Consolidate,Eradicate or Vacillate?

Approximately 1300 of the submissions were form letters and 1550 expressed support or opposition to the Bill in general terms.

Senate Legal and Constitutional (‘SL&C’) Affairs Legislation Committee, Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 (2013).

General Attorney , Robert McClelland, and Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, ‘Reform of Antidiscrimination Legislation’ (Joint Media Release, 21 April 2010).

See, eg, Evidence to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 12 February 2013, 44–49 (Senator George Brandis, Professor Gillian Triggs).

The Committee said it did not have enough time to consider every claim raised in the submissions received, so it asked the Attorney-General's Department to read all submissions and consider any policy issues raised prior to introducing the final Bill in Parliament: ibid 99.

This is the only aspect of the Bill which received bi-partisan support: See the dissenting report by the Coalition Senators: SL&C, above n 2 from 100.

See the definition of ‘discrimination’ in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 3(b)(ii), and also s 1 1(f) and Part II Div 4, and the Australian Human Rights Commission Regulations 1989 (Cth) reg 4.

As listed in 3(3). The objects of the Bill include giving effect to Australia's obligations under ILO instruments: Cl 3(1).

Family responsibilities are one of the protected grounds in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) but only in relation to work: Ss 14–20.

Clause 22(3).

SL&C, above n 2, Recommendations 3–5. Criminal record is currently one of the ILO grounds: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Part II Div 4.

Clause 19(1) and (3)(c).

See the text used in cl 19(1) and (3). Clause 19(2)(b) qualified the definition of unfavourable treatment, that it could include ‘conduct that offends, insults or intimidates’ another person. Due to its potential infringement on the right to free speech, it was universally criticised, chiefly by James Spigelman. Then Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, asked her Department to redraft the clause and the Committee recommended its removal: SL&C, above n 2, Recommendation 6. For this reason, it is not discussed in this Brief.

Clause 22(1). The elements of this definition are defined in cl 7, 19(1), (3) and 22(2).

Clause 23.

Clause 3.

SDA, s 38; ADA s 35.

Clause 33.

Clause 33(3).

SL&C, above n 2, Recommendations 11 and 12.

Rout Milanda , A-G eases church fears’, The Australian (Sydney), 23 February 2013

Clause 47.

Section 351.

Merritt Chris , ‘New-look statute fails on harmonious front’, The Australian (Sydney), 20 November 2012

See, eg, views of dissenting Senators, SL&C, above n 2, 103-10 and testimony extracted in the majority report. See also language in newspaper reports in the days following the HRADB's release: Merritt ibid; Packham Ben Vasek Lanai , ‘Change in proof discrimination laws worries opposition’, The Australian (Sydney), 20 November 2012; Harrison Dan , ‘Change in discrimination laws will swamp courts with complaints: Brandis’, The Age (Melbourne), 20 November 2012; Karvelas Patricia Hepworth Annabel , ‘Bosses slam discrimination laws’, The Australian (Sydney), 21 November 2012; Allan James , ‘Guilty or not business will pay’, The Australian (Sydney), 22 November 2012

Clause 117(2)(c).

Clause 133.

HRADB, Part 3–1.

See McClelland Tanner , above n 3.