Annual Report 2002-2003: Chapter 2
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Annual Report 2002 - 2003
Chapter 2: Complaint Handling Section
Introduction
The Complaint Handling Section (CHS) is responsible for investigating and conciliating complaints lodged under federal anti-discrimination and human rights law. Accordingly, the CHS plays a key role in fulfilling the Commission’s objective of delivering an Australian society in which human rights are protected.
The general public is quite familiar with the work of the CHS. Each year around 9,000 people from all over Australia contact the Commission’s Complaint Information Service either by telephone, TTY, post, e-mail or in person to obtain information about the law the Commission administers and the complaint process. As many enquirers are unsure which organisation can best assist them, the work of Complaint Information Service staff frequently involves providing contact details for organisations that can more appropriately deal with the enquirer’s concerns. If the enquirer’s concern is one that the Commission can deal with, the enquirer is provided with information on how to lodge a complaint and with the necessary forms, or is directed to the Commission’s website and ‘on-line’ complaint lodgement facility.
Once a complaint has been formally accepted by the Commission, the CHS focuses on dealing with the matter in a timely and unbiased manner. The CHS aims to allocate complaints to an officer for action within one month of receipt. While at times allocation to an officer may take a little longer than this, cases that need priority handling are dealt with straight away. Investigation/Conciliation Officers manage complaints on behalf of the President. The management of complaints may involve requesting information and responses to complaints, taking statements, undertaking site inspections, reviewing employment and medical records, facilitating settlement negotiations and conducting conciliation conferences in various locations including regional and remote areas of Australia. If a complaint is resolved through conciliation the matter is closed. Many complaints are resolved by conciliation as parties recognise the benefits of a process where they have direct input into how the matter is resolved without having to resort to more formal court proceedings.
Where a complaint of unlawful race, sex or disability discrimination is unable to be resolved through a conciliation process or where the President is of the view that the complaint is, for example, lacking in substance or would be better dealt with by another organisation, the complaint will be terminated. After that it is up to the complainant to decide if they want to pursue the matter to court. Both parties to a complaint are advised in writing of the President’s decision regarding a complaint.
Complaints that allege a breach of human rights or discrimination under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 cannot be taken to court. Complaints under this Act which have not been declined and are unable to be resolved through conciliation may be subject to a report to the Attorney-General and subsequent tabling in Parliament.
In 2002–03:
- 1 236 complaints were received
- 1 308 complaints were finalised
- 32 percent of finalised complaints were conciliated
- 84 percent of complaints were finalised within 12 months of lodgement
- 9 486 telephone/post/email/TTY/in person enquiries were received through the Complaint Information Service
Educating the community about the law and the complaint process and providing training in investigation and conciliation is also a major part of the CHS’s work. In 2002–03:
- Approximately 172 organisations throughout all states and territories attended information sessions on the law and the complaint handling process run by the CHS.
- 70 liaison/information sessions were undertaken by the CHS Complaint Information/Indigenous Liaison Officer.
- Seven specialist investigation and/or conciliation skills training courses were conducted for CHS staff and staff from State and Territory Equal Opportunity Commissions, government and non-government agencies.
- 12 skills training courses in administrative investigation were conducted by the CHS for public servants through the Australian Public Service Commission.
A diagram of the complaint handling process is provided at Appendix 4.
Key performance indicators and goals
- Timeliness. The section’s stated performance measure is for 80 percent of complaints to be finalised within 12 months of the date of receipt. In 2002–03 the CHS finalised 84 percent of matters within 12 months and the average time from receipt to finalisation of a complaint was seven months. A detailed breakdown of timeliness statistics by jurisdiction is provided in Table 10.
- Conciliation rate. The section’s stated performance measure is for 30 percent of finalised complaints to be conciliated. In 2002–03 the section achieved this goal with a 32 percent conciliation rate.
- Customer satisfaction survey. The section’s stated performance measure is for 80 percent of parties to be satisfied with the complaint handling process. Data for the past year indicates that 84 percent of parties were satisfied with the service they received and 50 percent rated the service they received as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’. Further details of survey results for this reporting year are provided below.
Customer satisfaction survey
Since 1997 the CHS has sought feedback on the complaint process from people lodging complaints (complainants) and people responding to complaints (respondents). This feedback is obtained by means of a Customer Satisfaction Survey which is undertaken with a random sample of finalised complaints and predominately conducted by telephone interview. Survey results for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 indicate that:
- Seventy-eight (78) percent of complainants and 91 percent of respondents felt that staff explained things in a way that was easy for them to understand.
- Eighty (80) percent of complainants and 96 percent of respondents felt that forms and correspondence from the Commission were easy to understand.
- Fifty-six (56) percent of complainants and 75 percent of respondents felt that the Commission dealt with the complaint in a timely manner.
- Seventy-seven (77) percent of complainants and 95 percent of respondents described complaint handling staff as unbiased.
Overall satisfaction ratings are very similar to results for the past three reporting years. As has been the case in past years, ratings by respondents are generally more favourable than ratings by complainants. This disparity in ratings may be due, in part, to the higher proportion of survey responses received from parties where the complaint has been terminated by the President. In this reporting year, 65 percent of survey responses related to terminated complaints. Where complaints have been terminated, for example on the ground that they are lacking in substance, it is likely that complainants will be more dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint than respondents and this dissatisfaction with outcome is also likely to influence general complainant feedback on the complaint process.
Service charter
The CHS’s Service Charter provides a clear and accountable commitment to service. It also provides an avenue through which users can understand the nature and standard of service they can expect and contribute to service improvement. All complainants are provided with a copy of the Charter and respondents receive a copy when they are notified of a complaint against them.
In the 2002–03 reporting year, the Commission received one complaint about its services through this mechanism. It is noted that where parties have concerns about the complaint handling process, they are generally able to resolve their concerns through discussions with the officer handling the complaint or the officer’s supervisor.
Access to services/community education
The Commission’s mission statement seeks to promote and facilitate community access to its services and functions. In meeting this challenge the CHS provides the following services:
- The Complaint Infoline – 1300 656 419. The Infoline, operating at a local call charge, is open Monday to Friday between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm. This service offers enquirers the opportunity to call and discuss allegations of discrimination with a Complaint Information Officer. 8 335 enquirers throughout Australia utilised the Complaint Infoline this reporting year. Enquirers can also e-mail complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au. 374 e-mail enquiries were received this year. Further information about the operation of the Complaints Information Service is provided later in this section.
- CHS webpage – www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints_ information/. This webpage provides the general public and potential users of the service with information about the Commission’s complaint handling role and the complaint process. The webpage includes information on how to lodge a complaint, a complaint form, frequently asked questions about complaints and a conciliation register. The conciliation register contains de-identified information about the outcomes of conciliated complaints.
- On-line complaint form. This service, which allows complaints to be lodged electronically, continues to be well utilised.
