in the dismissal of the
employee. [10]
This is important as there
are different tests for direct and indirect discrimination.
When direct discrimination
is alleged the test is whether by reason of one of the prescribed characteristics,
the alleged discriminator has treated the aggrieved person less favourably than,
in circumstances that are the same or not materially different, the discriminator
treats or would treat a person without that characteristic. [11]
This requires the court to identify a comparator and then to determine whether
the aggrieved person has been treated less favourably.
In the case of indirect
discrimination the test is quite different. Indirect discrimination occurs where
the employer imposes an unreasonable condition, requirement or practice that
has or is likely to have the effect of disadvantaging persons who have the prescribed
characteristic - sex, marital status or pregnancy. [12]
There is no need to inquire if the aggrieved person is being less favourably
treated than a comparator. The Act provides that indirect discrimination does
not occur where the imposition of the condition, requirement or practice is
reasonable in the circumstances. [13] As unlawful
discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities can only be direct,
in such a case the reasonableness of the different treatment that constitutes
discrimination is not a defence.
In five of the Federal
Magistrates Court cases the employer did not meet a request to work part-time,
or to accommodate time off to meet child care requirements.
In Escobar and Mayer(and
by implication in Song) the court characterised the employers' stance
as indirect discrimination on the ground of sex contrary to s5(2) of the SDA
as the denial had the effect of imposing a requirement to work full-time or
during inflexible times, and such a requirement was likely to disadvantage women.
In Escobar and Mayer the court followed observations made by Commissioner
Elizabeth Evatt in the well-known case of Hickie v Hunt and Hunt [14]
where she inferred "from general knowledge that women are far more likely
than men to require at least some periods of part-time work during their career,
and in particular a period of part-time work after maternity leave in order
to meet family responsibilities." [15]
I do not think that this
proposition can be doubted, and it is likely to be accepted by courts in this
area without the need for evidence.[16] If that
is correct, the issue of contention that will arise in this type of case is
whether the imposition of the requirement is reasonable in the circumstances.
[17]
Conciliation video
Having now given examples
of the type of discrimination complaints that arise, I return to HREOC's conciliation
procedures.
The Commission's conciliation
process is a fair, inexpensive and informal way to resolve discrimination complaints.
And, as the statistics demonstrate, it's also very effective.
Two weeks ago - in fact,
the day after the Academy Awards were announced - the Commission launched a
new video and DVD called 'Pathways to resolution' to outline our conciliation
process.
The video runs for 20 minutes
and is a useful resource for:
- people who have made,
or are thinking about making a complaint to the Commission, and - people or organisations
who have had complaints made against them, and may need to participate in
a conciliation process.
The video:
- outlines the various
forms the conciliation process may take - explains the role of
the conciliator - outlines how parties
should prepare and approach conciliation, and - uses a case study example
to show what happens in various stages of a face-to-face conciliation meeting.
Remember that before any
discrimination complaint under Federal Law can go to a court, it must go through
HREOC, which is obliged to attempt to resolve it by conciliation. The video
may be something that you'd be interested in looking at, or providing to a client,
if they are involved in a complaint.
And, of course, the video
or DVD is available free from the Commission.
Other Commission projects
In addition to the complaints
function, the Commission is constantly engaged in a wide range of human rights
issues and projects.
To give you an idea of
the just how wide the spectrum of activities is, in the next six moths the Commission
will:
- release its report of
the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention - an exhaustive
analysis of the treatment of child asylum seekers under Australia's immigration
laws and in detention that has been some two years in the making; - release a landmark statistical
analysis and survey of sexual harassment in the workplace and a revised
Code of Practice for employers. This is a follow on from a Commission publication
entitled A Bad Business [18] which reviewed
152 sexual harassment complaints finalised in the 2002 calendar year; - release the annual Social
Justice and Native Title reports, which explore the issues that most affect
Indigenous Australians; - release a report of
the Commission's national consultations with Arab and Muslim Australians,
which will include the strategies and policies recommended by these communities
to counter the abuse and discrimination they have been experiencing since
September 11. Most consultations have been conducted in major cities, reflecting
the demographic concentration of Arab and Muslim Australians in these centres,
but some meetings were held in rural and regional centres like Shepparton,
Wollongong and Alice Springs in acknowledgement that retribution and vilification
occurs in all parts of Australia, and a truly national strategy will be required
to promote greater tolerance and understanding; and - run education and awareness
programs in schools to encourage students to look at ways to tackle sexual
harassment and homophobic harassment.
