Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Last updated

Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Parliament of Australia
  • An Act relating to the Elimination of Racial and other Discrimination
Citation Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Enacted by House of Representatives
Enacted11 June 1975
Administered byAustralian Human Rights Commission
Status: In force

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth) [1] is an Act of the Australian Parliament, which was enacted on 11 June 1975 and passed by the Whitlam government. The Act makes racial discrimination in certain contexts unlawful in Australia, and also overrides state and territory legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.

Contents

The Act is administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The president of the commission is responsible for investigating complaints. If a complaint is validated, the commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court of Australia or through the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The commission also attempts to raise awareness about the obligations that individuals and organisations have under the Act.

The Act

Prohibition of racial discrimination in certain contexts

Racial discrimination occurs under the Act when someone is treated less fairly than someone else in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. Racial discrimination can also occur when a policy or rule appears to treat everyone in the same way but actually has an unfair effect on more people of a particular race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin than others.[ citation needed ]

It is against the law to discriminate in areas such as:

Cases

In Bligh and Ors v State of Queensland [1996] HREOCA 28, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (precursor to the Australian Human Rights Commission) found in favour of a number of Aboriginal applicants who had worked on Great Palm Island Aboriginal reserve and were underpaid between 31 October 1975 (the Act's start date) and 31 May 1984. [2] [3] A$7,000 was awarded to each applicant, although the evidence suggested that the loss of income A$8,573.66 to A$20,982.97. [2] [4] [5] Following this case, the Queensland Government settled 5,729 claims with a single payment of A$7,000 under the Award Wages Process, established in May 1999, to Indigenous people employed by the government on Aboriginal reserves between 1975 and 1986 (the date their policy of paying below-award rates to Indigenous Australians officially ended). [2]

In Wotton v Queensland (No 5) police raids and behaviour following the 2004 Palm Island community riot, sparked by the death in custody of an Aboriginal man, were found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act with $220,000 in damages awarded in 2016. [6] [7] Police actions were described in the judgement as "unnecessary, disproportionate" with police having "acted in these ways because they were dealing with an Aboriginal community." [7] Dozens of police officers in riot gear wearing balaclavas with no identification and carrying large guns had marched into the community conducting early-morning raids on 27 November 2004. Residents reported officers kicking down doors, pointing guns at children's heads, and tasering residents. [7] with one resident and his partner awarded $235,000 compensation for assault, battery and false imprisonment in a separate case. [8] Subsequently, this led to a record class action settlement of $30 million and a formal apology issued by the Queensland State Government in May 2018. [9]

Section 18C

Section 18C of the Act makes it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics. [10] [11]

While some conservative politicians have claimed the bar for breaching 18C is too low, [12] [13] courts have consistently shown that this is not the case, and to fall within 18C the speech must have "... profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights." [14]

Exemptions are provided in section 18D, including acts relating to artistic works, genuine academic or scientific purposes, fair reporting, and fair comment on matters of public interest.

Cases and determinations in relation to section 18C include the following:

Complaint process and remedies

An aggrieved person may make a complaint of a contravention of the Act to the Australian Human Rights Commission. [25] : section 46P  If the complaint cannot be resolved, then an application alleging "unlawful discrimination" may be made to the Federal Court of Australia or to the Federal Circuit Court. [25] : section 46PO  When such allegations are upheld, the court may make orders, including for compensation. [25]

Analysis

Constitutionality

The source of the federal parliament's power to pass the Act is the external affairs power contained in section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution. Under that power, the federal parliament implemented international obligations arising under the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which Australia ratified in September 1975. The High Court of Australia confirmed that the external affairs power was a valid source of power for the Act in Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen (1982), [26] and again in Mabo v Queensland (No 1) (1988). [27]

While the AHRC maintains that the Act provides an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification, [28] legal academics Forrester, Finlay and Zimmermann have suggested that section 18C of the Act, enacted in 1995, may be unconstitutional on the basis that it is inconsistent with the constitutional implied freedom of political communication. [29]

Law reform proposals

Section 18C of the Act has been a topic of debate, especially in recent years. While some conservative politicians have claimed the bar for breaching 18C is too low, [12] [30] courts have consistently shown that this is not the case, and to fall within 18C the speech must have "... profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights." [14]

In 1995, left-wing ABC journalist Phillip Adams argued against the provision, saying that a better response to expressions of racial hatred was "public debate, not legal censure". [31]