- Concise Complaint Guide. This can be accessed and downloaded in 14 community languages.
- Conciliation circuits. When required, conciliation officers travel throughout Australia to conduct face to face conciliation conferences. Along with the conferences conducted in the greater Sydney area, CHS officers conducted around 60 conferences in Victoria, 58 in South Australia, 36 in regional New South Wales, 29 in Queensland, 23 in Western Australia, eight in the Australian Capital Territory and five in the Northern Territory.
- Access working group. The CHS access working group has been in operation since 1999. The aim of the group is to improve the accessibility of the complaint handling service. This year the CHS information brochure for Indigenous clients was revised with input from the section’s Complaint Information/Indigenous Liaison Officer and the CHS community education presentation was updated.
- Interpreter and translation services. In the past reporting year the section utilised a range of interpretation and translation services. The main language groups assisted in 2002–03 were Persian, Mandarin and Arabic.
- Community education and state liaison. The CHS provides information sessions concerning federal human rights and anti-discrimination law and the complaint process to community and stakeholder organisations throughout Australia. The CHS conducted presentations to staff and representatives from approximately 172 organisations/groups during this reporting year with presentations taking the form of informal and formal staff meetings and group presentations. Additionally, the CHS Complaint Information/Indigenous Liaison Officer undertook 70 liaison/information sessions during the year. The organisations visited included community legal centres, ethnic community centres, disability and Aboriginal legal services. The regions covered included Wagga Wagga, Cootamundra, Grafton and Lismore in New South Wales; Melbourne, Albury/Wodonga, Portland, Warrnambool and Geelong in Victoria; Launceston, Burnie and Hobart in Tasmania; Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville, Gympie, Hervey Bay, Maroochydore and Cairns in Queensland; Perth and Karratha in Western Australia; Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek in Northern Territory; Adelaide and Whyalla in South Australia and Canberra.
Arrangements with state agencies
In February 2003 the Commission discontinued its formal referral arrangement with the Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria (EOCV) whereby Victorians who wanted to lodge a complaint under federal legislation could lodge a complaint through the EOCV Referral Centre. The number of complaints the Commission received directly from Victorians had steadily increased to exceed the number lodged through the referral service. The Commission considers this increase in direct lodgements may, in part, be attributed to the accessibility of the Commission’s on-line complaint lodgement service and the increased efficiency this brings to the complaint handling process.
The arrangement the Commission now has with the EOCV is the same as the arrangement it has with the Queensland, South Australian, Northern Territory and Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commissions whereby CHS staff utilise facilities at these agencies for conciliation conferences, community education or training and display of CHS publications.
Complainants from these states, along with residents of Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory can lodge complaints under federal law directly with the Commission.
Election of jurisdiction
In the majority of cases complainants have a choice to lodge complaints under state or federal anti-discrimination law. The Commission has produced an Information Sheet about this process which is available on the Commission website at: https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints#main-content
Training and policy
The Commission has two specialised training programs which provide knowledge and skills in statutory investigation and conciliation. All complaint handling staff are required to undertake these courses. In 2002–03, one statutory investigation course was run in Sydney for Commission staff and staff of anti-discrimination agencies in New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. Three statutory conciliation courses were run; one in Sydney for Commission staff, one in Melbourne for staff of the Victorian and South Australian Equal Opportunity Commissions and one in Perth for staff of the Western Australian Commission. Variations of the Commission’s courses in investigation and conciliation were also run for staff of a state authority and staff of a large national company.
The Commission has, for the second year, worked in partnership with the Australian Public Service Commission to provide a two day investigation training course for federal public servants. The course, which is a variation of the Commission’s standard statutory investigation training program, provides theory and skills that can be applied to the investigation of internal complaints and breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. In the past year 12 courses have been delivered in various locations around Australia including Perth, Canberra, Melbourne, Darwin and Sydney. In-house courses have also been conducted for staff of the Australian Customs Service, Department of Defence and Centrelink.
In early 2003 the CHS developed a training module on federal human rights and anti-discrimination law to be utilised by the Australian Federal Police as part of its national Confidant Training Program. A senior CHS officer also assisted in the initial presentation of this module.
During this reporting year the Commission’s Complaint Procedures Manual was revised and updated. The revised version will be finalised and published in the latter half of 2003.
In mid 2003 the CHS commenced work on a cooperative project with Job Watch Incorporated, Victoria, to produce a video on the Commission’s conciliation process. It is hoped that this video, which will be available in late 2003, will provide key information to assist complainants, respondents and advocates to understand and prepare for participation in a conciliation process.
In this reporting year six CHS officers continued study towards Certificate IV accreditation in Assessment and Workplace Training. Staff of the CHS also attended various seminars and training courses relating to their work. These included four Australian Government Solicitor Law Group Seminars, the Community Legal Centres National Conference in Melbourne and the Sixth National Mediation Conference in Canberra.
During 2002–03 CHS staff presented three papers on the Commission’s Alternative Dispute Resolution work at the Sixth National Mediation Conference and in November a senior officer presented a paper on recent developments in sex discrimination law at the Second National Conference on Women in Science, Technology and Engineering in Sydney. Two senior officers were also guest speakers at University of Western Sydney courses in discrimination law and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Other work
In August 2002, the Commission’s CHS was awarded a tender to provide training in investigation and conciliation of complaints for staff of the Fiji Human Rights Commission as part of the AusAID Pacific In-Country Training Project. This project involved the development and facilitation of four training workshops in Fiji in October and December 2002 and March and May 2003.
In September 2002 the CHS hosted a training placement for two complaint handling staff from the South African Commission on Gender Equality.
CHS staff also participated in providing information about the Commission’s complaint handling work to delegations from human rights institutions, parliamentary and government institutions and non-government organisations from Mongolia, Japan, Vietnam, China, Indonesia and the United Kingdom.
During this reporting year senior CHS staff represented the Commission in discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department and stakeholder groups in relation to the Australian Government’s proposed Age Discrimination Bill.[1]
Conciliation case studies
Racial Discrimination Act
Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 it is unlawful to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. The Act also prohibits offensive behaviour based on racial hatred.
In this reporting year the Commission received 182 complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act. The majority of these complaints related to employment and the provision of goods and services. The CHS finalised 258 complaints under this Act and 15 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act are provided later in this Chapter.
Complaint of race discrimination and racial hatred in employment
The complainant, who is of Chinese origin, was employed by a private utilities company. He claimed that during his employment he was subjected to racial abuse in that co-workers would mimic his accent and make comments such as “Bloody Chin-Chong, the room smells like dim sim” and “Don’t hug the chin-chong, he has got AIDS”. The complainant also alleged that he was treated less favourably because of his race in that, in contrast with other employees, he was more frequently rostered to work at lunch time and his views were not considered during his performance review.