We are striving to give
effect to our statutory duty to be of the "greatest possible benefit to the
people of Australia," and to have regard for the principle that "every person
is free and equal in dignity and rights" in Australia.
The Commission takes its
public awareness and educative function very seriously, recognising that this
is perhaps the best way that we can contribute to the development and maintenance
of a tolerant, equitable and democratic society. That is why we are focussing
a lot of our work on the development of programs that provide information and
strategies to improve the enjoyment of human rights in Australia - the key message
being that the elimination of discrimination and harassment are the prerequisites
for the enjoyment of human rights by all Australians.
Public space
One other issue that has
been brought to the Commission's attention on a number of occasions, relates
to the administration of so-called 'public spaces' such as public parks and
streets, by State and Local Government authorities. Over a number of years,
we have received complaints about the laws that have been put in place to eliminate
public drunkenness and sleeping in public areas, or in the case of minors, to
give authorities the power to return children to their home or another safer
place than the streets.
On the face of it,
these legislative objectives appear to be perfectly acceptable.
However, where the concern
has arisen is in the enforcement of the laws to restrict the use of public
space, and whether or not a particular group, namely Indigenous people,
is being disproportionately affected. In other words, some people have
complained that the manner in which the law is being implemented is racially
discriminatory. However, as none of these complaints has progress to the
courts (for various reasons), the question of racial discrimination is
yet to be determined
Nonetheless, the Commission is very concerned about any
law or policy which, directly or indirectly, increases the likelihood
that Indigenous people will come into contact with the police.
Indeed, one of the key goals of the Royal Commission
into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was to find ways to reduce Indigenous
people's contact with the criminal justice system. Yet statistics show
us that more than ten years after the Royal Commission, Indigenous contact
with the criminal justice system is a growing problem - regardless
of sex or age.
The Royal Commission also vividly demonstrated the cycle
of criminalisation that many Indigenous people fall into, and the danger
of inappropriate laws operating to indoctrinate Indigenous youth into
the criminal justice system and potentially into a pattern of more serious
offending.
The Commission therefore recognises that the politically
popular 'law and order' approach, has to be examined in the context of
the relationship between Indigenous people and the criminal justice system.
The Commission also has to be mindful of the economic,
social and political disadvantage of Indigenous Australians as compared
with other Australians. This historic disadvantage has created a situation
of gross inequity in contemporary Australian society which often manifests
itself in the form of Indigenous community dysfunction, violence and crime
- something that many of you may deal with all too frequently in your
practice.
Preliminary research and discussion has shown the Commission
that there is a wide range of views about how public spaces should be
used, the laws that affect their use and the way in which these laws are
implemented.
The Local and State Governments that create these laws
may have different attitudes about what is an acceptable use of public
space, as compared to the communities who are the most frequent users
of the space.
Sometimes there is a great deal of tension between the
authorities who create and implement these laws, and the people who are
affected by them.
What is clear is that this is a complex issue with no
obvious or one step solutions. Any strategy to address this issue, by
definition, must genuinely involve the Indigenous communities affected,
as well as the authorities who are developing and implementing the laws
and policies.
So the Commission has recently embarked on a national
consultation process to discuss the relevant laws - to talk to everyone
who has a stake in the issue and to listen to their opinions.
As part of this process, over the next few months I'll
be meeting with community groups, as well as Local and State Government
authorities in Darwin, Adelaide, Townsville and Perth to discuss these
issues.
I would hope that, at the end of this process, the Commission
will be in a position to determine what role we can and should play in
bringing about an outcome that benefits all of the groups concerned.
As lawyers coming from disparate parts of New South Wales,
Victoria and South Australia, some of you may have experiences that you
could share with the Commission. I would be very happy to hear from you
if you have any ideas, views, or strategies that you would like to put
forward.
Bush Talks
I now want to turn to some of the broader human rights
issues that exist in rural and remote Australia, how the Commission has
sought to draw attention to these issues, and what types of programs and
responses we have either recommended or put in place to improve the lives
of Australians in these areas.
