Editor's Note: Alexandru Rares Tofan recently graduated with
an LLM in Transnational Law from King’s College London where he focused
on international human rights law, transnational litigation and
international law. He is currently an intern with the Doing Business
Right project at the Asser Institute in The Hague. He previously worked
as a research assistant at the Transnational Law Institute in London on
several projects pertaining to human rights, labour law and
transnational corporate conduct.
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is
charged with leading the promotion and protection of human rights in Australia
and with ensuring that Australians have access to effective complaint and
public inquiry processes on human rights matters (see the Australian Human Rights Commission Act No 125, hereinafter ‘the Act’). The AHRC was established in
1986 as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but underwent a name change and several other
amendments through the 2003 Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Bill (see also the Explanatory Memorandum). The AHRC primarily exercises the functions
conferred on it by four federal anti-discrimination acts, namely the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination
Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act
1975, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (see s.11). It is further empowered
to act on the basis of several international human rights instruments such as
the ICCPR (see here). Specifically, the AHRC
advises the federal government on the compatibility of its legislation with
human rights, promotes an understanding and acceptance of human rights in
Australia, undertakes research and educational programmes, intervenes in court
proceedings as an amicus, and it may handle complaints through its conciliatory
process (see s.11 (1) (a)-(o)). Notably, the AHRC enjoys
an open-ended mandate in that s.11 (1) (p) stipulates that it may undertake any
action that is incidental or conducive to the performance of the functions
contained in subparagraphs (a) to and including (o). The Commission is made up
of one president and seven specialised commissioners (see s.8 (1)). Its headquarters are
located in Sydney.
This article analyses two types of actions in order to assess the extent to which the AHRC has assumed its role in promoting access
to remedy in business and human rights cases. According to the 2010 Edinburgh Declaration of the International Co-ordinating Committee of
National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC),
the participation of NHRIs in the remedial process may be either direct or
indirect. As will be shown, the AHRC’s mandate to entertain complaints against
companies is rather limited in terms of subject-matter jurisdiction. On the
other hand, the Commission plays a prominent role in the promotion and
operationalisation of the UNGPs in Australia.
As to direct participation to access to remedy, three
types of complaints fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission’s complaints mechanism. Firstly, the AHRC may resolve complaints alleging
unlawful discrimination, harassment and bullying in so far as they relate to
one of the prohibited grounds of race, disability, age and sex (including
gender identity, intersex status and sexual orientation). The second type of
complaints that the Commission may entertain are those relating to
discrimination in employment. The prohibited grounds on which such a complaint
may be based include a person’s criminal record, trade union activity,
political opinion, religion and social origin. Thirdly, the AHRC may resolve
complaints arguing breaches of any human right but only to the extent that the
alleged perpetrator is the Australian government or one of its agencies. It
should be borne in mind however that the Commission is an administrative body
and that it therefore does not have the capacity to make binding and
enforceable judicial decisions. As the High Court ruled in the Brandy case, such a power would be unconstitutional and the
Commission may therefore only act in a conciliatory capacity.
Once such a complaint is filed, the Commission begins
a non-adversarial process of conciliation whereby it seeks to help the parties
reach an agreeable outcome. The most common types of reparations include
apologies, policy changes and pecuniary compensation. Out of 1,262 conciliation
processes carried out in 2017-2018, 74% were successfully resolved according to
both parties (see here at page 15). Nevertheless, if such an outcome cannot
be reached, complaints may be taken further to the federal courts. This process
exemplifies the Commission’s complementary role in providing remedy for human
rights violations. Nonetheless, the AHRC’s complaints mechanism suffers from a
narrow mandate in terms of business and human rights. It may only entertain
complaints against companies in so far as these fall under the first or second
category of complaints. Other alleged breaches of human rights against
companies escape the Commission’s competences. The AHRC’s direct participation
in providing access to remedy in business and human rights cases is therefore
rather limited. While the conciliatory process fits the role envisioned for
NHRIs under the UNGPs, the limitation of the mandate to allegations of
discrimination curtails the AHRC’s potential as an alternative to instituting
judicial proceedings.
On the other hand, the Commission’s indirect
participation in promoting access to effective remedy is slightly more robust.
The AHRC has elaborated a fully-fledged business and human rights agenda upon which it has based several activities meant to
raise awareness and promote dialogue (see also here at page 23). For instance, the Commission convenes an
annual business and human rights dialogue jointly with the Global Compact
Network Australia that focuses on capacity-building by helping businesses
operationalise the UNGPs. Access to remedy has been a central theme in these
dialogues (see for instance the outcomes of the 2015 and 2016 dialogues). The AHRC has further endeavoured to help
companies internalise the UNGPs by developing easy to understand factsheets on how to best integrate human rights in business
policies and practices. Alongside working with businesses, the Commission has
collaborated with the civil society with the purpose of finding a way to better
operationalise the UNGPs in Australia. In 2016, the AHRC hosted a roundtable
discussion with civil society representatives, which culminated in a joint statement. This tackled among others the upcoming National
Action Plan of Australia and the measures this should include to ensure
adequate access to remedy. On a regional level, the AHRC has participated in
the Interregional Dialogue on Business and Human Rights, which was hosted by
the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. As a part of this
dialogue, the Australian Commission convened a roundtable discussion on the
NHRI’s engagement with business and human rights issues under the framework of
the UNGPs (see here at page 42).
In conclusion, while the Australian Human Rights
Commission plays an important role in the promotion and implementation of the
UNGPs in Australia, its role is considerably more prominent in terms of
indirect rather than direct participation in providing access to remedy for
business-related human rights harms.