The company denied that the complainant was abused because of his race and noted that the individual respondents denied making the alleged remarks. One of the individual respondents concurred that he may have offended the complainant by responding on occasions in a purportedly “Chinese” accent but he claimed this was done in the context of a shared joke. The company also stated that the complainant did not make any official complaint in relation to alleged racial remarks. The company claimed that the other issues raised by the complainant were industrial issues in dispute between the complainant and his supervisor and were not related to the complainant’s race.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The complainant agreed to withdraw his complaint and the respondent agreed to provide the complainant with a written apology and a work reference and pay him $5 000 in recognition of the embarrassment, humiliation and stress that he may have endured during his employment.
Allegation of race discrimination by liquor store
The complainant, who is Aboriginal, alleged that staff of a liquor store discriminated against him because of the colour of his skin. He stated that he entered the store, had a look around and selected a bottle of beer from the fridge. He claimed that when he approached the counter to pay, the teller said “We want to search you” and the Manager said “I saw you put a can of drink into your jumper”. The complainant refused to allow the staff to search him and told the Manager to call the police. The complainant claims that when the police arrived, they strip searched him and then let him go because they could not find any stolen goods on his person.
The respondent denied race discrimination and advised that the complainant was suspected of theft because of his manner when he was in the store. The respondent claimed that the situation deteriorated because of the complainant’s initial reaction and his insistence on being searched by the police.
The matter was resolved by conciliation with the complainant accepting a written apology from the respondent company.
Complaint of race discrimination in employment
The complainant, a 16 year old Aboriginal girl, stated that at the time of the alleged discrimination she had been employed on a part-time basis by the respondent grocery company for approximately four months. She claimed that on her final day of employment she logged onto her cash register but only worked on the register for about 15 minutes as she was instructed to work in another section. She claimed that when she logged off her cash register she noticed that the register was out by $50 and when she advised the Manager of this he said “what have you done with the money”. The complainant alleged that these words, and the manner in which the Manager spoke to her, amounted to an accusation that she had stolen the money. She claimed that she was treated this way because of her Aboriginality and that another non-Aboriginal employee who made a mistake with her cash register was not treated as she was. The complainant resigned from her employment.
The respondent company denied that the alleged words were said to the complainant and denied that the complainant was accused of stealing the money or treated less favourably than other non-Aboriginal employees. The manager of the store claimed that the complainant was asked to explain why her cash register did not balance and that this was standard practice.
The matter was resolved through telephone discussions with the parties, with the respondent company agreeing to pay the complaint $200 in general damages.
Allegation of racial hatred by neighbour
The complainant is of Vietnamese background and is a tenant in public housing. The complainant alleged that since 1998 she has been subjected to racial hatred by her neighbour. The alleged action of the neighbour included saying “Go back to Vietnam”, calling her an animal, mimicking her accent and making rude gestures to her. The complainant claimed that despite complaints to the department about her neighbour the department failed to take any action to resolve the matter. The complainant alleged that her racial background was also a factor in the department’s failure to resolve her complaint.
While the neighbour denied that she had made the alleged comments or done the alleged acts, she agreed that there have been ongoing disputes between her and the complainant. The department denied that it treated the complainant less favourably because of her race. The department also advised that the complainant’s concerns were investigated but the investigation was discontinued as the allegations could not be substantiated.
During the Commission’s inquiry process the department approved the neighbour’s application for transfer and the complainant agreed to resolve her complaint against her neighbour on that basis. The complaint against the department was resolved on the basis of the department’s agreement that ‘racial hatred’ would be a factor for consideration in the criteria for housing transfer.
Alleged race discrimination and racial hatred in employment
The complainant, who was originally from Serbia, was employed as a van driver for an Australian Government statutory authority. The complainant alleged that his supervisor made offensive comments about Serbians to him and to others while he was present. For example, the supervisor is alleged to have made comments such as “He is a Serb and Serbs make ethnic cleansing, He might kill you”. The complainant claimed that the company was slow to investigate his internal complaint and that he was victimised for lodging the complaint. A co-worker provided evidence to support the complainant’s claim that offensive comments about Serbs had been made in the workplace.
The individual respondent denied making the alleged comments but agreed that he had asked questions about the political situation in Serbia. The individual respondent said that he was an immigrant himself and would not make offensive comments about other people’s racial background. While the company indicated that it had extensive EEO and harassment policies, it noted that it had no record of the individual respondent having received training in EEO issues.
The complaint was resolved at a conciliation conference. The company had already transferred the complainant to a job he enjoyed where he no longer had contact with the individual respondent. The respondent company assured the complainant that his career had not been compromised in any way and that steps would be taken to ensure the confidentiality of his complaints. The company also provided the complainant with acknowledgement of the distress he had suffered.
Complaint of race discrimination against Indigenous employee
The complainant, who is Indigenous, claimed that on 26 January when he attended work, he saw a notice on the staff notice board entitled ‘Aboriginal application for employment’. He claimed that the mock application form reinforced negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people. For example, in the section entitled ‘Income’ the following was written “theft-unemployment-armed robbery” and under the section entitled ‘Abilities’ the following was written “rapist, VD spreader, pub fighter”. The complainant said that another copy of the document was found in the storeroom and when he told management about the incidents he was told not to worry about it.
The company claimed that it did not formally investigate the incident as the area where the document was posted was accessible to all employees and contractors. The company said, however, that they placed a notice on all notice boards stating that the document was racist and unacceptable. The notice further stated that if an employee was found to be responsible they would be banned from attending the site. The company confirmed that another copy of the document was found and immediately destroyed. The company claimed that they reacted appropriately and took all reasonable steps to address the incident when it was brought to their attention.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the complainant agreeing to withdraw his complaint on the basis that the company would revise its EEO policies and procedures, appoint Harassment Contact Officers, implement cultural awareness training for all staff and provide the complainant with a statement of regret.
Sex Discrimination Act
Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of their sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy in many areas of public life including employment, education, provision of goods, services and facilities, accommodation, clubs and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is also unlawful to dismiss a person from their employment on the ground of their family responsibilities. Further, sexual harassment is unlawful in a variety of areas of public life including employment, educational institutions, the provision of goods, services and facilities, registered organisations, the provision of accommodation, clubs and in dealings concerning land.
In this reporting year, the Commission received 380 complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act. The large majority of complaints related to employment and 35 percent of the complaints alleged pregnancy discrimination. The Commission finalised 395 complaints under this Act and 43 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act are provided later in this Chapter.
Alleged discrimination in employment because of pregnancy
The complainant claimed that she commenced full-time employment as an office administrator with a small training consultancy company in September 2001. She claimed that three months later she advised the company director that she was pregnant and was suffering from pregnancy related illness. She alleged that when advised of this the Director said words to the effect: “Look, this will jeopardise your position”. The complainant claimed that a few weeks later when she advised the Director that she was again ill the Director said “That’s it. I have had enough. Pack your stuff and go” and terminated her employment. The complainant claimed that the company signed a separation certificate which indicated that her employment was terminated due to her pregnancy and frequent illness.
