Credit: Thanks to Media Works Radio, New ZealandClick image to enlarge
Saturday, 27 December 2008
Friday, 26 December 2008
Two of the reasons why the NSW North Coast is such a special place
Our rivers............
And our night skies............
And our night skies............
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Revisiting Federal disability discrimination and human rights legislation
Thanks to Dave Bath of Balneus for alerting North Coast Voices to the following Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry:
On 4 December 2008 the Senate referred the provisions of the Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report.
On 4 December 2008 the Senate referred the provisions of the Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report.
This bill amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (the Act) to implement recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its 2004 review of the Act. The bill also implements the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs' recommendation to remove the 'dominant purpose' test from the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Older People and the Law, 2007), and makes various other amendments to the human rights legislation going to the general operation of human rights law in Australia.
Key amendments to the Act include those that seek to:
- make explicit that refusal to make reasonable adjustments for people with disability may also amount to discrimination;
- make the defence of unjustifiable hardship available in relation to all unlawful discrimination on the ground of disability, except harassment and victimization;
- clarify matters to be considered when determining unjustifiable hardship;
- clarify that the onus of proving unjustifiable hardship falls on the person claiming it;
- make clear that the definition of disability includes genetic predisposition to a disability and behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of a disability;
- replace the 'proportionality test' in the definition of indirect discrimination with the requirement to prove that the condition or requirement imposed has the effect of disadvantaging people with the disability of the aggrieved person;
- shift the onus of proving the reasonableness of a requirement or condition in the context of indirect discrimination from the person with disability to the respondent, and
- extend the power to make standards under the Act.
The bill also seeks to assist people with assistance animals and service providers by recognising animals accredited either under a State and Territory law or by a relevant organisation, and by clarifying each party's obligations. The bill also consolidates the provisions in the Act relating to carers, assistants and aids, and addresses the issues raised by the Full Federal Court in Forest [2008] by clarifying that discrimination on the basis that a person possesses or is accompanied by a carer, assistant or aid, is discrimination on the basis of disability.
The bill also includes proposed amendments to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. This implements the Government's decision to change the name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Other key amendments to that Act include the extension of the period within which a person can take a terminated complaint to the Federal or Federal Magistrates Court from 28 days to 60 days, and a number of amendments to improve the efficiency of the complaints handling process, such as allowing the President of the Commission to finalise a complaint where the complainant expresses no intention to pursue the matter.
The reporting date for the inquiry is 24 February 2009.
The Committee invites written submissions by Monday, 12 January 2009. Submissions should be sent to:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Rudd Government to implement ALRC sedition law reform recommendations?
Australian Law Reform Commission President, Professor David Weisbrot, welcomed the Government's positive response to the ALRC's report Fighting Words: A Review of Sedition Laws in Australia (ALRC 104, 2006), announced today by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP.
The ALRC made 27 recommendations for reform of the law in this area, and the Government has accepted 25 of these unconditionally and two of them 'in principle'. In effect, the Government will be implementing the ALRC report in full.
Prof Weisbrot commented that "we are naturally delighted with the Government's formal response. The ALRC Report recognised that free speech and robust political debate are the cornerstones of our democratic society.
"The basic thrust of our recommendations was to create a bright line in the law between free speech—however robust, confronting or unpopular—and conduct calculated to incite violence in the community, which properly should be regarded as criminal activity.
"The law also has to be clear enough to ensure that media commentators, satirists, artists and activists are not only safe from criminal prosecution, but also from the 'chilling effect' of uncertainty."
"Context is critical in these circumstances, so the courts should be required to take into account whether the conduct in question was a part of artistic expression; or genuine academic or scientific discussion; or a news report or commentary," Prof Weisbrot said.
Prof Weisbrot outlined the major recommendations in the Fighting Words report accepted by the Government, which include:
- eliminating the 'red rag' term 'sedition' from the federal statute book;
- refining the existing offences to ensure that they only cover circumstances in which a person urges others to use force or violence against community groups or the institutions of democratic government (including elections), intending this violence to eventuate;
- leading a process through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to reform state and territory laws in this area "which mostly are a good deal worse than the federal law";
- amending the offences of treason and 'assisting' the enemy, to clarify that this refers to material assistance—such as providing arms, funds, personnel or strategic information;
- repeal of the outdated 'unlawful associations' provisions in the Crimes Act, which have been superseded by more recent laws dealing with terrorist organisations;
- reviewing some old, related offences—such as 'treachery' and 'sabotage'—to determine whether these should now be 'modernised' or simply repealed; and
- pursuing other non-punitive strategies, such as education, to promote inter-communal harmony and understanding.
However, it would be wise not to break out the champagne just yet as this process will go at a snail's pace and there is no certainty that either the letter or spirit of the ALRC recommendations will be honoured in full.
In fact, given the conservative nature of the current federal government, it is a certainty that most of the onerous provisions of the Howard-Ruddock sedition laws will simply be given a superficial facelift and remain on the books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
