Rights and Protections Publications
Showing 61 - 80 of 253 results
J.S. v Australia (2804/2016) Australian Government Response
2804/2016 concerning the disclosure of personal information
High-level summary of the Inaugural Ministerial Roundtable on Copyright
On 23 February 2023, the Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, chaired then inaugural ministerial roundtable on copyright in Melbourne.
Privacy Act Review Report
The proposed reforms are aimed at strengthening the protection of personal information and the control individuals have over their information. Stronger privacy protections would support digital innovation and enhance Australia’s reputation as a trusted trading partner.
Final Evaluation of the Elder Abuse Service Trials – Final Report
An independent evaluation undertaken by Inside Policy of the Elder Abuse Service Trials to assess the extent to which older people felt supported and the extent to which the services met their needs.
Damages and Costs in Sexual Harassment Litigation: A Doctrinal, Qualitative and Quantitative Study
Research report into damages awarded and cost orders in Australian unlawful discrimination proceedings, conducted by the Australian National University, pursuant to recommendations 24 and 25 of the Respect@Work Report.
K.A. et al. v Australia (2365 2014) Views of 8 July 2021
2365/2014 concerning immigration detention and avenues to challenge detention
AS v Australia (2900 2016) Views of 2 July 2021
2900/2016 concerning detention due to mental impairment
Incoming Government Brief 2022
The purpose of this brief is to provide the Attorney General with a compendium of useful information about their department and portfolio to assist them in their duties.
Respect@Work Council Forum – Summary – 7 July 2022
Summary of the Respect@Work Council Forum held on 7 July 2022.
N.T. v Australia (944/2019) – Views of 12 November 2021
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 removed.
N.S. v Australia (884/2018) – Views of 21 July 2021
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 removed.
G.W.J. v Australia (856/2017) – Views of 12 November 2021
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 removed.
Z v Australia (802/2017) – Views of 21 July 2021
The author alleged that Australia would violate article 3 of the CAT if the author was returned to China. The author's application for a protection visa was refused. The Committee found that Australia would not be in violation if the author was removed.
X v Australia (789/2016) – Views of 27 July 2021
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 removed.
H.L v Australia (754/2016) – Views of 22 July 2021
The author alleged that Australia would violate articles 1 and 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 removed.
G.J.D v Australia (36/2016) – Views of 19 March 2021
The author alleged that Australia had violated articles 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21 due to his compulsory mental health treatment under Victorian legislation concerning mental health patients. The Committee considered the communication was inadmissible.
Sherlock v Australia (20/2014) – Views of 19 March 2021
The author, an Irish national, alleged that Australia had violated articles 4, 5 and 18 of the CPRD because she was refused a work visa on the basis of health requirements. The Committee found that Australia had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 4, 5 and 18.
Sherlock v Australia (20/2014) – Australian Government Response
The author, an Irish national, alleged that Australia had violated articles 4, 5 and 18 of the CPRD because she was refused a work visa on the basis of health requirements. The Committee found that Australia had failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 4, 5 and 18.
Respect@Work Council Annual Report 2021-22
The Respect@Work Council Annual Report 2021-2022 provides information about the Council's work and achievements over its first 12 months of operations and key deliverables proposed for 2022-23.