The company denied that the complainant was discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy and associated illness. The company stated that it had accommodated the complainant’s medical appointments and had allowed her to take sick leave. The company denied that the complainant’s employment was terminated but rather claimed that the complainant resigned. The company stated that the details on the separation certificate had been completed by the complainant prior to signature by the company.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the company agreeing to provide the complainant with written and verbal references and an ex-gratia payment of $6 000.
Complaint of sexual harassment by co-worker
The complainant is employed by the respondent company in its catering section. The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed by the chef during her employment. Specifically she alleged that the chef told sexual jokes, asked her sexual questions such as would she ‘bark doggy style’ during sex and touched her in a sexual way. The complainant claimed that the chef continued to act this way despite her asking him to stop the behaviour. The complainant stated that she initially complained to her supervisor but no action was taken so she approached her manager who brought the matter to the attention of the human resources section. The complainant alleged that the company did not deal with her concerns appropriately in that initially no action was taken when she complained to her supervisor and while the chef was subsequently counselled for his behaviour she was still required to work with him. The complainant also claimed that other staff made jokes about her allegations.
As the complainant was still employed with the company, a conciliation conference was held within one month of the complaint being lodged with the Commission. At this conference the company agreed that the complainant had been sexually harassed and stated that the chef had been counselled about his behaviour and given a final warning. The company denied that it was vicariously liable for the acts of its employee.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would withdraw her complaint in return for the company providing an undertaking that she would not have to work with the chef, reaccrediting annual leave that she had taken as a result of the alleged incident and paying her $1 000 calculated on the basis of sick leave taken as a result of the alleged incident.
Allegation of sex and pregnancy discrimination in employment
The complainant was employed with the respondent insurance company as a full-time Assistant Account Executive. The complainant claimed that the company had advised her that part-time employment would be available when she returned from maternity leave. The complainant alleged that she tried to negotiate part-time work in the lead-up to her return to work but her request was denied and she was therefore forced to resign.
The company claimed that a high level of personal care is required to ensure clients are properly managed and therefore employment is only on a full-time or permanent job-share basis. The company claimed that it attempted to arrange job-sharing for the complainant with another staff member, with no success. The company stated that it offered the complainant four days work per week for a six month period but she rejected this offer.
The complaint was resolved at conciliation with the company agreeing to withdraw her complaint in return for payment of $5 250 compensation and a statement of regret.
Complaint of sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment
The complainant was employed in an administrative position with a manufacturing company. The complainant alleged that three junior male employees displayed pornographic magazines, used vulgar language accompanied by sexual gestures such as imitating masturbation, made comments about pornographic videos and discussed the purchase of sex aids. The complainant claimed that these male workers also challenged her authority as a manager. The complainant claimed she complained about this behaviour but the company took inappropriate or inadequate disciplinary action against these employees. The complainant alleged that after she complained she was demoted and criticised for her work performance and eventually her employment was terminated.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the complainant agreeing to withdraw her complaint against all respondents in return for payment of $10 000 compensation, provision of a statement of service and a letter from the company expressing regret for any negative experiences during her employment.
Allegation of discrimination on the grounds of sex and pregnancy
The complainant was employed as a clerk on a part-time/job-share basis with a medium-sized manufacturing company. The complainant alleged that her manager harassed her during her pregnancy in that he was hostile towards her and made inappropriate comments such as telling her that being pregnant would be a burden to him and her job-share partner and making comments about how much she ate. The complainant claimed that during her pregnancy she requested a change to the days she worked but this was not accommodated by the company.
The complainant alleged that when she was due to return to work she contacted the company requesting a 20-minute period each day to express milk and a suitable place in which she could do so. She claimed that she was advised that any time spent expressing milk would be not be counted as work time and that she could only express milk in the women’s toilets. The complainant claimed that the women’s toilets were infrequently cleaned and unhygienic.
The company denied that the complainant was harassed because of her pregnancy and the manager denied making the comments attributed to him. The company stated that the complainant’s request to change her work days was refused as the changes were not acceptable to her job-share partner. It was agreed that the complainant was advised that she could express milk in the women’s toilet and that the twenty minutes a day spent expressing milk would not be counted as work time.
The matter was resolved through a conciliation process. The respondent agreed to pay the complainant $5 300 general damages, review its policies with specific attention to sex and pregnancy discrimination and arrange EEO training for all managers.
Complaint of sexual harassment and victimisation
The complainant was employed as a sales representative with a building company. The complainant alleged that from the time she commenced employment in late 1999 the sales manager subjected her to comments and gestures that were offensive and sexual in nature and made unwelcome advances and requests for sexual favours. The alleged acts of the sales manager included approaching her from behind and simulating sexual acts and regularly making comments of a sexual nature such as telling her she had “nice tits”. The complainant also claimed that the sales manager said salary would be decreased and suggested that if she wanted to earn more money she could perform sexual favours. The complainant alleged that when the manager became aware of her plans to marry; his behaviour became even more offensive, humiliating and intimidating. The complainant claimed that when she made an internal complaint to her employer she was victimised in that she was told she would be moved to another work location. The complainant alleged that her employer took no effective steps to investigate or resolve her complaint and that this inaction led to the Manager’s continued harassment and victimisation of her. The complainant stated she was unable to continue working and lodged a worker’s compensation claim.
The company stated that it had conducted an internal investigation and the Manager admitted to making some comments of a sexual nature but denied that these constituted sexual harassment. The company claimed it took all reasonable steps to deal with the complainant’s concerns although it had no formal sexual harassment policy in place. The company claimed that the change in the complainant’s pay structure was due to a new commission structure and that the complainant was moved to another work location because of falling demand at the location where she was employed.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The complainant did not wish to return to work with the company and agreed to withdraw her complaint in return for payment of $50 000 in general damages, a statement of service and an apology.
Disability Discrimination Act
Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of their disability in many areas of public life including employment, education, provision of goods services and facilities, access to premises, accommodation, clubs and incorporated associations, dealing with land, sport and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is also unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground that they are an associate of a person with a disability and it is unlawful to harass a person because of their disability.
In this reporting year, the Commission received 493 complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act. The majority of these complaints concerned employment and the provision of goods, services and facilities. The Commission finalised 463 complaints under this Act and 41 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act are provided later in this Chapter.
Complaint of disability discrimination in employment
The complainant had been employed as a warehouse supervisor for some years with the respondent company. The complainant suffered a workplace injury which resulted in impairment to his spine and leg. The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated after the injury because his employer felt he was unable to safely perform the inherent requirements of his position. The complainant disputed that he was unable to perform his duties safely and claimed the employer had not asked him whether there was any reasonable adjustment that would assist him perform his duties. The complainant noted that he had evidence that he could improve his mobility with a foot brace and he also claimed that the employer had not raised any concerns about his performance or mobility prior to terminating his employment.
