My comments focus on the differences and similarities between the Commonwealth law and the ACT Discrimination Actwhich also prohibits racial vilification and racial discrimination. I note that the Exposure Draft proposes to shift the Commonwealth protections to align more closely with the ACT protections.
At the outset, I note that the time given to this Committee to report is extremely short. The Commission welcomes the majority of the proposed amendments in Schedule 2. Of the 59 items in Schedule 2, the Commission supports 50 of them. In general terms, the Commission is concerned that these nine items do not adequately reflect the recommendations of the PJCHR following its recent inquiry in particular recommendations 5, 9 and 18would result in additional red tape for the Commission, would be likely to cause additional delay and added costs for parties to complaints, and would impede access to justice in relation to meritorious complaints.
Proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act As the Commission said in its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, any proposal to amend the RDA should involve extensive public consultation as it has the capacity to affect the human rights of all Australians.
In particular, there should be consultation with those communities whose members are most vulnerable to experiencing racial discrimination. The amendments proposed in Schedule 1 of the Bill have only been made in the last two days and should be subject to proper consultation. Evidence that a member of a particular racial group was in fact offended by the conduct in question, is admissible on, but not determinative of, the issue of contravention.
Courts take into account the relevant context, namely the fact that racial vilification is directed towards people of a particular race, in assessing whether it is reasonably likely that that group would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated. Proposed amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act Main issues The most substantial issues in relation to Schedule 2 relate to items 31, 36 and A similar process is currently in place in Tasmania for complaints that are made to Equal Opportunity Tasmania.
The Commission submits that this item should be removed from the Bill. Rather, it opens up the preliminary stages of the complaints process to more costly review procedures and delays the capacity to engage in dispute-resolution as early as possible in the life of the complaint.
The committee recommends that the Australian Human Rights Commission Act be amended to provide that when there is more than one respondent to a complaint, the Australian Human Rights Commission must use its best endeavours to notify, or ensure and confirm the notification of, each of the respondents to the complaint at or around the same time.
In those cases, a requirement for notification of respondents would be an additional, unnecessary step. If this amendment is retained, then the Commission submits that three changes should be made: These conditions provide that: There seems to be no obvious reason why these conditions have been omitted from item 36 when they are included in items 10 and This ground allows the President to terminate a complaint on the ground that he or she is satisfied that the complaint was trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.
However, by converting this ground into a mandatory requirement, Parliament would be encouraging parties to a complaint to engage in judicial review of a decision to terminate or not to terminate on this ground during the complaint handling stage.
As has been the case in Tasmania, this would be likely to lead to additional delay and added costs for parties to complaints. This language is also used in items 9 and 14 of Schedule 2.
The Commission submits that this ground of termination in each of items 9, 14 and 43 be removed from the Bill. Section 46PH 1 of the AHRC Act already permits the President to terminate a complaint on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation.
Other issues There are also a few other issues that the Commission has identified in the limited time it has had to review the Bill. The committee recommends that section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act be amended with the following effect: On one view, this would require all of the details of a complaint to be set out in the initial written complaint to the Commission.
In many cases such a requirement is likely to be impracticable. This issue could be addressed by either:(a) The Racial Discrimination Act was amended by section 3 only of the Administrative Changes (Consequential Provisions) Act , subsection 2(7) of which provides as follows: (7) The amendments of each other Act specified in the Schedule made by this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 22 December To amend the Racial Discrimination Act BE IT ENACTED by the Queen, and the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: Short title, &c.
1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Racial Discrimination Amendment Act *1* (2) The Racial Discrimination Act Updated October 24, The Federal Government is proposing to amend the Racial Discrimination Act in response to a ruling that commentator Andrew Bolt broke the law in when he.
This is a compilation of the Racial Discrimination Act as in force on 1 January It includes any commenced amendment affecting the legislation to that date. This compilation was prepared on 1 January The notes at the end of this compilation (the endnotes) include information about.
Title Registered RegisterId Comp No. Start Date End Date Incorporating Amendments Up To. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Exposure Draft of the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth).
My comments focus on the differences and similarities between the Commonwealth law and the ACT Discrimination Act , which also prohibits racial vilification and racial discrimination.