On the whole, I think it is fair to say that most people
living in rural Australia share a deep-seated feeling of disadvantage
when they compare the lifestyle choices and opportunities available to
them with those of their city cousins.
This perception of disadvantage is fuelled by the fact
that people living on farms, outback properties and in country towns are
isolated by age, distance and circumstance. Community services, family
and neighbours are limited - and often declining as the social and economic
push to regional and urban centres intensifies. Whilst a small number
of strategically located regional towns are undergoing a renaissance,
these are the exception rather than the rule.
In recognition of this situation, HREOC conducted a national
consultation process with Australians in rural and remote areas, which
became known as the Bush Talks. We invited people living beyond
the main population centres to raise all of their concerns related to
human rights, with the aim of raising awareness and understanding of their
human rights, and then developing projects to improve the enjoyment of
human rights in rural and remote Australia.
The Bush Talks Report - generated by these community
consultations - was released by HREOC in February 1999. The report examined
a range of crucial issues, including health, education, aged care, youth
services, employment, bank closures, telecommunications, public transport,
housing and water.
The Bush Talks heard of intolerance towards young people,
gay and lesbian people and Indigenous people, and of very serious disadvantages
faced by these groups, people with disabilities and people from non-English
speaking backgrounds, particularly in obtaining necessary services in
rural and remote areas.
Among the programs and strategies that the Commission
has either advocated or undertaken to address these issues include the
following:
The National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education
which was initiated by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission in 1999. This inquiry found that more is needed to ensure every
Australian child enjoys their fundamental right to education, and that
the human rights of all children must be respected in the way their right
to education is provided. It drew attention to the particular vulnerability
of Indigenous children, children with disabilities and children from diverse
cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds. The principal human rights
advocated by the inquiry report were:
- the right
to an education which is non-discriminatory and which develops the child's
abilities to the fullest; - the right to a
curriculum which develops respect for human rights and for the child's
own family and culture as well as for national values; and - the right to
educational decision-making which makes the best interests of each child
a primary consideration as advised by the child's parents and by the
child himself or herself.
The report advised
that children and their families should not be expected to sacrifice their
other fundamental rights in order to access an education. For most Australian
children the issue is not one of total sacrifice but of finding a reasonable
balance: for children who are at boarding school, the balance between
a high quality secondary education and the right to family life, [19]
for those living at home, the balance between long hours of travel to
and from school and the right to rest and leisure, [20]
for an Aboriginal child, the balance between attending a senior secondary
school in a capital city and the right to participate in his or her own
language, culture and religion with community members. [21]
The Healthy Community Projects
Website
Inadequate, inaccessible
and diminishing health services emerged as the principal human
rights concern raised in Bush Talks. The Bush Talks revealed that the
overwhelming perception in many communities was that urban-based governments
and bureaucracies are failing to understand the health needs of rural
Australians. Many country towns reported cutbacks and difficulties in
attracting and retaining health professionals.
This was very troubling
for the Commission, given Australia's international obligations under
three human rights treaties to realise the fundamental right to health
for all Australians. [22] The right to health
includes the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of the individual and their family, including food, clothing,
housing, medical care and necessary social services. [23]
Our national consultations
also confirmed that the health of rural and remote Australians continues
to be significantly worse than their urban counterparts. Relatively poor
access to health services, lower socioeconomic status and employment levels,
exposure to comparatively harsher environments and occupational hazards
contribute to and may explain most of these inequalities. Also, a large
proportion of the population in the more remote parts of Australia are
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who generally have poorer
health status. [24]
As a result, HREOC
launched the Healthy Community Projects Website to highlight some of the
best practice health initiatives in remote, rural and regional Australia
and examine the reasons for their success.
Some of the successful
health projects HREOC has showcased on the website have a mix of the following
characteristics. They:
- are community
based or community responsive - clearly identify
and address local need - establish a mechanism
for continuing support - receive substantial
primary funding but may seek out other funding sources - are flexible and
responsive to changing health needs and a changing community - have highly motivated
and committed individuals involved in the process.
Mental Health
Another of the key
human rights concerns that emerged from the Bush Talks was the lack of
mental health services in rural and remote areas, whether they be counselling,
psychiatric, detox and rehabilitations facilities for alcohol and substance
abuse, marriage counselling, respite care, palliative care and so on.