The respondent company claimed that the complainant was unsteady when he walked and stated it had genuine concerns that the complainant could fall or trip in the warehouse, thus endangering himself and fellow workers.
The complaint was resolved through a conciliation process with the employer agreeing to reinstate the complainant and pay him $52 000 in compensation for lost wages, superannuation and legal costs.
Alleged discrimination in education
The complainant’s daughter has Juvenile Diabetes which results in her experiencing hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) which is addressed by an intake of food or juice to increase her blood sugar levels. The complainant alleged that her daughter’s school had discriminated against her daughter in that it had refused to allow hypo boxes, which contain food and juice, to be placed in the classroom. The complainant also alleged that she was refused permission to speak with staff of the school canteen to inform them of her daughter’s specific food requirements.
The school acknowledged that it was reluctant to place hypo boxes in all classrooms due to concerns that this may disrupt the other students. The school also stated that it had refused to allow the complainant to speak directly to canteen staff because they are mainly volunteers who change regularly. The school advised that it had spoken to the canteen manager, who is the only paid and regular staff member at the canteen, and that a photo of the complainant’s daughter had been placed in the canteen so all volunteers could encourage her to choose appropriate food and drink.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the school agreeing to arrange for a diabetes educator to present information to staff and develop to a specific management plan for the complainant’s daughter. The school also agreed that it would endeavor to ensure that the complainant’s daughter is not excluded from any program, activity or service provided by the school due to her diabetes.
Complaint regarding access to website
The complainant has a vision impairment. He claimed that the respondent government department’s website was not accessible to him because of its format. The complainant advised that he was willing to withdraw his complaint if the respondent modified the website so that it complied with the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines either directly or through an accessible alternative. The complainant’s settlement proposal was sent to the respondent department for its consideration.
The department responded with a draft website accessibility action plan. The plan details the actions the department will take to provide access to its materials in alternative formats. In the interim the complainant was also provided with text versions of all the documents which he required from the website. The complainant advised the Commission that he was satisfied with this outcome.
Allegation of discrimination by employee with a vision disability
The complainant, who has a vision impairment, had worked for the respondent Australian Government authority for approximately 12 years. He claimed that his employer had accommodated his disability for six years by providing a large screen computer for his exclusive use. The complainant stated that when some of his office’s functions were transferred to another city he and his co-workers were assigned new duties that required a different computer program. The complainant stated that the images from the new program could not be magnified and therefore the effect of his large screen was lost. As a result, he was unable to perform computer based duties and was provided with what he regarded as ‘menial’ clerical work. He alleged that his colleagues continued to do overtime on a regular basis but he was denied the opportunity to earn overtime and do higher duties as he could not use the computer. The complainant stated that the problem would be resolved if a new computer screen was purchased but he claimed the respondent was reluctant to spend $10 000 on a new screen.
The respondent agreed that the person who designed the software had been unaware of the complainant’s disability or his specific needs. The respondent said that the problem was being addressed but it was not an easy matter to solve. The respondent agreed that the complainant had been on alternate duties for some eight months when the complaint was lodged.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the respondent agreeing to purchase a compatible computer screen for the complainant and provide him with additional support and training to address any disadvantage to his career. The respondent also provided the complainant with a statement of regret.
Complaint of discrimination in higher education
The complainant, who is blind, stated that in 2001 he enrolled in a business studies course as a distance student. The complainant claimed that at the time of enrolment the university’s Disability Liaison Officer agreed that his course material would be provided in a format compatible with his JAWS screen reader. He claimed that none of the provided course materials were compatible with JAWS. The complainant stated that he attended two meetings at the University to outline the difficulties he was experiencing and that the University gave assurances that the problems would be addressed. He claimed however that at the end of 2001 he had not been able to complete any course work and that while he enrolled again in 2002 he later withdrew because he had still not received any material that was compatible with JAWS.
The University acknowledged that the complainant may, at the outset, have been given assurances about material being translated into a format compatible with JAWS which could not be fulfilled when translation difficulties emerged. The University noted that it had not anticipated the difficulties involved in translating materials for the complainant’s course which involved translating tables and graphs as well as text.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the University agreeing to pay the complainant $15 000 compensation.
Access to premises, goods, services and facilities on holiday
The complainant has a physical disability and uses a wheelchair. She stated that when booking a resort holiday for herself and her family through a booking agent she sought, and was given assurances, that the resort apartment was wheelchair accessible. She claimed that when she arrived at the resort the apartment had a step at the entrance and after complaining, a wooden ramp was placed at the door and two pieces of wood were placed between the space from the ramp to the door frame. The complainant alleged that the temporary entrance ramp did not comply with Australian Standards and the backdoor of the apartment and bathroom were also not wheelchair accessible.
The resort claimed that when the booking was made the request was for a ‘wheelchair friendly room’ and that numerous wheelchair users had stayed in the apartment where the complainant was located. The resort claimed that if the booking agent had made it clear that the complainant wished to be totally independent, they would not have accepted the booking.
The complaint was resolved through a conciliation process with the respondent agreeing to provide the complainant with an apology, purchase a portable ramp which complies with Australian Standards and pay the complainant $7 000 compensation.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act
Complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 are not subject to the same process as complaints under the Racial, Sex and Disability Discrimination Acts.
Under this Act the President can inquire into and attempt to conciliate complaints that concern alleged breaches of human rights by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth. Human rights are defined in the Act as rights and freedoms contained in any relevant international instrument which is scheduled to or declared under the Act. They are the:
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Declaration on the Rights of the Child
- Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons
- Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons
- Convention on the Rights of the Child
- Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Under the Act the President can also inquire into and endeavour to conciliate complaints of discrimination in employment on specific grounds. These grounds include age, religion, sexual preference, trade union activity and criminal record.
If a complaint of alleged discrimination or alleged breach of a human right is neither conciliated nor declined, the President can undertake further inquiry. If the President is satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint constitutes discrimination in employment or is a breach of a human right, the President must report the findings to the Attorney-General for tabling in Parliament. The Commission’s Legal Services assist the President in this part of the process. Further details of this process are provided in the Legal Services Section, Chapter 3 of this report.
In this reporting year, the Commission received 181 complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. The majority of these complaints concerned alleged breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and discrimination in employment based on criminal record or age. The Commission finalised 192 complaints under this Act. Ten percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated and six percent were referred for reporting. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act are provided later in this Chapter.
Alleged discrimination in employment on the ground of criminal record
The complainant worked for a freight company as a fork lift driver. The complainant advised that he had a criminal record including convictions for ‘entering and stealing’. The complainant alleged that because of his criminal record, his employer had insinuated on a number of occasions that the complainant was responsible for freight which had gone missing at work.
