Search Results

At 1800ADVOCATES, we are deeply committed to supporting the rights and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across Australia. As we celebrate NAIDOC Week 2025, we reflect on the history and enduring significance of this important national observance, which this year carries the powerful theme, "The Next Generation: Strength, Vision & Legacy." Understanding the Roots of NAIDOC Week NAIDOC Week originated from the profound Day of Mourning protest held on 26 January 1938. On this historic day, over a thousand Aboriginal people gathered at Australia Hall in Sydney, advocating for equal rights, citizenship, and improved living conditions. This event set the stage for what would become an annual day of reflection, protest, and celebration, initially known as "Aborigines Day." Recognising NAIDOC Week 2025: A Commitment to Strength, Vision, and Legacy In 1955, Aborigines Day transitioned from January to the first Sunday in July, shifting the focus from purely protest to a broader celebration of Aboriginal culture and heritage. The establishment of the National Aborigines Day Observance Committee (NADOC) further solidified the event's significance, eventually expanding to a full week of celebrations by 1975. The inclusion of Torres Strait Islander peoples saw the committee renamed NAIDOC, symbolising a unified voice for First Nations communities. NAIDOC Week 2025: Strengthening Future Generations The 2025 NAIDOC Week theme, "The Next Generation: Strength, Vision & Legacy," underscores the importance of empowering young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It emphasises the necessity of understanding and respecting ancestral knowledge, which provides the foundation and vision for future generations. Artist Jeremy Morgan Worrall eloquently represents this year's theme in his artwork "Ancestral Lines," highlighting the connection between generations, the enduring strength drawn from ancestral wisdom, and the ongoing legacy carried forward by the youth of today. Our Role and Responsibility At 1800ADVOCATES, recognising NAIDOC Week means reaffirming our commitment to advocating for workplace fairness, equality, and human rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We understand that true advocacy extends beyond symbolic gestures; it requires ongoing action, authentic partnerships, and active engagement with Indigenous communities. We encourage our clients, colleagues, and wider networks to participate actively in NAIDOC Week by: Engaging with and learning from local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Supporting and promoting Indigenous-led initiatives and businesses. Educating themselves and others about the rich history and cultures of First Nations peoples. Moving Forward Together NAIDOC Week is not merely a week on the calendar; it is a reminder of our collective responsibility to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices remain strong, visible, and respected. At 1800ADVOCATES, we remain committed to advocating for meaningful change, recognising that every step towards justice and equity for First Nations peoples strengthens the broader Australian community. Let us honour the strength, vision, and legacy of our Indigenous communities during NAIDOC Week 2025 and beyond.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) is set to arbitrate an important employment dispute involving former employees of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, who claim entitlement to redundancy payments after the conclusion of their maximum term contracts. In the recent decision, Commissioner Oanh Tran addressed preliminary objections raised by the Florey Institute, which argued that only the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), and not the individual former employees, had standing to file an application under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute originated from employment contracts described by the institute as "maximum term," concluding in December 2024. Fair Work Commission to Determine "maximum term" employees' case Commissioner Tran determined that the dispute resolution provisions in clause 43.5 of the Florey Institute’s 2024 enterprise agreement enable the Commission to arbitrate matters brought forward by individuals, provided the NTEU had previously raised the dispute on their behalf. Crucially, the Commissioner emphasized that jurisdiction under section 739 remains active until the dispute is resolved, regardless of whether employment contracts have ended or the enterprise agreement itself has ceased operating due to replacement or termination. The former employees had lengthy service histories with the Florey Institute—one spanning nearly 15 years and another approximately seven years. Both argued they were entitled to redundancy payments, while the Florey Institute countered that these were not genuine redundancies. Instead, the institute claimed their employment simply expired as initially agreed due to funding constraints. The institute attempted to narrowly interpret the dispute provisions, asserting that only the initiating party, in this case the NTEU, could bring the dispute to arbitration. However, Commissioner Tran rejected this interpretation, clarifying that the agreement’s language inherently includes both the NTEU and the individual employees represented. She underscored the principle that dispute resolution clauses must not diminish an individual's agency or restrict their ability to pursue personal workplace disputes, particularly when such disputes remain unresolved following union representation. A case management conference has been scheduled to arrange the subsequent arbitration steps, where the FWC will definitively address whether redundancy payments are warranted. This case highlights essential considerations for employment contracts described as "maximum term" and underscores the importance of clearly defined dispute resolution mechanisms within enterprise agreements. For comprehensive employment advocacy or assistance navigating similar issues, contact 1800ADVOCATES. Full decision Susan Cox v The Florey Institute Of Neuroscience And Mental Health Trading AS The Florey [2025] FWC 1610 (11 June 2025)

