The National Human Rights Consultation was run by an independent Committee chaired by Father Frank Brennan, with Mary Kostakidis, Mick Palmer and Tammy Williams. More information and the full Report is available at <humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/>.
2.
National Human Rights Consultation, Report (2009), Recommendation 18.
3.
Attorney-General's Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework (2010), 3.
4.
See generally above n 1; ByrnesAndrewCharlesworthHilaryMcKinnonGabrielle, Bills of Rights in Australia (2009), Chapter 2.
5.
CharlesworthHilary, ‘The Australian reluctance about rights’ (1993) 31Osgoode Hall Law Journal195.
6.
Above n 1, Appendix A.
7.
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 11(1)(f).
8.
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 11.
9.
Above n 1, Recommendation 13.
10.
The Committee recommended that economic, social and cultural rights should be non-justiciable and that the AHRC hear those complaints. The AHRC could not make a binding decision but would report to the government about a violation of such rights and the government would be required to table a response within six months of receiving the report: above n 1, Recommendations 13, 22, 31.
11.
Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation (2009), 67–68, 75–76.
12.
This is the situation in other jurisdictions as well. See further AllenDominique, ‘Behind the Conciliation Doors Settling Discrimination Complaints in Victoria’ (2009) 18(3) Griffith Law Review776.
13.
GonzalezPaulaMcCabeKaren, Giving Them What They Want — Challenges in Using the Adversarial and Interest Based Models of Statutory Conciliation (2003), 9.
14.
For example, as Hunter and Leonard proposed in their ‘rights-based’ approach to ADR: HunterRosemaryLeonardAlice, ‘Sex Discrimination and Alternative Dispute Resolution: British Proposals in Light of International Experience’ (1997) Public Law298.
15.
See further Allen, above n 11.
16.
HunterRosemaryLeonardAlice, ‘The Outcomes of Conciliation in Sex Discrimination Cases’, (Working Paper No 8, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, University of Melbourne, 1995), 1.
17.
FissOwen M., ‘Against Settlement’ (1984) 93Yale Law Journal1073, 1075, 1085.
18.
See, eg, Director of Housing v TP (Residential Tenancies) [2008] VCAT 1275.
19.
See, eg, Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562.
20.
See, eg, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70. Significantly, under the Committee's proposal, an individual victim would have an independent cause of action against a federal public authority for a breach of the Human Rights Act, except for economic, social and cultural rights, which the AHRC would hear.
25.
The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, the NZ Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights Commission do not play a role in resolving complaints relating to their respective human rights instruments. The South African Human Rights Commission provides ADR services but victims also have direct recourse to the courts.
26.
The government did commit to giving the AHRC an additional $6.6 million over four years so that the Commission can expand its education role: above n 2.
27.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the Equality Tribunal and the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration respectively. The South African Human Rights Commission also provides ADR services.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No 108 of 1996, s 181(3).
34.
Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland (10 April 1998), Strand Three.
35.
House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights, Commission for Equality and Human Rights: The Government's White Paper (Sixteenth Report of Session 2003–04), 19.