The respondent denied discriminating against the complainant on the basis of his criminal record. The company said that it had never insinuated that the complainant was responsible for missing freight and noted that it gave the complainant permanent employment despite his criminal record.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The complainant did not wish to return to employment with the company and the parties agreed that the complainant would withdraw his complaint in return for payment of six weeks wages.
Complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual preference and disability
The complainant alleged that he was discriminated against, harassed and victimised by staff at the school where he worked as a teacher. He claimed that staff subjected him to public taunts about wearing women’s clothes and pink clothing. The complainant claimed that management did not effectively deal with the incidents and he developed a reactive depression causing him to take time off work. The less favourable treatment he claimed to have experienced on his return to work included being subjected to numerous comments about his illness, pressured to resign from his position as subject coordinator, excluded from staff appraisal and denied information about the class timetable. The complainant also alleged that his teaching load was increased and his personal and professional belongings were moved to another office where his name and the phrase “takes it up the arse” had been written on the whiteboard.
The school claimed that any actions of staff were in the context of a joke and that the school was very concerned and supportive of the complainant in relation to his return to work. The school claimed that the depression the complainant suffered predated this work incident and was related to another health problem. The respondent stated that it was the complainant who suggested that he step down from the role of subject coordinator and the school denied that the complainant was excluded from staff appraisal or denied information about the timetable. The school claimed that the increase in the complainant’s teaching load was the result of the move from subject coordinator to normal teaching duties and that the complainant was required to move to a new office because of changes in accommodation arrangements for teaching staff.
The complaint was resolved through a conciliation process. The parties agreed that the complainant would withdraw his complaint in return for apologies from the school and staff members involved in the incidents, an undertaking by the school to discipline individuals involved in the incidents and payment of $11 000 compensation. The complainant agreed to return to full-time work at the school.
Allegation of age discrimination in employment
The complainant alleged that she was advised by her supervisor at the nursing home where she worked that she was to be dismissed from her position as a kitchen hand as they wanted an older and more mature person for the job. The complainant stated that she was informed that this decision was based on complaints from the cook about her work performance. She also claimed that her supervisor had previously made comments such as “it is not a young person’s job”. The complainant claimed that while she was advised that she could keep her non-kitchen hand shifts she decided to leave her employment.
The respondent claimed that the complainant was not dismissed but resigned. The respondent stated that the complainant’s supervisor was endeavouring to resolve a dispute between the complainant and another employee and did not mean to discriminate against or upset the complainant. The respondent advised that it had developed an improvement plan regarding age discrimination in the workplace that was to be implemented in the near future.
The complaint was resolved by conciliation, the parties agreeing that the complainant would withdraw her complaint in return for a written apology and $4 000 compensation.
Complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of criminal record
The complainant worked as a cleaner at a large public facility and had previously been subjected to a criminal record check in order to obtain his security pass. Some five months after commencing work security procedures at the facility were reviewed and upgraded and employees underwent a further check of their criminal history. The complainant alleged that he was deemed a security risk and ordered off the work site due to his criminal record. The complainant claimed that this was unfair as his offences were in relation to traffic infringements that had occurred ten years ago.
Prior to the Commission receiving a response from the respondent company, the complaint was resolved with the company agreeing to issue the complainant with a security pass which would allow him to return to work at the facility.
Allegation of discrimination in employment because of trade union activity
The complainant was employed with a large statutory authority and was a union member. She alleged that she was unfairly counselled about organising training without proper authorisation. She also alleged that when she approached her manager to express an interest in promotion opportunities he said “do you think that I would like anyone on my Management Team who runs to the union”. The complainant stated that she lodged an internal grievance with her employer but there was no proper investigation of the matter.
The authority denied that it had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her trade union activity. It claimed that the complainant was counselled because she had breached its Code of Ethics. In addition, the respondent claimed that the complainant was unsuccessful in applying for a promotion because, in terms of merit, the other candidate had greater claims for the position. The authority also denied that the complainant’s manager had made the alleged comments to the complainant.
In the middle of the Commission’s investigation the complainant advised that she had resolved the complaint directly with the respondent and the terms of settlement included acceptance of a separation package.
Complaint of discrimination on the ground of age
The complainant, who was employed by an Australian Government department, alleged that for a number of years he had been subjected to offensive comments about his age. He claimed for example that he was called ‘old’ and ‘decrepit’ and was subjected to a betting game about his age. The complainant claimed that he developed a significant psychiatric condition because of this treatment and was later dismissed from employment.
The department denied that the complainant had been discriminated against on the basis of his age. The department stated that the first time the allegations of harassment came to its attention was in late 2001 when the complainant requested a transfer. The department claimed that it investigated the alleged incidents and determined that any such conduct had ceased in mid 2001 and that most of the comments were ‘innocent banter’ and ‘friendly jibes’. The department advised that it ordered its employees to cease any jokes or comments that could be construed as harassment. The department stated that the complainant was dismissed from employment as he was determined to be medically unfit due to a long-standing medical condition unrelated to the issues in his complaint.
The complaint was resolved through a conciliation process with the parties agreeing that the complainant would withdraw his complaint and the respondent would pay the complainant $15 000 compensation.
Complaint handling statistics
Preliminary comments
The following statistical data provides information on enquiries handled by the Commission this reporting year, an overview of complaints received and finalised and specific details on complaints received and finalised under each of the Acts administered by the Commission.
It is important to note, when comparing complaint data between different agencies and across reporting years, that there may be variations in the way the data is counted and collected. Some additional information explaining the Commission’s approach to statistical reporting is footnoted. Further clarification about complaint statistics can be obtained by contacting the CHS.
Summary
The overall number of complaints received and finalised in 2002–03 is generally similar to the numbers received and finalised in the previous reporting year.
In 2002–03, 40 percent of complaints were lodged under the Disability Discrimination Act, 31 percent under the Sex Discrimination Act, 15 percent under the Racial Discrimination Act and, 14 percent under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act.
The number of complaints received and finalised under the Racial Discrimination Act in 2002–03 are very similar to the figures for the last reporting year. As in the previous year, employment and the provision of goods and services remain the main areas of complaint.
In comparison with the previous reporting year there has been a slight decrease (four percent) in the number of complaints lodged under the Sex Discrimination Act. While the grounds and areas of complaint are generally similar across the two reporting years, there was a further increase in the percentage of complaints alleging pregnancy discrimination (five percent). This means that over the past three years there has been a 19 percent increase in such complaints. The Commission is of the view that this increase in complaints can, in part, be attributed to increased public awareness resulting from the Commission’s ongoing policy work on pregnancy related issues.
Complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act are the largest ground of complaint and in this reporting year there was an increase in the number of complaints received (nine percent). The areas of complaint are generally similar to the last reporting year with complaints about employment and provision of goods, services and facilities dominating.