In a significant ruling highlighting the complexities of employment classification, the recent Federal Court decision in Cropper v Energy Action (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 663 provides clear guidance on the distinction between contractors and employees. The Court found that an IT specialist, initially engaged as an independent contractor, had effectively become an employee for more than 14 years due to multiple employment indicators, such as payroll integration, exclusive working arrangements, management responsibilities, and participation in performance reviews. Consequently, the Court ordered significant compensation exceeding $100,000 in unpaid leave entitlements (Cropper v Energy Action (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 663 at [54]-[56]). Court Rules Contractor of 14 Years was Actually an Employee: Key Lessons for Employers This recent decision resonates closely with the principles established in a similar case handled by 1800ADVOCATES, Tidmarsh v Aspire to Life (2024). In Tidmarsh, it was successfully argued that despite being initially classified as a contractor, the worker’s regular and systematic hours, employer control, integrated role within the business, and ongoing management oversight clearly demonstrated an employment relationship rather than an independent contracting arrangement. Key principles from Tidmarsh highlighted the courts’ consistent approach that the substance of the working relationship significantly outweighs contractual labels when determining employment status (Tidmarsh v Aspire to Life (2024) at [32]-[35]). Both Cropper and Tidmarsh underscore critical lessons for employers: Regular Employment Audits:  Companies must proactively conduct regular audits and evaluations of ongoing contractor arrangements, particularly those extending over long periods, to mitigate risks of misclassification. Substance Over Form:  Judicial assessments consistently prioritize practical work arrangements over formal contractual designations. Employers should be vigilant that the actual work conditions align with their intended employment classifications. Proactive HR Management:  HR departments must promptly address potential ambiguities concerning worker classifications, clearly document arrangements, and take immediate corrective actions when discrepancies are identified. These cases provide a strong reminder for employers to review and ensure compliance with Fair Work laws, thereby avoiding significant liabilities and legal complications. For guidance and assistance in accurately classifying worker relationships and managing employment law complexities, contact 1800ADVOCATES today. Cropper v Energy Action (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 663 (23 June 2025) Tidmarsh v Aspire to Life [2024] FWC 2480

In a recent significant ruling by the Federal Court, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been ordered to pay presenter Antoinette Lattouf $70,000 in compensation following the termination of her employment due to expressing a political opinion concerning the conflict in Gaza. On June 25, 2025, Justice Rangiah found that the ABC discriminated against Ms Lattouf by terminating her employment primarily because of an Instagram post she made criticising the Israeli military campaign. The Court held that this action breached section 772(1)(f) of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits dismissal based on political opinions. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been ordered to pay presenter Antoinette Lattouf $70,000 The decision highlighted that while the post was deemed "ill-advised" by the Court and inconsiderate towards her employer, ABC's response exceeded permissible disciplinary boundaries. Notably, it was determined that ABC’s former Chief Content Officer, Chris Oliver-Taylor, decided to remove Ms Lattouf from her presenting role to avoid anticipated complaints and pressure from pro-Israel advocacy groups. Importantly, the Court rejected Ms Lattouf's claims related to racial and national discrimination, finding no credible evidence that ABC executives, including Managing Director David Anderson, Chair Ita Buttrose, and Audio Director Ben Latimer, made their termination decision based on her Lebanese heritage. Furthermore, the Court found the ABC violated the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022–2025 by categorising Ms Lattouf’s actions as serious misconduct without valid grounds and failing to promptly inform her of the seriousness attributed to her actions. Justice Rangiah emphasised the significance of protecting employees’ rights to hold and express political views, underscoring that such rights are fundamental within Australian workplaces. This decision reinforces essential principles around the fair treatment of employees, particularly concerning their rights to political expression, and serves as a caution to employers about adhering strictly to workplace agreements and legal standards in disciplinary matters. A future hearing will address potential additional penalties against the ABC for these breaches. Reference:Antoinette Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669 (25 June 2025).

