The Australian Human Rights Commission’s vision is:
Human rights: everyone, everywhere, everyday
The “Sex Discrimination” section headed by commissioner Elizabeth Broderick states on its web page;
Gender equality is a principle that lies at the heart of a fair and productive society. It is also the key goal of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which aims to eliminate discrimination and sexual harassment and promote greater equality in all aspects of the Australian community. 
One could be forgiven for thinking that “human rights for everyone” and “gender equality in all aspects of the Australian community” would mean gender equality for women and men, but you would be dead wrong.
Men are largely excluded from the “everyone” or as an “aspect of the Australian community” worthy of the commissioner’s attention as her record of lack of advocacy on behalf of men clearly shows.
When questioned about this anomaly by a colleague Broderick appeared to take delight in pointing out to him that legislation governing whom the commission is to serve does not make explicit mention of men and therefore she was not obliged to address any general concerns regarding discrimination against males…. or words to that effect.
However the legislation does explicitly mention women, indeed the first aim of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (The Act) is
“(a) to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and to provisions of other relevant international instruments;”
If men are considered “persons” (and it’s far from clear that Broderick gives them this acknowledgement) then some of their rights are covered under aim (b):
(b) to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or breastfeeding in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs;
It is true that individual men can make claim regarding discrimination on the grounds of their sex in any of those areas mentioned.
Aim (d) of The Act states:
(d)“to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women.”
Australia is renowned as the land of a “fair go” for all, but not in Broderick’s estimation. She is still somehow able to rationalize that advocacy for only one gender is consistent with the aims and of The Act.
Whereas “eliminating all forms of discrimination against men” is not specifically mentioned in the act, if the commissioner chose to embrace Aim (d), “the principle of equality of men and women,” she would have legislative latitude for advocacy for men’s issues as well as women’s. Instead she rejects men’s concerns, and hypocritically sets herself up as a prime example of gender discrimination, the antithesis of the essence of The Act, rather the champion for gender equity she should be.
It is not surprising that my representation to Broderick earlier this year endorsed by many prominent advocates for men’s, father’s and children’s rights failed to penetrate her closed mind. She was asked to consider 4 key areas in which men suffer disadvantage and unfair discrimination in contemporary Australia. These included educational disadvantage, health disadvantage, gender bias in the family court and lack of acknowledgement and services for male victims of violence. 
In response she chose not to mention any of these issues and proceeded to enlighten me on the impacts she was making on behalf of men’s wellbeing as a spinoff of focusing only on women’s issues.
Broderick is an ardent supporter of The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021 – a document that proposes a group of draconian anti-male measures including the introduction of differential laws for men accused of (i.e. without proof of wrongdoing) domestic violence, under a broadened definition which includes many subjective and non-physically violent behaviors commonly manifest by both genders in relationship conflict. But she fails to identify the conflict in promotion of discriminatory laws and her role as “Sex Discrimination Commissioner.”
Admixed with other bureaucratic palaver in her response, she highlights her “Male Champions of Change” initiative as a great achievement in gender equality. 
For those not familiar with the Male Champions of Change, Broderick enlisted the services of some 23 male CEO’s and enticed them into joining her push for parity representation of women on Company Boards.
Swane O’Pie, in his excellent book Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years War Against Men (the UK edition titled Why Britain Hates Men) discusses at length the feminist move from equality of opportunity to numerical equivalence of outcomes, and how this creates an easily sold illusion of discrimination when none actually exists, leading to special treatment and privileges for women via affirmative action, women’s programs and quotas.
It is interesting to note in line with changing feminist doctrine the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in 2009 changed its name to simply the Australian Human Rights Commission. Broderick’s aim apparently, to argue for “equality of outcomes” (not a human right but a Marxist ideal) and for special privileges, rather than the human right of equality of opportunity. 
O’Pie cites Catherine Hakim’s research and theory which contends that the “work ethic” of women can be classified into three groups. 1. Family Centered (17%) – women who are happy to be homemakers and would prefer to devote all their time and energy to that endeavor if possible. 2. Adaptive women (69%) who want to combine work and family and prefer lower stress part time employment to facilitate this and 3. Work Centered (14%)– women whose main focus in life is their career, many of whom are childless and feminist.
These categories remain remarkably constant across different demographic groups within the UK and other European counties. By contrast, most men are work centered, as societies gender roles expect them to be. Most women also expect this, earning capacity being the prime consideration of hypegamous women seeking partners.
Pushing for gender equal representation at company board level and ignoring women’s own work choices is only addressing the interests of a small minority of women who, despite already having the opportunity, now want special help to compete with a much larger pool of men desirous of those positions. Indeed, achieving equal representation of women at board level would be proof positive of active discrimination against men, hence I propose that Broderick be better known as the Commissioner for Discrimination Against Men.
Broderick’s discrimination against men is manifest, but even so she is not averse to driving the point home with petty vindictiveness. The Commissioner for Discrimination Against Men declined to add a single web page, promoting International Men’s Day to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s established extensive web infrastructure because and I quote:
Since the Commission’s resources are limited, we unfortunately, do not have the capacity to assist with or facilitate the development of a web page for International Men’s Day.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of IT issues will understand that the cost involved would be negligible, so the claim of limited resources is false.
What Broderick is really saying is “FUCK YOU”, I don’t have to do anything to help men and I won’t.
Well, Elizabeth, in my view and in that of most men who bother to think about it, you are disgrace to your official title and the office you hold. You will be known amongst men and women who value gender equity as the Commissioner for Discrimination Against Men.
Congratulations and fuck you, too.
With kind regards,