In 2011, the Federal Court ruled that commentator Andrew Bolt had contravened section 18C of the Act as he could not rely on the exemptions under Section 18D. [11] Bolt said that the verdict was "a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves". [32]

The political allegiance of the presiding judge to the Australian Labor Party has also been raised as an issue (Justice Bromberg had once stood for Labor pre-selection). [33]

In 2013, members of the Abbott government proposed significant changes to section 18C in a draft bill put on public exhibition, which would have substantially limited the scope of the prohibition. [34] [35] The Attorney-General, George Brandis, defended the proposed changes, stating that people have "a right to be bigots". [36] Trade Unionist Paul Howes argued that section 18C stretches out its fingers "into the realm of what Orwell might have called a Thought Crime". [37] After public consultation and opposition by minority groups, the Government did not proceed with the proposed changes. [38]

More recently, members of the Turnbull government have proposed less significant and narrower changes to section 18C, and the Attorney-General, George Brandis, has asked for the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights to conduct an inquiry on the appropriateness of section in its current form. [39] In March 2016, the Australian Law Reform Commission called for review of section 18C, stating “In particular, there are arguments that s18C lacks sufficient precision and clarity, and unjustifiably interferes with freedom of speech by extending to speech that is reasonably likely to ‘offend’." The ALRC noted that it had received "widely divergent views" on whether s 18C should be amended but found as follows:

"In the ALRC’s view, s 18C of the Act would benefit from more thorough review in relation to implications for freedom of speech. In particular, there are arguments that s 18C lacks sufficient precision and clarity, and unjustifiably interferes with freedom of speech by extending to speech that is reasonably likely to ‘offend’. In some respects, the provision is broader than is required under international law, broader than similar laws in other jurisdictions, and may be susceptible to constitutional challenge." [40] In 2016, Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching, said she was "very surprised" when Justice Bromberg decided to hear the Bolt case given, “He was an active ALP person, he was active enough that he was in a faction, he ran for preselection... Obviously he would have had some views about [Andrew Bolt], and perhaps he was not the best person to hear [the] case.” Bromberg had run unsuccessfully for Labor preselection in Melbourne in 2001. [33]

In November, 2016, the President of the Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs voiced support for changes to 18C, saying that removing the words "offend" and "insult" and inserting "vilify" would strengthen the laws. [41] [42]

On March 30, 2017, the Australian Senate voted down changes to 18C with 31 votes; Labor, Greens, Lambie, Xenophon voting against and 28 votes Liberal, Derryn Hinch, One Nation, and Liberal Democrat for. [43] [44]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Brandis</span> Australian politician (born 1957)

George Henry Brandis is an Australian former politician. He was a Senator for Queensland from 2000 to 2018, representing the Liberal Party, and was a cabinet minister in the Abbott and Turnbull governments. He was later High Commissioner to the United Kingdom from 2018 to 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Human Rights Commission</span> Human rights institution of the Australian Government

The Australian Human Rights Commission is the national human rights institution of the Commonwealth of Australia, established in 1986 as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and renamed in 2008. It is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government. It is responsible for investigating alleged infringements of Australia's anti-discrimination legislation in relation to federal agencies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians, and whether Indigenous Australians should be included in official population counts for constitutional purposes. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

Human rights in Australia have largely been developed by the democratically elected Australian Parliament through laws in specific contexts and safeguarded by such institutions as the independent judiciary and the High Court, which implement common law, the Australian Constitution, and various other laws of Australia and its states and territories. Australia also has an independent statutory human rights body, the Australian Human Rights Commission, which investigates and conciliates complaints, and more generally promotes human rights through education, discussion and reporting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic Frontiers Australia</span>

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA) is a non-profit Australian national non-government organisation representing Internet users concerned with online liberties and rights. It has been vocal on the issue of Internet censorship in Australia.

The Adelaide Institute was a Holocaust denial group in Australia and is considered to be antisemitic by the Australian Human Rights Commission and others. The Adelaide Institute was formed in 1995 from the former Truth Mission that was established in 1994 by Fredrick Töben, later a convicted Holocaust denier. Töben directed the Institute until his incarceration in 2009 in South Australia for contempt of court. Peter Hartung assumed the role of director of the Adelaide Institute. On assuming the role from Töben, Hartung defied the Federal Court by publishing the revisionist material that led to Töben's three months jail time. In June 2009, the Adelaide Institute was linked with an American white supremacist, James von Brunn, charged with killing a security guard in Washington's Holocaust Museum.

