Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
| Racial Discrimination Act 1975 | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Parliament of Australia | |
| An Act relating to the Elimination of Racial and other Discrimination | |
| Citation | Racial Discrimination Act 1975 |
| Enacted by | House of Representatives |
| Date enacted | 11 June 1975 |
| Administered by | Australian Human Rights Commission |
| Status: In force | |
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), (RDA) is a statute passed by the Australian Parliament during the Prime Ministership of Gough Whitlam. The RDA makes racial discrimination in certain contexts unlawful in Australia, and overrides States and Territory legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.
The RDA 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 or through the Federal Circuit Court. The Commission also attempts to raise awareness about the obligations that individuals and organisations have under the RDA.
The source of the federal Parliament's power to pass the RDA 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 RDA in Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen, and again in Mabo v Queensland (No 1).
While the AHRC maintains that the RDA provides an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification, some legal academics have suggested that section 18C of the RDA (see below) may be unconstitutional, on the basis that it is inconsistent with the constitutional implied freedom of political communication.
...
Wikipedia