The Australian Human Rights Commission (2011:p1) states that “Gender equality is a principal that lies at the heart of a fair and productive society”. If gender equality is the heart of a fair and productive society than the laws and regulations in place must be the key in maintaining a fair and productive society. If regulations and laws are not frequently discussed, debated and reviewed than issues such as sex discrimination in particular can be sufficiently dealt with or ignored. The Carter v Linuki Pty t/as Aussie & Anor [2005] NSWADTAP 40 (22 August 2005) will be used to demonstrate the regulations surrounding sexual discrimination. In this paper a thoroughly investigation into the recent changes in laws and regulations encompassing …show more content…
It further goes onto state under section 5 of the SDA that a person cannot discriminate on the grounds of “their sex … characteristic that appertains and is imputed to persons of that sex”. In other words by treating a person of the opposite sex less favourably than another person in a similar circumstance is thought to be sexually discriminating against that person. On the other hand indirect discrimination means that policies and practices within the workplace disadvantage one gender more than the other without actually revealing it intentions. An example is if a company offers a bonus for working with them continuously for 20 years, it is likely that a woman would have taken time off to have and care for the child, in contrast to the men. If the discriminator imposes a condition or practices that could possibly have an effect the person of that sex is covered under this section. This vital piece of legislation is frequently used to help the workforce avoid and deal with discriminatory situations. If a worker is excluding from a social gathering on the basis on their gender, then sex discrimination has occurred. This act assisted in the removal of the once deeply entrenched attitudes of discrimination, that existence within the Australian culture. The SDA is the
The Equality Act became law on the 1st of October, 2010, replacing prior legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Broadly, it ensures regularity in what employers and employees are required to do to make their workplaces a fair environment, conform and abide with the law, defining the nine protected characteristics, Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation
Australian law has reflected the status of women in Anglo-Celtic culture. Today there are women in Australia from widely diverse cultural backgrounds and the law has a role in ensuring the safety, freedom, security and equality of opportunity for them all. As the status of women varies from culture to culture and changes over time, the law has had to adapt and evolve in order to fulfill its role.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was amended by new Regulations in 2008. The new Regulations include
Thus, the act can be unenforceable at times, as seen in the article, “Not so equal when it comes to super” (Star Observer, Lamont, Ani, 2008) That said, the act enables the protection of individuals’ rights to be free of discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences. Furthermore, it meets society’s needs to see equality amongst same sex relationships, which is evident in a survey concluding 72% of Sydney residents are in favour of gay marriage.
| in addition to age, under the Equality Act people cannot be discriminated against as a result of any of the other ‘protected characteristics’. These are: disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
This law protects many people from discrimination and it means that people should not be at a disadvantage or mistreated at work or in society just because of their age, sex, sexuality, religion or belief, race, disability or any other things which can also be known as ‘protected characteristics’.
The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights
For example, it may be indirect sex discrimination if a policy says that managers must work full-time, as this might disadvantage women because they are more likely to work part-time because of caring responsibilities.
The move towards an intersectional approach is evident in several Supreme Court rulings. “Some courts and tribunals have started to acknowledge the need to make special provision for discrimination based on multiple grounds and to recognize the social, economic and historical context in which it takes place” (Ontario Human Rights Commission). Although still in its infancy the court’s understanding of the intersectional approach has provided the Supreme Court of Canada to include comments on multiple grounds of discrimination and intersecting grounds. The Mossop case SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. Madam Justice L’Heureux-Dubé remarked, “it is increasingly recognized that categories
On 1st October 2010, the main provisions of the Equality Act 2010 came into force. It is a major simplification of discrimination legislation that makes the law easier to understand and comply with and delivers significant benefits for business, public bodies and individuals. It provides a new legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and equality of opportunity for all; to update, simplify and strengthen the previous legislation; and to deliver a simple, modern and accessible framework of discrimination law which protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. In April 2011 provision for recruitment and promotion will be brought in and likewise over the next year other provisions will be discussed and brought in; provisions relating to auxiliary aids in schools, to name one.
The Equality Act 2010 is an updated law aimed at an attempt to stop discrimination and to help try encourage equality throughout society. The care environment should benefit from this improved equality act by ensuring certain groups of people within the healthcare who receive a worse service compared to the rest of the community receive equal opportunities. Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals are formally protected against the harm of discrimination on the grounds of their age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity status, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation.
The workplace discrimination against women is one aspect that Australian legal systems have achieved the responsiveness for society and individuals. The legal system provides women with a formal and enforceable means of redress to correct discrimination. The legal systems have implemented many laws to diminish women workplace discrimination. There are three main laws that the legal system have achieved justice for society and individuals, the laws are Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (CWTH), Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Equal Opportunity laws and The Affirmative action plan Act 1989 (CWLTH). Assessing Positives and negatives to the responsiveness of the legal system that Australian parliament have made or passed.
Below I have given an table listing the different legislations and codes of practice, the table below relates to the different law and codes of practice in relation to equality, diversity and discrimination:
Vriend filed a motion in the Court of Queen’s Bench for declaratory relief. The trial judge found that the omission of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was an unjustified violation of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She ordered that the words “sexual orientation” be read into ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the IRPA as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the Alberta government’s appeal. However, the Alberta government failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for excluding sexual orientation from the IRPA. Since they had failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect of the exclusion in promoting and protecting human rights, there was no proportionality between the attainment of the legislative goal and the infringement of the appellants’ equality
While the world has unanimously advanced and is more accepting of change, the workplace continues to be a place of discrimination, prejudice and inequality. Discrimination is broadly defined to ‘distinguish unfavourably’, isolate; and is context based (Pagura, 2012). Abrahams (1991) described the workplace as an ‘inhospitable place’ where gender disparity and wage gaps persist (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). Among other states and countries, the Australian government actively implements and passes laws to protect and maintain equal employment rights. While the objective of these laws is ‘to eliminate discrimination,’ the regulatory mechanisms in the legislation are largely ineffective at achieving this ultimate goal (Smith, 2008). However,