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 1)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Mabo v Queensland , was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988. It found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Louis Beers was an Australian comedian who performed under the stage name King Billy Cokebottle. He attracted controversy at his performances by wearing blackface to impersonate an Aboriginal Australian. Beers was born in Holland and his family migrated to Australia when he was 3 years old, where he grew up in the Perth suburb of Riverton in Western Australia. He began performing as King Billy on Perth radio in the 1970s and moved to Townsville, Queensland in the early 1990s. Changing attitudes towards the use of blackface and towards racism in Australia led Beers to receive less work in his later years. Despite the contents of his performance, Beers denied allegations of racism and claimed to have Aboriginal family members.

<i>Alas Poor Yagan</i> Cartoon resulting in a racial discrimination complaint

Alas Poor Yagan is an editorial cartoon created by Dean Alston and published in the Australian newspaper The West Australian on 6 September 1997. The cartoon, consisting of eight panels featuring Noongar activist Ken Colbung and three Indigenous Australian children, sparked controversy due to its content, leading to a racial discrimination complaint lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission ruled that while the cartoon made inappropriate references to Noongar beliefs, it did not violate the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The commission's ruling, which found the cartoon to be an "artistic work" published "reasonably and in good faith", has been the subject of academic debate, with some commentators expressing concern about the broad interpretation of the exemption provided under the Racial Discrimination Act. This decision was upheld upon appeal to the Federal Court of Australia.

<i>Native Title Act 1993</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is an act of the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

Gerald Fredrick Töben was a German-born Australian citizen who was director and founder of the Adelaide Institute, a Holocaust denial group in Australia. He was the author of works on education, political science, and history.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gillian Triggs</span> Australian legal scholar

Gillian Doreen Triggs is a public international lawyer, practicing in human rights, international, commercial and trade law. In 2019, she was appointed by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres as Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations. In this capacity, she served until December 2023 as the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection in the team of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi.

<i>Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.

<i>Silberberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc</i>

Silberberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc, is a 2007 judgment of the Federal Court of Australia, and the first Australian case exploring the liability of Internet forum operators for racial vilification under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of skin colour, ethnicity, national origin or race. Some jurisdictions also give redress when a person is victimised on account of religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia. It is a section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which was passed by the Australian Parliament during the term of the Whitlam government and makes racial discrimination unlawful in Australia. Section 18C was added by the Keating government in 1995. The Section has been controversial and subject to much debate.

<i>Eatock v Bolt</i>

Eatock v Bolt was a 2011 decision of the Federal Court of Australia which held that two articles written by columnist and commentator Andrew Bolt and published in The Herald Sun newspaper had contravened section 18C, of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA). The case was controversial and instigated community debate about freedom of speech.

<i>Wotton v Queensland</i> (No 5) 2016 Australian class action lawsuit

Wotton v Queensland is a class action lawsuit brought against the State of Queensland and the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service on behalf of 447 Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders who live on Palm Island in Queensland, Australia.

Michael Jarrett is a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. He was previously a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia until its merger with the Family Court of Australia. Before then, he was a Federal Magistrate of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, before it was named the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Jarrett has presided over a variety of cases, including family law, administrative law, bankruptcy, copyright, human rights, industrial law, and trade practices. Prior to being a judge, Jarrett was a barrister.

