Search results

The RDA was the first Commonwealth unlawful discrimination statute to be enacted and is different in a number of ways from the SDA, DDA and ADA. This is because it is based to a large extent on, and takes important parts of its statutory language from, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The DDA covers discrimination on the ground of disability, including discrimination because of the use of a therapeutic device or aid, accompaniment by a carer or assistant or accompaniment by an assistance animal.

The Australian Human Rights Commission makes this submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committees in the Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Health Care for Asylum Seekers) Bill 2012.

Recommendation 1: The Bill should be amended to ensure that detention in immigration detention centres is only used as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time, as committed to in Value 5. The words ‘The Parliament affirms as a principle that’ in section 4AAA(2) should be deleted.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) is Australia’s national human rights institution, established by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

The procedure for making complaints of federal unlawful discrimination is set out in Part IIB of the HREOC Act.[1] That procedure can be summarised as follows.

The ADA commenced operation on 22 June 2004. At the date of publication there has been no decided case of unlawful age discrimination under the ADA. This chapter sets out the background to the legislation and its significant features as well as highlighting some similarities and differences with other federal unlawful discrimination laws that may be relevant to its interpretation and application.1

The Australian Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’)[1] makes this submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations in its Inquiry into pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce (‘the Inquiry’).

2. First, the Bill is unnecessary because it is unlikely to achieve its stated purpose; that is to address the problem of the imbalance in the number of male and female school teachers and the assumed effect of that imbalance on the education of male school students. In that regard the Commission notes that there is little available evidence which suggests that proposed amendment would increase…

(1) Support a two-stage inquiry process for the SDA, with some amendments made now to the existing law (Recommendations), and the rest completed within three (3) years (Options for Reform)