Search results

1.1 On 5 March 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

Only about 10% of people potentially affected took part in the consultation process; it was presented as a once only 'take it or leave it' offer, placing considerable stress on people often living in dire economic circumstances; there was a lack of independent legal advice on the implications of accepting the offer; and there was significant confusion as to the purpose of the consultations...[10]

However, if appropriate, and with leave of the Court, the Commissioner reserves the right to make further submissions on legal matters which may arise during the hearing of this matter and after receipt of the respondent’s particularised points of defence. No submissions are to be made in relation to the evidentiary and factual matters that may arise for determination.

These submissions are filed on behalf of the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner ('the Commissioner') in the event that leave is granted by the Court for the Commissioner to appear as amicus curiae in these proceedings pursuant to s 46PV(2) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ('HREOC Act'). Such leave was sought by the Commissioner by way of Notice of Motion and affidavit affirmed by the Commissioner on 16 June 2006 and filed on the same date.

This is the text of an exemption application lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by the applicants named below. It represents the applicants' views and is not a Commission document. It is posted on this site to facilitate public comment. Please refer to the Information Sheet for information about how to obtain hard copies.

1.1 On 15 January 2004, the Family Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in these proceedings, pursuant to s 92 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Family Law Act").

The Australian Human Rights and Commission (the Commission) makes this submission to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its Inquiry into the Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 (the Bill).

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 the proportion of male teachers.