The current conflict between Iran and Israel has deep-rooted historical, ideological, and geopolitical underpinnings. Understanding these factors provides essential context to assess the potential human rights implications arising from this war. Reasons for the Iran-Israel War The escalation into full-scale conflict between Iran and Israel stems primarily from longstanding ideological hostilities, geopolitical tensions, and strategic military considerations. Iran and Israel War and Huan Rights Firstly, Iran and Israel have been locked in ideological opposition since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, with Iran positioning itself against Israel’s existence, framing Israel as an occupier of Palestinian lands. Israel, conversely, views Iran as an existential threat due to its nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, and support for militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Secondly, recent Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure underscore an immediate tactical motivation to hinder Iran’s nuclear breakout capacity. As indicated by expert analyses, Israel aims to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, viewing such capability as a critical threat to regional stability and its own national security. Additionally, the conflict reflects broader regional dynamics involving the United States and its allies. Israel’s recent actions may partly seek to involve U.S. military and diplomatic support, thereby reshaping Middle Eastern geopolitics. Human Rights Implications The human rights implications of the Iran-Israel conflict are profound and troubling. Immediate consequences already witnessed include civilian casualties, destruction of essential infrastructure, and displacement of populations, exacerbating existing humanitarian crises. Iran has suffered extensive casualties and infrastructural damage due to Israeli airstrikes, resulting in significant loss of life and human suffering. Conversely, Israel has also faced casualties and disruption from Iranian retaliatory measures. Long-term human rights concerns are significant, particularly around: Civilian Protection:  The continuation of hostilities raises urgent humanitarian concerns, risking widespread civilian deaths and injuries due to military operations. Refugee Crisis:  Sustained conflict could lead to substantial internal and cross-border displacement, pressuring neighbouring nations and international humanitarian resources. Economic and Social Stability:  War-induced destruction will degrade economic conditions, healthcare services, and access to basic necessities, further entrenching poverty and suffering. International Law Violations:  Potential breaches of international humanitarian law, including disproportionate attacks and targeting of civilian infrastructure, risk aggravating human suffering and long-term instability. In conclusion, while ideological, geopolitical, and strategic military factors drive this conflict, the human rights cost is substantial and ongoing. Effective international diplomacy and intervention will be crucial to mitigate these impacts and protect vulnerable populations.

From 26 February 2025, significant changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 have introduced new protections for employee-like workers against unfair deactivation from digital labour platforms. These changes aim to ensure fair treatment for workers in the gig economy, such as delivery drivers and ride-share operators. What Constitutes Unfair Deactivation? Unfair deactivation occurs when a digital labour platform operator changes, suspends, or terminates a worker's access to the platform, preventing them from performing work, without adhering to the prescribed fair process. The Fair Work Commission assesses deactivation cases based on: Whether there was a valid reason related to the worker's capacity or conduct. Compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. Other relevant considerations. A deactivation is not deemed unfair if it results from serious misconduct or is a temporary suspension (seven business days or less) for specific reasons, such as health and safety concerns or pending investigations. Understanding the New Unfair Deactivation Protections for Employee-Like Workers Eligibility Criteria for Protection To be protected under the new provisions, a worker must: Be classified as an employee-like worker. Have performed work through a digital labour platform for at least six months on a regular basis since 26 August 2024. Earn less than the contractor high income threshold (currently $175,000 for the 2024–25 financial year). Have been deactivated on or after 26 February 2025. Application Process Eligible workers can apply for a remedy using Form F89, available on the Fair Work Commission's website. Applications must be lodged within 21 days of the deactivation date. The application requires details such as contact information, the date work commenced on the platform, information about the deactivation, income details, and the desired outcome. Potential Remedies If the Commission determines that a deactivation was unfair, it may order the platform operator to: Reactivate the worker's access to the platform. Pay remuneration lost due to the deactivation. It's important to note that the Commission cannot order compensation beyond lost remuneration. Further Resources While a specific benchbook for unfair deactivation is under development, the Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook provides relevant guidance. Conclusion These legislative changes mark a significant step in extending workplace protections to gig economy workers. Employee-like workers should familiarise themselves with these new rights and the processes for seeking remedies in cases of unfair deactivation.

