Search results

Many same-sex couples who appeared at the Inquiry’s community forums talked about the problems they face in getting visas. They highlighted the limited options available to a same-sex couple wanting to migrate to Australia as a couple. They talked about the additional expense and disruption to their lives in proving their entitlement to a visa. And they talked about the indignity of being…

As part of the Inquiry’s audit of federal, state and territory laws, the Inquiry has identified a range of laws which potentially discriminate against same-sex couples and families, but do not fall within the previous topic-specific chapters.

Organisations and individuals raised a range of issues with the Inquiry that did not fall strictly within its Terms of Reference. Where these issues relate to one of the main chapters of this report, they are discussed within that chapter.

The following chapter summarises the findings and recommendations made in each of Chapters 4 – 16 in this report. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendix 1 which sets out the list of legislation to be amended in order to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children.

The following 58 legal instruments must be amended to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in the area of financial and work-related entitlements.

The following is a selection of extracts from these stories.[1] The stories demonstrate the compound effect of discrimination against same-sex families in the area of financial and work-related entitlements.

The Inquiry received submissions from 680 different individuals and organisations. Some provided submissions in response to both the first and second round discussion papers.

The Inquiry held seven formal public hearings around Australia between 26 July 2006 and 20 October 2006. Overall, 32 organisations and 44 individuals appeared at the public hearings.

Review the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report, which was collated after 18 community forums were held around Australia in 2006.

The Inquiry Team: Vanessa Lesnie, Kate Temby, Susan Newell, Samantha Edmonds, Kate Fitzgerald, Emily Gray, Frances Simmons, Alessandra Krilis, Jemma Hollonds, Avril Cox

This Inquiry was an extension of the original National Inquiry into the Human Rights of People with Mental Illness, the report of which was tabled in Parliament in October 1993. The Inquiry was reconvened in Victoria because of particular concerns relating to that State which required further exploration.

Do you work in women’s services? Do you work in women’s housing? Women’s health? Violence against women? Women’s support services? Discrimination issues?

This is an important report. It deals with our treatment of children in the most recent wave of boat people seeking refuge and a better life on our shores. It does so in the knowledge that there is a tension created by the community expectation that the Government will defend Australia's security while simultaneously upholding individual rights - the notion of the 'fairgo' for all. The report…

This executive summary is divided into two parts. Part A sets out the major findings and recommendations of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (the Inquiry). Part B provides a chapter summary of the Inquiry's report: A last resort?

Please do not limit the audience of these reports to the Immigration Department and the Minister. We would like to urge you to educate the public to pass on the report to newspapers and the other electronic media so that the public can learn what is going on in the immigration detention camp, and I know that public opinion is shifting when they become aware of what is happening. Father, Port…

The Inquiry has been committed to hearing from all parties in the Australian community who have been involved with the immigration detention of children.

I want to tell you that actually I spent about fifteen nights in the ride to Australia. I was in a small boat if you want to call that a boat, because it was smaller than that, with lots of difficulties. When I saw [we were] getting near Australia I was becoming a little bit hopeful. When we passed Darwin I got to the detention centre as soon as I looked at these barbed wires my mind was full of…

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the relevance of international human rights law to children in Australia's immigration detention centres and to provide a quick reference point on the fundamental human rights principles that have influenced the approach of this Inquiry. This chapter also explains the role of United Nations (UN) guidelines in the Inquiry's analysis of Australia's human…

Australia is responsible for ensuring that all children in its jurisdiction can enjoy all applicable human rights, including those in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Refugee Convention. That responsibility may be executed through legislation, executive action and the judicial system. Subject to the Australian…

Australian law requires the detention of all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa (unlawful non-citizens). This means that immigration officials have no choice but to detain persons who arrive without a visa (unauthorised arrivals), or persons who arrive with a visa and subsequently become unlawful because their visa has expired or been cancelled (authorised arrivals)…