Search results

This is a Report of the findings and reasons for findings made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1] (the Commission) following an inquiry conducted by the Commission. The inquiry related to a complaint by Amnesty International Australia (Amnesty) on behalf of Mr PH1, Mr PH2, Mr PH3, Mr PH4 and Mr PH5 (the asylum seekers) against the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth), Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Department).

Part D of the paper focuses on how a paid maternity leave scheme would actually operate were it to be introduced in Australia. The emphasis, as in the rest of the paper, is on the feedback that HREOC has received through submissions and consultations. Each Chapter canvases the views that were expressed in relation to each component of a national paid maternity leave scheme.

The issue of divorce never arises for same-sex couples, since they cannot legally marry. However, a same-sex couple, like an opposite-sex de facto couple, may need the assistance of a court to resolve property and child-related issues if their relationship breaks down.

Pursuant to s 31(b)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach, on behalf of the Commission, a report of an inquiry conducted by my predecessor, Professor Alice Tay. The inquiry dealt with a complaint of discrimination in employment by Mr Kenneth Douglas against the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Defence Force).

When we look at the many issues that face Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, it is easy to get paralysed by their complexity, entrenched nature and the sheer size of the challenge. But as an optimist, I believe that there is a lot that we can do to address these problems. There are many different tools available to suit the varying circumstances that face our diverse communities. Lateral violence is no different.

Learn about how Australia has entered international human rights obligations to stop pregnancy and return to work discrimination against women.

Protecting the best interests of a child is one of the most important principles of international law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in particular. This chapter focuses on whether federal law currently protects the best interests of a child being raised by lesbian or gay parents.

It is simple to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in laws conferring financial and work-related benefits: amend the definitions describing a couple to include same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

Pursuant to section 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), I attach a report of an inquiry by the former President of the Commission into complaints made by immigration detainees against the Commonwealth of Australia. The former President found that the Commonwealth had breached the human rights of the complainants pursuant to articles 10(1) and 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This chapter explains how the provisions of international human rights treaties protect same-sex couples and their children, in the context of accessing financial and work-related entitlements. In particular, this chapter focuses on the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It also describes how the breach of that right can interfere with a range of other basic human rights, for example, the right to social security. The chapter also explains how discrimination against parents on the grounds of sexual orientation can impact on the rights of their children.

The following 58 legal instruments must be amended to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in the area of financial and work-related entitlements.

The interim paper, Valuing Parenthood: Options for paid maternity leave set out an extensive range of objectives that paid maternity leave could meet. [242] Many of these objectives were dependent on the structure of the scheme that was implemented.

Same-sex couples are not eligible for a range of rebates and tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples. This means same-sex couples may end up paying more tax than opposite-sex couples because tax legislation does not recognise their relationship.