A disturbing incident involving a 17-year-old Aboriginal boy detained in a Canberra watch house has reignited urgent calls for systemic police reform, accountability, and justice for Indigenous youth in custody. CCTV footage, recently revealed during an ACT Supreme Court hearing, has shocked advocates and the public alike. In the footage, a watch house officer is heard asking the teenager whether he was thinking of "necking himself"—a slang term for suicide. When the youth denied such thoughts, the officer cruelly replied, "Wouldn't have the guts to do it anyway."  Other officers present can be seen smirking at the exchange. This conduct has been publicly condemned by the Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People, Vanessa Turnbull-Roberts, who described the interaction as “abhorrent misconduct.” She further stated: “In the context of the horrifying and ongoing epidemic of Aboriginal deaths in custody in this jurisdiction and across Australia, this comment can be seen as a deliberate incitement to an Aboriginal child to end his life." These are not isolated words. They are a searing indictment of systemic failures, where instead of receiving care, traumatised Aboriginal children are met with institutional cruelty and racialised degradation. The teenager in question is not only Indigenous but a survivor of the ongoing legacies of the Stolen Generations—described by Turnbull-Roberts as a "survivor of forcible removal." He was interrogated with contempt and mocked for his trauma, including jibes about his experience in foster care and his lack of parental presence. In addition to verbal mistreatment, the footage reportedly shows the child being pinned down in his cell and left handcuffed for 45 minutes. Turnbull-Roberts noted the psychological injury likely inflicted by this ordeal: “The state-inflicted trauma... would have been compounded by the subsequent unnecessary use of force and then leaving this young person alone handcuffed and distressed in his cell, where he would have known that there was not a single person in that police station who cared about whether he lived or died.” Justice Louise Taylor, presiding over the ACT Supreme Court proceedings, has referred the incident to the Chief Police Officer of the ACT. The Commissioner has also independently referred the matter to the Ombudsman. Despite these referrals, Turnbull-Roberts says there has been little meaningful response: “This inaction shows how designed and broken this system is and how it is failing the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.” These events follow a broader and more alarming pattern of abuse and neglect within the youth justice system, where Aboriginal children are significantly overrepresented in detention, in use-of-force statistics, and tragically, in deaths in custody. The child's suffering should be a rallying cry for change, not a footnote in an ever-growing record of institutional failure. “The Indigenous children's commissioner has slammed ACT policing over a distressing watch house incident,”  4 June 2025. Retrieved from: https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/the-indigenous-childrens-commissioner-has-slammed/fc8fcftpo While ACT Policing released a statement asserting its commitment to transparency and accountability, the community remains sceptical. Chief Police Officer Scott Lee stated: “ACT Policing remains committed to being transparent and accountable with the community in responding to any allegations of misconduct. I would like to reassure the ACT community that when it is confirmed an officer has not met our high standards then appropriate sanctions are available.” But words without action are meaningless. Aboriginal families across Australia continue to grieve and fight for answers, justice, and structural change. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody handed down 339 recommendations in 1991—many of which remain unimplemented more than three decades later. Among them was the fundamental call to treat Aboriginal people with dignity and to develop culturally safe alternatives to detention wherever possible. This latest incident serves as another brutal reminder that systemic racism remains deeply entrenched in Australian policing practices. Cultural oversight, independent investigation, and urgent reform are not optional—they are essential. We stand with Commissioner Turnbull-Roberts and every Aboriginal child who deserves safety, dignity, and justice—not interrogation, isolation, and humiliation. If this article has raised issues for you, help is available: 13 YARN (13 92 76)  – A crisis support line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)  – National sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service. For advocacy and support regarding institutional mistreatment or police misconduct, contact 1800ADVOCATES via www.1800advocates.au

At NATSICAS, we acknowledge and address the profound issue of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-representation in Australia’s prison systems. Despite ongoing advocacy and numerous government commitments, Aboriginal incarceration rates remain a critical human rights concern, as reflected in both the landmark 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) and the authoritative 2012 report, Monitoring and Oversight of Human Rights in Closed Environments  (Naylor et al., 2012). Current Incarceration Statistics: A National Tragedy As of December 2024, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) presents a stark reality: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples comprise approximately 3.2%  of the general Australian population, yet account for about 32%  of the adult prison population (ABS, 2024). Indigenous Australians experience incarceration rates of approximately 2,733 per 100,000 adults , compared to substantially lower rates for non-Indigenous populations (ABS, 2024). Even more distressing, Aboriginal youth constitute about 57%  of young people in detention facilities across Australia (AIHW, 2021). Reflecting on the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: A Vision for Change In 1991, Australia faced a critical moment of national reflection and responsibility—the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) courageously confronted our country with the uncomfortable truths of systemic injustice. This landmark inquiry didn't merely document statistics; it gave voice to grief, frustration, and hope, offering a powerful opportunity to reshape our collective future. From these voices came 339 thoughtful and compassionate recommendations , each meticulously designed to end cycles of disadvantage, reduce incarceration rates, and restore dignity and justice to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These recommendations were never intended as mere suggestions—they embodied a solemn promise of profound change and reconciliation. Aboriginal Over-Representation in Australian Prisons: A Continuing Crisis Inspiring a Pathway Forward At the heart of the Commission’s vision were commitments to: Empowering culturally