Search results

It can mean losing a job or getting passed over for an interview, being excluded from a venue, being abused on the street for how you look or feeling intimidated by a boss who won’t take no for an answer.

Why do I love HREOC? Well, I was there at the birth. I watched the Commission grow and accept new challenges every year. Australians used to be blind to the inequalities of women, to injustice to Aboriginals and other indigenous peoples, to Asian Australians, to gays and other sexual minorities, to people with disabilities and many others. If our eyes have been opened, we should be grateful to HREOC. In a real sense, it has been a conscience of our country: speaking out when others were silent. The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Justice of the High Court of Australia

Significant amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), which came into effect on 5 August 2009, clarify its operation in many areas, align some of its key definitions with other federal discrimination Acts and represent a significant improvement in the protection of the rights of people with disability.[1] This article will examine some of the most important changes, namely the:

This article considers how human rights principles can influence the conduct of coronial inquests. In particular, human rights principles may influence the scope of an inquest and the manner in which a coroner exercises their discretion to comment and/or make recommendations about matters related to a death.

A recent decision of the full Federal Court in Bropho v State of Western Australia[1] has created the opportunity to reconsider the operation of s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Section 10(1) of the RDA is unique in discrimination law around the country. It is concerned with the operation and effect of laws rather than with making the actions of individuals unlawful.

We all know that prejudices are prevalent within our society. We also know that such prejudices often translate into discrimination. And yet, proving discrimination is notoriously difficult.[1]

The reach of the internet and the freedom it gives those wanting to share information and publish opinions presents a wide range of regulatory challenges. One such challenge is preventing online acts of racial hatred, or ‘cyber-racism’.[1]

An earlier version of this article was published in the NSW Law Society Journal in March 2008. The article has now been updated to include the decision of the Full Federal Court.

THE ROLE THAT ABORIGINAL customary law has, or should have, in the criminal codes and sentencing acts of the Commonwealth, states and territories has been the subject of detailed consideration for some time.1

The Hon Michael McHugh AC, QC, distinguished jurist and former Justice of the High Court of Australia, presented his views on human rights in Australia and their protection through a Human Rights Act.

On 11 December 2008, the Commission presented the fifth of its seminar series celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, entitled ‘Human Rights, Equality and Fundamental Freedoms: What Difference does a Human Rights Act Make?’. The seminar was chaired by Graeme Innes AM, Human Rights Commissioner and Disability Discrimination Commissioner and featured two distinguished speakers:

To celebrate the 60th Anniversary, the Australian Human Rights Commission has put together a seminar series exploring various aspects of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.