Showing 1 - 20 of 148 results
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
D.N. v Australia (2300/2013) Views of 6 April 2018
2300/2013 concerning right to advertise atheism as part of freedom of religion
S.C. v Australia (2296/2013) Views of 2 November 2018
2296/2013 concerning the independence of investigation into fatal shooting by police.
Exposure draft - Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020
We have developed draft legislation, the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020, to support the COVIDSafe app and provide strong ongoing privacy protections.
Submissions received for Enhancing protections relating to the use of Enduring Power of Attorney instruments consultation
The following submissions were received.
Submissions received for the Religious Freedom Bills – second exposure drafts consultation
We received approximately 7,000 submissions, including a number of campaign-based submissions. The department has published over 290 submissions. These represent the majority of submissions received (5,102) including all submissions from organisations and all campaign-based submissions.
J.H. v Australia (35/2016) Australian Government Response
35/2016 concerning the ability to perform jury duty
Enhancing protections relating to the use of Enduring Power of Attorney instruments - Consultation Regulation Impact Statement
In 2020, these options were considered to determine the appropriate government response to streamline access to information about enduring powers of attorney (EPOA) and reduce the uncertainty regarding whether a document, as presented, can be relied upon as the basis for financial transactions.