References

  1. ↑ Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
  2. 1 2 3 Hunyor, Jonathon (9 March 2007). "Law Seminar 2007: Stolen Wages". Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  3. ↑ Watson, Joanne (2010). Palm Island: Through a Long Lens (illustrated ed.). Aboriginal Studies Press. pp. 136–137. ISBN   9780855757038 . Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  4. ↑ "Inquiry into Stolen Wages". Australian Human Rights Commission. 1 August 2006. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  5. ↑ Thornton, Margaret; Luker, Trish. "The Wages of Sin: Compensation for Indigenous Workers" (PDF). UNSW Law Journal. 32 (3): 662. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  6. ↑ Wotton v Queensland (No 5) [2016] FCA 1457 (5 December 2016), Federal Court.
  7. 1 2 3 "Queensland police breached discrimination act on Palm Island, court finds". Brisbane Times. 5 December 2016. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  8. ↑ Petrinec, Melanie (7 October 2015). "Palm Island man compensated for wrongful arrest after 2004 riots". The Courier Mail. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  9. ↑ Lily, Nothling (2 May 2018). "Palm Island riots class action payout 'slap in face' to police, union says". The Courier Mail. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  10. ↑ Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 18c.
  11. 1 2 3 Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 , (2011) 197 FCR 261, Federal Court (Australia).
  12. 1 2 Patel, Uma (7 August 2016). "David Leyonhjelm, Malcolm Roberts push for Section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act to be removed". ABC Online. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  13. ↑ Norman, Jane (30 August 2016). "Cory Bernardi leads Coalition backbench senators in push to dilute Racial Discrimination Act". ABC Online. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  14. 1 2 McNamara, Luke (1 September 2016). "What is Section 18C and why do some politicians want it changed?". ABC Online. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  15. ↑ Bryant v Queensland Newspaper Pty Ltd [1997] HREOCA 23 (15 May 1997), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  16. ↑ Rugema v Gadsten Pty Ltd & Derkes [1997] HREOCA 34 (26 June 1997), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  17. ↑ Combined Housing Organisation Ltd, Ipswich Regional Atsic for Legal Services, Thompson and Fisher v Hanson [1997] HREOCA 58 (16 October 1997), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  18. ↑ Mcglade v Lightfoot [1999] HREOCA 1 (21 January 1999), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  19. ↑ Jacobs v Fardig [1999] HREOCA 9 (27 April 1999), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  20. ↑ Jones v Toben [2000] HREOCA 39 (5 October 2000), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  21. ↑ Toben v Jones [2003] FCAFC 137 (27 June 2003), Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  22. ↑ McMahon v Bowman [2000] FMCA 3 (13 October 2000), Federal Magistrates' Court (Australia).
  23. ↑ Wanjurri v Southern Cross Broadcasting (Aus) Ltd [2001] HREOCA 2 (7 May 2001), Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia).
  24. ↑ Prior v Queensland University of Technology & Ors (No.2) [2016] FCCA 2853 (4 November 2016), Australia).
  25. 1 2 3 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
  26. ↑ Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen [1982] HCA 27 , (1982) 153 CLR 168, High Court (Australia).
  27. ↑ Mabo v Queensland (No 1) [1988] HCA 69 , (1988) 166 CLR 186, High Court (Australia).
  28. ↑ "At a glance: Racial vilification under sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)". www.humanrights.gov.au. Australian Human Rights Commission. 11 December 2013. Archived from the original on 19 March 2017.
  29. ↑ Forrester, Joshua; Finlay, Lorraine & Zimmermann, Augusto (6 May 2016). "Indeed, Mr Abbott, Section 18C is 'clearly a bad law'". On Line Opinion. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  30. ↑ Norman, Jane (30 August 2016). "Cory Bernardi leads Coalition backbench senators in push to dilute Racial Discrimination Act". ABC Online. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  31. ↑ Adams, Phillip (1995). The Role of the Media.
  32. ↑ "Bolt breached discrimination act, judge rules". ABC News. 28 September 2011. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  33. 1 2 Andrew Bolt race-case judge ‘had ALP links’; The Australian, Nov 16, 2016
  34. ↑ "25 March 2014 - Racial Discrimination Act". www.attorneygeneral.gov.au. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  35. ↑ Wright, Jessica. "George Brandis to repeal 'Bolt laws' on racial discrimination". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  36. ↑ "Brandis defends 'right to be a bigot'". ABC News. 24 March 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  37. ↑ "Andrew Bolt: Freedom of Speech in Australia - Speech made by Paul Howes | Institute of Public Affairs Australia". www.ipa.org.au. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  38. ↑ Aston, Heath. "Tony Abbott dumps controversial changes to 18C racial discrimination laws". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  39. ↑ "Parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech". www.attorneygeneral.gov.au. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  40. ↑ Manager, Web (12 January 2016). "Laws that interfere with freedom of speech". www.alrc.gov.au. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
  41. ↑ Hunter, Fergus (8 November 2016). "Gillian Triggs backs changes to section 18C as government announces inquiry into freedom of speech". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
  42. ↑ Katharine Murphy (7 November 2016). "Gillian Triggs says replacing 'insult' and 'offend' could strengthen 18C". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 15 December 2016.
  43. ↑ "Senate votes down 18C reforms". skynews.com.au. 31 March 2017.
  44. ↑ Murphy, Katharine (30 March 2017). "Senate blocks government's changes to section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act". The Guardian.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.