Showing 1 - 20 of 154 results
Australian Government’s Response to the Functional and Efficiency Review of the National Archives of Australia
The Australian Government has responded to the Functional and Efficiency Review of the National Archives of Australia, undertaken by David Tune AO PSM.
Submissions received for National Register of Enduring Power of Attorney
Submissions received for the public consultation paper on the National Register of Enduring Powers of Attorney.
Respect@Work Terms of Reference
The Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General endorsed the Respect@Work Council Terms of Reference on 9 March 2021. The Terms of Reference were updated to reflect new commitments in the 2021-22 Budget and endorsed by the Attorney-General on 16 June 2021.
National Register EPoA – public consultation paper and submission template
We have prepared this paper to seek your views on possible arrangements for a National Register of Enduring Powers of Attorney (the National Register).
A Roadmap for Respect: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces
On 8 April 2021, the Australian Government released ‘A Roadmap for Respect: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces’ (Roadmap fo
Functional and Efficiency Review of the National Archives of Australia (Tune Review)
The Attorney-General commissioned the Functional and Efficiency Review of the National Archives of Australia to ensure the National Archives can undertake its important role to protect, preserve and use Commonwealth information in the digital age. David Tune AO PSM undertook the review, which is also known as the Tune Review.
Universal Periodic Review – National Report of Australia – 2020
Australia submitted its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) national report to the United Nations in December 2020 to review Australia’s progress in protecting and promoting human rights.
D.N. v Australia (2300/2013) Views of 6 April 2018
2300/2013 concerning right to advertise atheism as part of freedom of religion
Z.H. v Australia (1957/2010) Views of 21 March 2013
The author claimed that his rights under articles 2(1), 6(1), 7, 9(1) and 17 would be violated if he was returned to China. The Committee found there would be no violation.
S.W.R. v Australia (855/2017) - Views of 5 December 2019
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.
S.P. v Australia (718/2015) - Views of 22 November 2019
718/2015 concerning removal to Sri Lanka
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was
V.M. v Australia (723/2015) - Views of 2 August 2019
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.
X v Australia (749/2016) - Views of 3 May 2019
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The author’s application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found the communication was inadmissible.
S.H. v Australia (761/2016) - Views of 23 November 2018
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.
T.T.P. v Australia (756/2016) - Views of 14 November 2018
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Vietnam. The Committee found the communication was inadmissible.
G.A. v Australia (680/2015) - Views of 9 August 2018
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to Pakistan. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was returned.
Leo v Australia (17/2013) - Views of 30 August 2019
The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the CPRD. The Committee found that Australia had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
S.C. v Australia (2296/2013) Views of 2 November 2018
2296/2013 concerning the independence of investigation into fatal shooting by police.