Complaints under Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act have decreased by 23 percent compared to the previous year. This decrease can, in part, be attributed to the associated decrease in complaints received about conditions and treatment in immigration detention which is reflective of the decreased number of detainees in Australia during the past reporting year. This decrease in complaints may also be the result of complaints of discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference, religion, trade union activity and age being taken under state or territory legislation where enforceable remedies are available.
Of all the complaints finalised in this reporting year, 32 percent were conciliated which is slightly above the conciliation rate for the previous year. There was also a slight increase in the conciliation success rate with 64 percent of matters where conciliation was attempted being successfully resolved.
In this reporting year complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act had the highest conciliation rate (43 percent) and a high conciliation success rate (61 percent). Complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act had a conciliation rate of 41 percent and the highest conciliation success rate (73 percent).
Complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act had a conciliation rate of 15 percent and a success rate of 41 percent. As noted in last year’s report, lower resolution rates for race discrimination matters appear to be linked with difficulties complainants often have in demonstrating a link between their race and the alleged less favourable treatment and the associated limited case precedent in this area. While only a small number of HREOCA complaints were resolved by conciliation (10 percent), 61 percent of matters where conciliation was attempted were resolved. The overall low conciliation rate in relation to HREOCA matters can be attributed to the fact that many human rights matters are declined as they do not constitute a breach of human rights as defined by the Act.
HREOCA complaints that relate to alleged breaches of human rights by the Commonwealth generally have a low conciliation rate (four percent in this reporting year) as they often concern broad policy issues which are difficult to resolve at the individual complainant level. However, HREOCA complaints regarding employment under the International Labour Organisations Convention (ILO 111) have a much higher conciliation success rate (13 percent in this reporting year).
Information on the geographical location, sex and ethnicity of complainants is provided in Tables 6, 8 and 9 below. Demographic data voluntarily provided by complainants at the commencement of the complaint process[2] provides additional information on complainants. This data, which is similar to data obtained in the last reporting year, indicates that many complainants (28 percent) knew about the Commission prior to lodging their complaint and the main sources of referral were legal centres/private solicitors and family/friends. The majority of complainants (64 percent) indicated that their main source of income at the time of the alleged act was from full, part-time or casual employment. Approximately 37 percent of complainants advised at the beginning of the complaint process that they were represented. [3] The main forms of representation were privately funded solicitors (27 percent) and representation by a friend, family member or support person (24 percent).
Data collected on respondent categories indicates that in the last reporting year approximately 56 percent of complaints were against private enterprise, 18 percent were against Australian Government departments/statutory authorities and 10 percent were against state departments/statutory authorities. The next main respondent categories were educational institutions (six percent), clubs and incorporated associations (three percent) and local government (three percent).
Complaint Information Service
Table 1: Telephone, TTY, e-mail, in-person and written enquiries received
Enquiry type |
Total |
| Telephone | 8 319 |
| TTY | 16 |
| 374 | |
| In-person | 128 |
| Written | 631 |
| Total | 9 468 |
Table 2: Enquiries received by issue*
Issue |
Total |
| Race | 748 |
| Race - racial hatred | 351 |
| Sex - direct | 430 |
| Sexual harassment | 679 |
| Sex - marital status, family responsibilities, parental status, breastfeeding | 235 |
| Sex - pregnancy | 457 |
| Sexual preference, transgender, homosexuality, lawful sexual activity | 152 |
| Disability - impairment | 1 252 |
| Disability - HIV/AIDS, hepatitis | 26 |
| Disability - workers compensation | 150 |
| Disability - mental health | 376 |
| Disability - intellectual disability, learning disability | 110 |
| Disability - maltreatment, negligence | 42 |
| Disability - physical feature | 46 |
| Age - too young | 40 |
| Age - too old | 198 |
| Age - compulsory retirement | 7 |
| Criminal record, criminal conviction | 238 |
| Political opinion | 21 |
| Religion, religious organisations | 236 |
| Employment - personality conflicts, favouritism | 310 |
| Employment - union, industrial activity | 132 |
| Employment - unfair dismissal, other industrial issues | 532 |
| Employment - workplace bullying | 699 |
| Human rights - children | 107 |
| Human rights - civil, political, economic, social | 319 |
| Immigration - detention centres | 59 |
| Immigration - visas | 136 |
| Prisons, prisoners | 87 |
| Police | 88 |
| Court - Family Court | 142 |
| Court - other law matters | 112 |
| Privacy - data protection | 105 |
| Neighbourhood disputes | 75 |
| Advertising | 12 |
| Local government - administration | 51 |
| State government - administration | 141 |
| Federal government - administration | 195 |
| Other | 471 |
Total |
9 567 |
* One enquiry may have multiple issues.
Table 3: Enquiries received by state of origin
State of origin |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| New South Wales | 4 412 | 46 |
| Victoria | 1 229 | 13 |
| South Australia | 560 | 6 |
| Western Australia | 445 | 5 |
| Queensland | 1 788 | 19 |
| Australian Capital Territory | 209 | 2 |
| Tasmania | 171 | 2 |
| Northern Territory | 170 | 2 |
| Unknown/overseas | 484 | 5 |
| Total | 9 468 | 100 |
Complaints overview
Table 4: National complaints received and finalised over the past two years
| 2001-02 | 2002-03 | |
| Received | 1 271 | 1 236 |
| Finalised | 1 298 | 1 308 |
Table 5: Outcomes of national complaints finalised over the past two years
| 2001-02 (percent) | 2002-03 (percent) | |
| Terminated/declined | 55 | 56 |
| Conciliated | 30 | 32 |
| Withdrawn | 14 | 11 |
| Reported (Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act only) | 1 | 1 |
Table 6: State of origin of complainant at time of lodgement
State of origin |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| New South Wales | 525 | 42 |
| Victoria | 256 | 21 |
| South Australia | 164 | 13 |
| Western Australia | 85 | 7 |
| Queensland | 132 | 11 |
| Australian Capital Territory | 25 | 2 |
| Tasmania | 11 | 1 |
| Northern Territory | 31 | 2 |
| Unknown/overseas | 7 | 1 |
| Total | 1 236 | 100 |
Table 7: Complaints received and finalised by Act
Act |
Received | Finalised |
| Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) | 182 | 258 |
| Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) | 380 | 395 |
| Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) | 493 | 463 |
| Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act (HREOCA) | 181 | 192 |
| Total | 1 236 | 1 308 |
Chart 1: Complaints received by Act
Table 8: Complaints received by category of complainant by Act
| RDA | SDA | DDA | HREOCA | Total | |
| Individual male | 129 | 49 | 266 | 127 | 571 |
| Individual female | 50 | 331 | 224 | 47 | 652 |
| Couple or family | 2 | - | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| On others behalf | - | - | - | - | - |
| Organisation | 1 | - | - | 4 | 5 |
| Community, other group | - | - | - | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 182 | 380 | 493 | 181 | 1236 |
Table 9: Complaints received by ethnicity of complainant by Act
| RDA | SDA | DDA | HREOCA | Total | |
| Non-English speaking background | 105 | 96 | 113 | 98 | 412 |
| Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander | 51 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 75 |
| English speaking background | 26 | 273 | 370 | 80 | 749 |
| Total | 182 | 380 | 493 | 181 | 1236 |
Table 10: Time from receipt to finalisation for complaints finalised during 2002-03
| RDA (%) |
SDA (%) |
DDA (%) |
HREOCA (%) |
Cumulative Total (%) |
|
| 0 - 3 months | 12 | 16 | 17 | 31 | 18 |
| 3 - 6 months | 21 | 25 | 26 | 25 | 42 |
| 6 - 9 months | 20 | 31 | 33 | 19 | 70 |
| 9 - 12 months | 10 | 17 | 15 | 11 | 84 |
| More than 12 months | 11 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 94 |
| More than 18 months | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 95 |
| More than 24 months | 25* | - | - | - | 100 |
* It is noted that 23 percent of the racial discrimination matters over 24 months old were part of a large group of complaints that had been on hold awaiting decisions of a state administrative body. If these matters are subtracted from the cumulative total, 98 percent of complaints were finalised within 12 months and 100 percent of complaints were finalised within 18 months.
