Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019

Alice Taylor
{"title":"Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019","authors":"Alice Taylor","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v43i1.8123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The passage of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA 2019’) was a significant achievement, particularly in a state often known for its parochial conservatism and disinterest in, if not outright rejection of, human rights. The HRA 2019 is substantially based upon the human rights Acts in place in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. However, there are some small, but potentially important differences between the HRA 2019 and the corresponding state and territory equivalents. In this article, I focus on one of these differences: the definition of discrimination contained in the HRA 2019. Unlike the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) the definition of discrimination in the HRA 2019 is not tied to the definition or grounds of discrimination in the state discrimination legislation. This small but important distinction could feasibly allow courts to define discrimination and the broader notion of equality in a more substantive manner, covering a wider variety of actions and conduct, and apply that wider definition to a broader range of attributes (commonly understood as ‘grounds’). The purpose of this article is to consider the possibilities and potential challenges confronting Queensland courts in broadening the definition of discrimination in the context of HRA 2019. I argue that, though a substantive interpretation of discrimination and equality is challenging and requires a degree of ‘creativity’ on the part of judges, it is a challenge worth undertaking.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"35 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v43i1.8123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The passage of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA 2019’) was a significant achievement, particularly in a state often known for its parochial conservatism and disinterest in, if not outright rejection of, human rights. The HRA 2019 is substantially based upon the human rights Acts in place in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. However, there are some small, but potentially important differences between the HRA 2019 and the corresponding state and territory equivalents. In this article, I focus on one of these differences: the definition of discrimination contained in the HRA 2019. Unlike the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) the definition of discrimination in the HRA 2019 is not tied to the definition or grounds of discrimination in the state discrimination legislation. This small but important distinction could feasibly allow courts to define discrimination and the broader notion of equality in a more substantive manner, covering a wider variety of actions and conduct, and apply that wider definition to a broader range of attributes (commonly understood as ‘grounds’). The purpose of this article is to consider the possibilities and potential challenges confronting Queensland courts in broadening the definition of discrimination in the context of HRA 2019. I argue that, though a substantive interpretation of discrimination and equality is challenging and requires a degree of ‘creativity’ on the part of judges, it is a challenge worth undertaking.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实质性平等与 2019 年《昆士兰人权法》的可能性
2019 年人权法(昆士兰州)》("HRA 2019")的通过是一项重大成就,尤其是在一个通常以狭隘保守主义和对人权不感兴趣甚至完全拒绝人权而闻名的州。2019 年人权法案》在很大程度上以维多利亚州和澳大利亚首都直辖区的现行人权法案为基础。然而,2019 年《人权法案》与相应的州和领地法案之间存在一些微小但可能很重要的差异。在本文中,我将重点讨论其中的一个差异:2019 年《人权法》中包含的歧视定义。与《2006 年人权和责任宪章法案》(维多利亚州)不同,《2019 年人权法案》中的歧视定义并不与各州歧视立法中的歧视定义或歧视理由挂钩。这一微小但重要的区别可以让法院以更实质性的方式定义歧视和更广泛的平等概念,涵盖更广泛的行动和行为,并将更广泛的定义适用于更广泛的属性(通常理解为 "理由")。本文旨在考虑昆士兰州法院在 2019 年《人权法案》背景下扩大歧视定义的可能性和潜在挑战。我认为,尽管对歧视和平等进行实质性解释具有挑战性,需要法官具有一定程度的 "创造性",但这是一项值得应对的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1