appropriate legal representation and advocacy , ensuring every Indigenous voice is heard clearly and respected in our justice system. Establishing meaningful alternatives to imprisonment , especially for minor offences, fostering rehabilitation rather than punishment. Upholding fairness, equity, and dignity , making these the foundational principles guiding all interactions within the criminal justice system. Creating national standards of humane treatment , safeguarding human rights in police and custodial practices. Providing holistic and culturally supportive programs  within correctional settings, fostering healing and rehabilitation. Ensuring accountability through transparent and robust monitoring , so no injustice remains hidden or unaddressed. Building detailed and reliable data systems  to continuously track, evaluate, and improve custodial conditions and outcomes. Facilitating genuine community leadership and oversight , recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices as essential in reforming our justice system. Transforming police interactions  through culturally informed and respectful protocols, ending harmful practices that disproportionately affect Aboriginal communities. Reducing the criminalisation of Indigenous Australians , prioritising effective, culturally tailored diversionary programs over incarceration. [Full list of 339 recommendations available here .] The Broad Vision of the Recommendations The 339 recommendations of the Royal Commission provide a clear, compassionate framework grouped into pivotal areas including: Human Rights Racism, Aboriginality, and Equity Care and Well-being Health Custody and Security Rehabilitation Reparation Administration and Accountability Staffing Issues Correctional Efficiency and Fairness Each recommendation represents a commitment not just to justice, but to the fundamental dignity and humanity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Where We Stand Today (2025) Over three decades have passed, yet fewer than half of these pivotal recommendations have been effectively implemented. Critical measures intended to dismantle structural racism, reduce imprisonment, enhance cultural safety, and ensure rigorous accountability remain significantly under-realised. These persistent shortcomings perpetuate unacceptable patterns of incarceration, marginalisation, and injustice, underscoring the urgency for renewed action. The Connection to Ongoing Realities The compelling 2012 research Monitoring and Oversight of Human Rights in Closed Environments  further highlights how the RCIADIC's original vision remains critically relevant today, with ongoing systemic failings such as: Tragic breaches in duty of care , exemplified by distressing cases such as the death of Mr Ward, whose preventable loss continues to echo loudly, demanding accountability. Chronic overcrowding and inadequate facilities , conditions incompatible with human dignity and rehabilitation. Weak oversight and limited transparency , allowing injustices and abuses to continue unchecked. A Call to Collective Action We stand at another defining moment—a chance to reconnect with the vision of justice and healing articulated by the 1991 Royal Commission. This is not merely a call to revisit recommendations; it is an invitation to reclaim our shared humanity, rectify historic injustices, and forge a future in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples live with dignity, fairness, and genuine equality. We urge governments, justice institutions, policymakers, and every Australian to renew their commitment, turn promises into tangible actions, and finally fulfil the enduring promise of the Royal Commission. Together, through courage, compassion, and unity, we can achieve lasting justice and meaningful reconciliation. Linking Incarceration to Human Rights Oversight The paper Monitoring and Oversight of Human Rights in Closed Environments  (Naylor et al., 2012) reinforces the critical necessity of robust, independent oversight bodies to prevent human rights abuses in prisons. This authoritative research strongly aligns with the Royal Commission's call for transparency, cultural sensitivity, and accountability. Both documents underscore that without effective oversight mechanisms—such as those mandated by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT)—the risk of further human rights abuses, including deaths in custody, remains unacceptably high. Our Commitment and Call for Action at NATSIC At NATSICAS, we stand firm in advocating for comprehensive reforms, urgently demanding: Full and immediate implementation of all 339 recommendations  from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Ratification and practical implementation of OPCAT to establish regular, independent monitoring of custodial environments. Significant investment in culturally appropriate justice alternatives, diversionary programs, and Aboriginal-led community services. Immediate action to address systemic racism, socioeconomic disadvantage, and intergenerational trauma through holistic, culturally safe strategies. Conclusion The persistent over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within Australia's criminal justice system represents far more than a troubling statistic—it signifies a profound and ongoing national injustice entrenched in structural inequality, historical marginalisation, and systemic discrimination. This crisis demands immediate, decisive action and sustained commitment from all levels of government, justice agencies, policymakers, and communities. Despite the unequivocal guidance provided by the landmark 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, more than three decades later, the vast majority of its 339 recommendations remain only partially addressed or wholly unimplemented. Recent analyses, including findings from the Australian Institute of Criminology and comprehensive independent reviews, reveal that fewer than half of these critical recommendations have been effectively realised. Such inadequate implementation perpetuates cycles of incarceration, marginalisation, and profound violations of human rights, directly undermining the principles of justice, equality, and reconciliation. NATSICAS unequivocally calls upon all Australian governments, policymakers, justice institutions, and community leaders to urgently recommit to the full implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. Genuine partnership and collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are essential to dismantling systemic barriers, safeguarding human rights, and fostering meaningful reform. Only through decisive collective action, rigorous oversight, and unwavering accountability can we achieve a truly fair, inclusive, and equitable justice system—one that respects the dignity and rights of First Nations peoples now and for future generations. References Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Prisoners in Australia, 2024 . ABS. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Criminal Justice System 2021 . AIHW. Naylor, B., Debeljak, J., Dussuyer, I., & Thomas, S. (Eds.). (2012). Monitoring and Oversight of Human Rights in Closed Environments . Monash University Law Faculty. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991). Recommendations . Australian Government. University of Sydney. (2021). Preventing Aboriginal Deaths in Custody . Sydney University Report. Web Search Sources: ABS: Prisoners in Australia, 2024 Provides recent incarceration statistics highlighting Indigenous over-representation. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Recommendations (PDF) Lists all 339 recommendations made by the Commission. Preventing Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Sydney University Analysis of unimplemented recommendations and ongoing issues. Indigenous Deaths in Custody: Report Summary, Australian Human Rights Commission Offers insights into the ongoing crisis of deaths in custody post-RCIADIC. AIHW Criminal Justice System Report 2021 Documents the alarming rates of Aboriginal youth detention and unsentenced prisoners. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Recommendations (PDF) Comprehensive list of all 339 recommendations from the original Royal Commission report. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Overview General overview and context for the recommendations. Preventing Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, University of Sydney Recent critical evaluation showing the extent of incomplete implementation. Human Rights Commission - Indigenous Deaths in Custody Human rights implications and assessment of recommendation implementations.

Today, as we publish this reflection on the enduring legacy of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody , we do so on a day of profound national significance— Mabo Day . Observed annually on 3 June, Mabo Day commemorates the courageous efforts and remarkable achievements of Eddie Koiki Mabo, a proud Mer Island man, who successfully challenged and overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius  through the landmark 1992 High Court decision. This historic victory not only recognised the rightful ownership and connection of Indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands but also reshaped the very foundations of Australia's legal and social landscape, affirming the principles of justice, equity, and reconciliation. Unfinished Justice: Honouring Mabo Day and the Unmet Promise of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission Reflecting upon the Royal Commission provides us with a powerful reminder of how far we have come—and how far we still have to go. The Royal Commission of 1991 was more than just an examination into systemic injustice; it was an urgent call for profound societal change, offering a transformative roadmap towards healing, equity, and dignity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It delivered 339 carefully considered recommendations , each representing a vital commitment to addressing the root causes of disadvantage, reducing incarceration, and fundamentally reshaping the justice system to honour and respect Aboriginal identity, culture, and human rights. At the heart of these recommendations was a vision of a justice system grounded in: Empowering culturally appropriate legal representation and advocacy , ensuring every Indigenous voice is heard and valued. Establishing meaningful alternatives to imprisonment , particularly for minor offences, emphasising rehabilitation and community engagement over punishment. Upholding fairness, equity, and dignity , embedding these core principles in every level of the justice process. Creating national standards to protect human rights , ensuring humane and respectful police and custodial practices. Implementing culturally appropriate and comprehensive support programs  within correctional facilities to support healing and rehabilitation. Ensuring robust accountability through transparent and continuous monitoring , to expose and correct injustices promptly. Building detailed, reliable data systems  to monitor incarceration rates and conditions continuously. Facilitating genuine Indigenous community leadership and oversight , recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices as essential in justice reform. Transforming police interactions and protocols , ending discriminatory practices and ensuring respectful, culturally informed engagement. Reducing the criminalisation of Indigenous Australians  through effective, culturally tailored diversionary programs. [Full list of 339 recommendations available here .] The Broad Vision of the Recommendations The Royal Commission categorised its detailed recommendations into pivotal areas that remain as critical today as ever: Human Rights Racism, Aboriginality, and Equity Care and Well-being Health Custody and Security Rehabilitation Reparation Administration and Accountability Staffing Issues Correctional Efficiency and Fairness These categories reflect a holistic approach to reforming the justice system—one that values Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives, rights, and futures. Current Realities: The Need for Renewed Commitment (2025) Over three decades later, independent evaluations confirm that fewer than half of these crucial recommendations have been meaningfully implemented. Critical measures intended to dismantle structural racism, reduce incarceration rates, improve custodial conditions, and enhance oversight remain inadequately addressed or wholly neglected. This failure to fully realise the Royal Commission’s vision has perpetuated cycles of incarceration, marginalisation, and injustice—continuing the crisis of Aboriginal deaths in custody and exacerbating systemic inequality. Connecting the Past to the Present The authoritative 2012 research paper, Monitoring and Oversight of Human Rights in Closed Environments , underscores how profoundly relevant the Commission's original recommendations remain. Persistent systemic failures identified include: Grave breaches in duty of care , exemplified by tragic cases like Mr Ward’s preventable death in custody. Severe overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure , compromising basic human rights and dignity. Insufficient oversight and transparency , which allows injustices to remain hidden and unaddressed. A Call to Collective Action and Courage On this Mabo Day, we have an opportunity—and a moral imperative—to renew our commitment to the vision of justice articulated by both Eddie Koiki Mabo and the Royal Commission. This is a call to action for every Australian: governments, justice agencies, policymakers, and communities must work hand-in-hand with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to fully realise the recommendations made over three decades ago. Together, we can transform our justice system, reclaim our shared humanity, and honour the legacy of those who have fought tirelessly for justice. In doing so, we move closer towards the society we aspire to become—one defined by fairness, dignity, reconciliation, and genuine equality for all Australians.

