Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Racial equality re-examined

By Tom Calma - posted Thursday, 24 April 2008


The introduction of these mechanisms recognises that racial discrimination is a pervasive social problem and that the onus of redressing inequality should be on those who have the greatest power to achieve social change, rather than on those who are most at fault. In comparison to the jurisdictions studied, positive duties in Australia are limited in scope, applying only to employment in the federal public sector, and are not backed-up by effective enforcement mechanisms.

Burden of proof

Another potential direction for legislative reform in Australia is alleviating the burden that plaintiffs have in establishing that the differential treatment that they have been subjected to is “based on” or “by reason of” race.

It has been recognised by a number of commentators that placing the burden of proof entirely on the complainant raises particular difficulties for a complainant in discrimination proceedings. Gaze has noted that:

Advertisement

Proving the reason for an action or decision that exists in another person’s mind, where all the evidence is controlled by the other person and they are not required to give any reason, is very difficult.

In all the jurisdictions studied, except Australia, there is a shift in the allocation of the burden of proof once the complainant has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

The Background Paper shows that only in Australia does the entire evidentiary and persuasive burden remain with the plaintiff at every stage of the case. In the US and Canada, the evidentiary burden falls on the defendant. They must “articulate a legitimate explanation” for the less favourable treatment shown by the plaintiff.

In the UK and EU the persuasive burden also shifts once a prima facie case has been established. The defendant must then prove, on the balance of probabilities that discrimination did not occur.

The difficultly for the plaintiff in Australia is compounded by the high standard of evidence required by the court, which has been historically reluctant to find that a respondent has discriminated on the basis of race without clear and cogent evidence (based on the Briginshaw principle). While other jurisdictions also require a similar higher standard of evidence to prove the most serious or damaging of civil claims, this principle is rarely invoked - outside of Australia - with respect to allegations of racial discrimination.

As a result of these two factors - the burden of proof remaining with the plaintiff at every stage of a case and the high standard of proof for racial discrimination matters - there have been very few successful cases in which direct racial discrimination has been proved under Australian federal law.

Advertisement

Standing

A third area that the study points to as requiring consideration is in determining who has standing to initiate a complaint or commence proceedings for racial discrimination.

In all jurisdictions except Australia, there is some capability for the relevant human rights body to initiate complaints in response to more systemic discrimination or legally complex issues.

Most jurisdictions (excluding the UK) also allow other parties to bring a complaint on behalf of the person affected. In Australia, a person or trade union representing the affected person may bring a complaint before the Commission, but only the affected person has standing to bring an action before the court.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mr Tom Calma is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and acting Race Discrimination Commissioner.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tom Calma

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Tom Calma
Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy