Australia

This Act overturned Division 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which criminalised obtaining, performing, or otherwise assisting an abortion. Abortion is now legal in New South Wales until 22 weeks of pregnancy. To procure an abortion after 22 weeks, the procedure must be performed in a hospital by a specialist practitioner in consultation with a second practitioner. Medical providers who have conscientious objections to abortion must provide patients with information about where they can receive an abortion. 

The Abortion Law Reform Act allows a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy (perform an abortion) on a woman who is not more than 24 weeks pregnant. After 24 weeks, an abortion may still be performed if the medical practitioner believes it is appropriate in all the circumstances, and has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who reasonably agrees.  It also permits the supply or administration of drugs to perform and abortion by a pharmacist or registered nurse in similar situations.

The Crimes Act is the principal Victorian criminal legislation setting out a range of criminal offences and penalties.  In relation to gender justice, the Act prohibits sexual violence and rape, stalking, sexual assault, rape, abortion (as amended by the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008) and female genital mutilation.  The Act also prohibits attempts and conspiracies to commit these offenses, and sets forth applicable procedures and defenses.  The Act previously contained a defense of “defensive homicide,” which was intended to, among other things, assist women who killed an abus

Section 22A, Part 2A of the Act provides that a person sexually harasses another person if “the person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the other person, or the person engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person, in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.”  Part 2A sets out various prohibitions against the harassment of employees, commission agents, contract worke

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 makes it unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate on the basis of certain grounds (“attributes”) in connection to public life; including employment, education and training, and provision of facilities, goods and services.

The appellants, both homosexual male citizens of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia and applied for protection visas. To be recognized as refugees, the appellants had to show that they had a well-founded fear of being persecuted due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The appellants argued that they belonged to a “particular social group” that was subject to discrimination and harm in Bangladesh by virtue of their homosexuality.

In the case of Austin Health v. Tsikos, the respondent claimed that she had been directly discriminated against in her employment based on her age and sex. She claimed she had been denied the opportunity to renegotiate her salary which was at the rate specified in the enterprise agreement, despite (among other things) being paid considerably less than a male employee who reported to her, who was classified at a lower grade under the enterprise agreement, but was paid well above the rates specified in the enterprise agreement.

The case concerned a challenge to the employer’s retrenchment policy. The applicant alleged that the criterion was discriminatory as substantially higher proportion of men could comply than women. Although the retrenchment applied to both sexes, there were fewer women in positions of seniority who were immune from the retrenchment because the employer had a history of discriminating in its hiring decisions. As such, the court found indirect discrimination because the retrenchment policy unlawfully maintained discriminatory circumstances.

Ms. Ayoub claimed harassment and discrimination following a performance appraisal after which her position was made redundant. She also sought worker’s compensation for anxiety/distress caused by the alleged conduct. An arbitrator found for Ms. Ayoub on the basis that the company had failed to consult her on the redundancy decision and mishandled the performance appraisal and these actions caused her mental injuries.

The appellant’s claims concerned domestic violence perpetrated by her husband and assertions of inadequate state protection from such violence.