Imagine waking each dawn, forced to labour endlessly, knowing the fruits of your work will never belong to you. Imagine building hospitals, roads, schools, and entire communities, yet never seeing a penny for your effort. This was not some distant historical anomaly—it was the daily reality faced by thousands of Indigenous Australians in Queensland throughout much of the 20th century. From 1897 onwards, under the cruel provisions of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act  and subsequent legislation, the Queensland government exerted absolute control over the lives and livelihoods of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Workers’ wages were systematically withheld and funnelled into government-controlled accounts, purportedly for their 'protection'. Yet these funds were often misappropriated, diverted to finance state infrastructure and general government expenditure, leaving generations impoverished and disempowered. Queensland's Forgotten Debt: The Unresolved Legacy of Stolen Wages Renowned historian Dr Ros Kidd describes with painful clarity the stark realities of this injustice: "During the Depression years, Aboriginal funds were used to cover consolidated revenue shortfalls. Fifty percent of the Aboriginal Protection of Property Account was diverted to finance general government operations, amounting to almost $868,000 in today's terms." The personal impact of these policies cannot be overstated. Mick Gooda, Chair of the Stolen Wages Reparations Taskforce, powerfully summarised the emotional toll this injustice continues to inflict upon communities: "During our consultations, simply asking people about the distribution of reparations reopened old wounds, making many relive traumatic memories. It was a devastating reminder of the pain inflicted by these unjust policies." While Australia today rightly condemns wage theft through robust modern laws—such as the Fair Work Act 2009 , which mandates fair compensation and dignity at work—Queensland remains uniquely resistant to fully acknowledging or rectifying its historical wrongdoings. Unlike states like New South Wales, which established the comprehensive Aboriginal Trust Fund Repayment Scheme, Queensland’s efforts remain half-hearted and flawed. The requirement for survivors to sign away further rights to compensation through restrictive Deeds of Agreement has been rightly condemned by advocates and historians as a further insult upon generations of injury. The consequences of this institutionalised exploitation continue to echo through Indigenous communities. It is not merely wages that were stolen—it was dignity, autonomy, and generational wealth. Families who should have inherited financial stability instead inherited poverty, limited access to education, and poorer health outcomes. The Stolen Wages Reparations Taskforce poignantly underscored the ongoing harm: "These policies created a legacy of economic disadvantage and intergenerational trauma still deeply felt today." This is why compensation to descendants of those robbed of their wages is not merely symbolic; it is a moral necessity and historical obligation. Providing reparations acknowledges a profound wrongdoing, seeks forgiveness, and begins the process of genuine healing. Queensland, standing alone in its reluctance, must now confront this unfinished chapter of justice. It must rise to match the modern principles it espouses in law and governance, recognising that reconciliation is not possible without accountability and restitution. To quote the powerful conclusion of the Senate Inquiry into Indigenous Stolen Wages (2006) : "It would be an abrogation of moral responsibility to delay any further… with the knowledge that the age and infirmity of Indigenous people affected by these practices limit their capacity to pursue claims." The time for Queensland to act decisively is now. The descendants of those whose labour built our state are owed more than apologies—they are owed justice. Only through a genuine, comprehensive redress scheme can Queensland truly move forward, embracing a future grounded in fairness, dignity, and true reconciliation.