It appeared that the effects of economic downturn and the resulting sense
of hopelessness, worthlessness and despair are major factors in contributing
to the high rate of rural suicide.
At present, one in
six adult Australians suffers a mental health problem.
However, the lack
of mental health services for young people was of even greater concern,
especially given the pessimism and even despair that many young people
reported. Far from being cherished in public policy, children and young
people throughout Australia bear the brunt of unemployment, reduced services,
diminishing income support and increasingly punitive criminal justice
processes.
Depression is one
of the most common mental health problems experienced by young people
and a major risk factor for youth suicide. Evidence presented to the Bush
Talks indicated that the groups most vulnerable to discrimination or community
intolerance are also those at greater risk of attempting suicide, such
as:
- young Indigenous
people; - young people who
are gay, lesbian or bisexual; - and teenage girls
who fall pregnant.
In response to this
situation, HREOC:
- Published a Guide
on taking children's best interests into account for the information
of all sectors of government and of private social welfare institutions,
which is available on our website; - Continues to evaluate
and comment on State and Territory juvenile justice systems and has
produced a Guide on best practice principles for the diversion of juvenile
offenders; - Coordinated a
National Program on the Human Rights of Young Gays and Lesbians in Rural
Australia, in partnership with a range of community organisations including
the Australian Youth Foundation. One of the outcomes of this program
was the release of a training manual entitled Not Round Here: Affirming
Diversity, Challenging Homophobia, which was designed to assist
in the delivery of anti-homophobia training for service providers. It
is relevant to a wide range of organisations whose clients and contacts
include people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, and
it is particularly useful for rural service providers as it includes
training modules with a specific rural perspective; - And just last
year, together with the Indigenous Studies Product Development Unit
of TAFE Queensland, HREOC has developed an accredited Indigenous
Legal Advocacy Course that is designed to provide Indigenous people
with the skills and knowledge to work in a legal environment. This is
an invaluable opportunity for Indigenous people to study the operation
of the law from their own perspective and with their own cultural and
social considerations in mind. We hope that it will improve the legal
skills and knowledge of Indigenous people working in legal environments
or participating in community justice mechanisms and advisory positions.
The courses commence this year in TAFE colleges and independent Aboriginal
education providers who are licensed by HREOC; we are expecting about
100 students to enrol.
Conclusion
This presentation
has covered a lot of ground - there are of course many human rights issues
that I haven't been able to touch on - one obvious one being the discrimination
and hardship experienced by women in rural and remote Australia.
Women tend to carry
the responsibility of holding families together in very difficult circumstances.
They are often the quiet achievers and innovators - the glue for entire
communities - but along with children, they are the most vulnerable to
human rights abuses such as domestic violence and inadequate access to
health services.
Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in your conference.
1.
Four national parks in NSW are now subject to co-management agreements,
Indigenous land use agreements or lease-back agreements between Indigenous
communities and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. A further
five national parks are listed on Schedule 14 of the National Parks
and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) for return to the Traditional Owners and
co-management arrangements.
2. (2002) EOC 93-227; [2002] FCA 939.
3. (2003) FMCA 160.
4. (2002) EOC 93-194; [2002] FMCA 31.
5. (2002) FMCA 122, digest of decision appears at (2002)
EOC 93-229.
6. (2003) FMCA 209.
7. (2003) FMCA 375.
8. (2003) FMCA 584.
9. See SDA, ss 5, 6 and 7.
10. See SDA, ss7A and 14(3A).
11. See SDA, ss 5(1), 6(1), 7(1) and 7A.
12. See SDA, ss 5(1), 6(2) and 7(2).
13. See SDA, s 7B.
14. HREOC, Commissioner Evatt, 9 March 1998. Partially
reported at (1998) EOC 92-910.
15. See paragraph 6.17.10, which does not appear in the
reported version of this decision.
16. If evidence is needed, see the statistics referred
to in Evans at [105].
17. See s.7B(2) of the SDA for the matters to be considered
in applying the reasonableness test.
18. Published November 2003.
19. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article
8.
20. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article
31.
21. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article
30.
22. The treaties are the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights,
and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
23. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
24. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's
Health 2000, 2000, page 223.
Last
updated 15 March 2004.
