The new single equalities and human rights watchdog for Britain begins life in a week and a half, swallowing up the existing Disability Rights Commission, Commission for Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission.
However, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights begins its existence with question marks over its potential to deliver a more equal society for disabled, black and minority ethnic, gay and older people, women and those persecuted for their beliefs.
Those doubts are present in the existing three commissions and in charities representing the groups the CEHR is supposed to deliver for.
This is not about the credentials of the CEHR's staff or commissioners, who include former Social Care Institute for Excellence chair Jane Campbell as disability lead, nor their willingness to tackle injustice, inequality and discrimination.
Firstly, it is about the way the CEHR has been established - the EOC and CRE fear its £70m annual budget will be insufficient, while it will not be fully staffed come 1 October.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, it is about the political climate in which it will be born and the serious questions that have emerged about the government's commitment to tackling inequality.
In June, the Department for Communities and Local Government produced a green paper on equality law reform that received a barrage of criticism from the existing commissions.
Specifically, it effectively proposed watering down the existing duties on public bodies to promote race, gender and disability equality duty by removing requirements on organisations to have "due regard" to equality in all they do. In other words, for organisations equality was not a mainstream issue but a sideline.
Had the government's proposals been in place, they would have stymied the CRE's current investigation into the Department of Health for failing to fulfil its duties to promote racial equality - which its director of policy and public sector Nick Johnson says will not "pull any punches" when it reports next week.
The government's argument is that the current duties are overly bureaucratic and process, rather than outcome based; more generally it wants to reduce the burdens on both public bodies and private companies to enable innovation, flexibility and diversity.
Yet, as another CRE report this week shows, sometimes organisations require the stick of regulation and duty, rather than the carrot of "light-touch" scrutiny. It said it was taking action against 15 government departments for failing to comply with their race equality duties, which it wants the CEHR to continue. Most significantly, the CRE say that there is a strong correlation between it taking a tough approach to enforcing race equality duties and the priority public bodies give to the issue - hardly a ringing endorsement of a light-touch approach.
It is incumbent on the CEHR to argue publicly and unequivocally that the government should toughen up, rather than weaken, the public sector duties in current legislation, while ensuring that public bodies can strongly influence the private sector to demonstrate its commitment to equality.
It is incumbent on the government to listen to such advice. Otherwise, the gaping inequalities that have scarred this country for too long will have a long and untroubled future ahead of them.