Having your workers' compensation claim initially rejected can be discouraging. However, it's essential to understand that initial rejection is not the end of the road. Each Australian state and territory provides a structured appeal process that allows you to challenge the decision and potentially secure the support you're entitled to. Understanding the Appeal Process for Workers' Compensation Claims Across Australia Below is a clear summary of the appeal procedures available in each Australian jurisdiction: Commonwealth Authority : Comcare Process : First, request an internal reconsideration by Comcare. If dissatisfied, escalate your appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Queensland Authority : WorkCover Queensland Process : Request a review by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. If still unresolved, lodge an appeal with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) within 20 days of the decision. New South Wales Authority : State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) Process : Initiate a review through SIRA. Unresolved disputes can then be escalated to the Workers Compensation Commission for a determination. Victoria Authority : WorkSafe Victoria Process : First seek conciliation through the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS). If this does not resolve your issue, escalate to the Workers' Compensation Independent Review Service or the Magistrates' Court. South Australia Authority : ReturnToWorkSA Process : Apply for a reconsideration by ReturnToWorkSA. If dissatisfied, appeal to the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET). Western Australia Authority : WorkCover WA Process : Engage WorkCover WA’s Conciliation and Arbitration Services to dispute the decision through formal conciliation and arbitration processes. Tasmania Authority : WorkSafe Tasmania Process : Initially, request an internal review by your insurer. If you remain dissatisfied, appeal to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal. Australian Capital Territory Authority : Access Canberra Process : Apply for reconsideration through Access Canberra. Appeals can be escalated to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). Northern Territory Authority : NT WorkSafe Process : Begin with mediation through NT WorkSafe. If mediation is unsuccessful, further appeals are conducted through the Work Health Court. Tips to Strengthen Your Appeal Documentation : Keep detailed records and obtain supporting medical evidence clearly outlining the relationship between your injury and your work. Timeliness : Ensure you adhere strictly to deadlines and appeal windows provided by each authority. Legal or Advocacy Support : Consider engaging professional assistance to guide you through the complex appeals process. Appealing an initial rejection is your right. Understanding these processes can significantly increase your chances of success in securing the compensation you deserve.

Suffering a workplace injury can significantly impact your life. However, being on workers' compensation does not equate to a loss of fundamental freedoms. Injuries are not custodial sentences, nor do they strip you of your autonomy. Nonetheless, understanding precisely what you're permitted to do—and your obligations—is essential to avoid compromising your claim. Your Freedoms While on Workers' Compensation: Generally, you are allowed and encouraged to: Seek Medical Treatment : Attend medical appointments and rehabilitation sessions as prescribed. Maintain Social Interactions : Participate in social activities that do not conflict with medical advice. Engage in Retraining or Education : Pursue education or training opportunities compatible with medical guidance and rehabilitation goals. Activities That May Harm Your Workers' Compensation Claim: Certain behaviours or activities may negatively impact your compensation claim, such as: Ignoring medical guidance or prescribed treatment plans. Undertaking paid or voluntary work without medical clearance or insurer approval. Engaging in physical activities contradicting your stated medical limitations. Travelling extensively or overseas without notifying your insurer. Your Obligations While Receiving Workers' Compensation: Regardless of your location in Australia, common obligations include: Transparency and Cooperation : You must consistently report your health status and rehabilitation progress to your insurer. Compliance with Medical Advice : Adherence to your rehabilitation and treatment plan is mandatory. Participation in Return-to-Work Plans : Collaborate proactively with your employer or insurer to facilitate a safe return to suitable duties. Understanding Your Rights, Responsibilities, and Limitations While on Workers' Compensation Across Australia Workers' Compensation Authorities and Legislation Across Australia: Below is a comprehensive overview of each Australian state and territory's authority responsible for managing workers' compensation and the governing legislation: Commonwealth: Authority : Comcare Legislation : Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 Queensland: Authority : WorkCover Queensland Legislation : Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 New South Wales: Authority : State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) Legislation : Workers Compensation Act 1987 and Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 Victoria: Authority : WorkSafe Victoria Legislation : Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 South Australia: Authority : ReturnToWorkSA Legislation : Return to Work Act 2014 Western Australia: Authority : WorkCover WA Legislation : Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 Tasmania: Authority : WorkSafe Tasmania Legislation : Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 Australian Capital Territory: Authority : Access Canberra Legislation : Workers Compensation Act 1951 Northern Territory: Authority : NT WorkSafe Legislation : Return to Work Act 1986 Protecting Your Workers' Compensation Claim: Ensuring you fulfil your obligations, maintain open communication, and adhere to your medical treatment and rehabilitation plan will protect your rights and help guarantee your claim's integrity. Workers' compensation is your legal right and exists to facilitate your recovery, not to impose unreasonable restrictions on your personal life. Remember, injuries are temporary setbacks—not punitive measures.