Racial Discrimination Act
Table 11: Racial Discrimination Act* - complaints received and finalised
| Total | |
| Received | 182 |
| Finalised | 258 |
* Includes complaints lodged under the racial hatred provisions.
Table 12: Racial Discrimination Act - complaints received by ground
| Racial Discrimination Act | Total | Percentage (%) |
| Association | 7 | 2 |
| Colour | 30 | 8 |
| National origin, extraction | 57 | 16 |
| Ethnic origin | 102 | 29 |
| Descent | 2 | 1 |
| Race | 107 | 30 |
| Victimisation | 6 | 2 |
| Racial hatred | 41 | 12 |
| Total* | 352 | 100 |
* One complaint may have multiple grounds.
Table 13: Racial Discrimination Act - complaints received by area
| Racial Discrimination Act | Total | Percentage (%) |
| Right to equality before the law | 6 | 2 |
| Access to places and facilities | 6 | 2 |
| Land, housing, other accommodation | 16 | 5 |
| Provision of goods and services | 85 | 24 |
| Right to join trade unions | - | - |
| Employment | 149 | 42 |
| Advertisements | - | - |
| Education | 3 | 1 |
| Incitement to unlawful acts | 4 | 1 |
| Other - section 9 | 36 | 10 |
| Racial hatred | 47 | 13 |
| Total* | 352 | 100 |
* An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.
Table 14: Racial Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Racial Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Terminated | 195 |
| Not unlawful | 8 |
| More than 12 months old | 4 |
| Trivial, vexatious, frivolous, misconceived, lacking in substance | 88 |
| Adequately dealt with already | 52 |
| More appropriate remedy available | 1 |
| Subject matter of public importance | - |
| No reasonable prospect of conciliation | 42 |
| Withdrawn | 18 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, advised the Commission | 16 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, settled outside the Commission | 2 |
| Conciliated | 38 |
| Administrative closure* | 7 |
| Total | 258 |
* Not an aggrieved party or state complaint previously lodged.
Chart 2: Racial Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Table 15: Racial hatred complaints received and finalised
| Total | |
| Received | 34 |
| Finalised | 41 |
Table 16: Racial hatred complaints received by sub-area
Racial Discrimination Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Media | 12 | 35 |
| Disputes between neighbours | 11 | 32 |
| Personal conflict | - | - |
| Employment | 1 | 3 |
| Racist propaganda | - | - |
| Entertainment | - | - |
| Sport | - | - |
| Public debate | - | - |
| Other* | 10 | 30 |
| Total** | 34 | 100 |
* This category includes complaints in the area of education, provision of goods and services and comments made by people in the street and in passing vehicles.
** One sub-area is recorded for each racial hatred complaint received.
Table 17: Outcomes of finalised racial hatred complaints
Racial Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Terminated | 27 |
| Not unlawful | 6 |
| More than 12 months old | 1 |
| Trivial, vexatious, frivolous, misconceived, lacking in substance | 10 |
| Adequately dealt with already | - |
| More appropriate remedy available | - |
| Subject matter of public importance | - |
| No reasonable prospect of conciliation | 10 |
| Withdrawn | 6 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, advised the Commission | 6 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, settled outside the Commission | - |
| Conciliated | 7 |
| Administrative closure* | 1 |
| Total | 41 |
* Not an aggrieved party or state complaint previously lodged.
Chart 3: Outcomes of finalised racial hatred complaints
Sex Discrimination Act
Table 18: Sex Discrimination Act - complaints received and finalised
Sex Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Received | 380 |
| Finalised | 395 |
Table 19: Sex Discrimination Act - complaints received by ground
Sex Discrimination Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Sex discrimination | 184 | 28 |
| Marital status | 25 | 4 |
| Pregnancy | 230 | 35 |
| Sexual harassment | 172 | 27 |
| Parental status, family responsibility | 19 | 3 |
| Victimisation | 21 | 3 |
| Total* | 651 | 100 |
* One complaint may have multiple grounds.
Table 20: Sex Discrimination Act - complaints received by area
Sex Discrimination Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Employment | 568 | 87 |
| Goods, services and facilities | 39 | 6 |
| Land | - | - |
| Accommodation | 1 | - |
| Superannuation, insurance | - | - |
| Education | 9 | 1 |
| Clubs | 7 | 1 |
| Administration of Commonwealth laws and programs | 17 | 3 |
| Application forms etc | 4 | 1 |
| Trade unions, accrediting bodies | 6 | 1 |
| Total* | 651 | 100 |
*An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.
Table 21: Sex Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Sex Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Terminated | 173 |
| Not unlawful | 13 |
| More than 12 months old | 4 |
| Trivial, vexatious, frivolous, misconceived, lacking in substance | 42 |
| Adequately dealt with already | 5 |
| More appropriate remedy available | 6 |
| Subject matter of public importance | - |
| No reasonable prospect of conciliation | 103 |
| Withdrawn | 41 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, advised the Commission | 39 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, settled outside the Commission | 2 |
| Conciliated | 161 |
| Administrative closure* | 20 |
Total |
395 |
* Not an aggrieved party or state complaint previously lodged.
Chart 4: Sex Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Disability Discrimination Act
Table 22: Disability Discrimination Act - complaints received and finalised
Disability Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Received | 493 |
| Finalised | 463 |
Table 23: Disability Discrimination Act - nature of complainant's disability
Disability Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Physical disability | 169 |
| A mobility aid is used - e.g. walking frame or wheelchair | 56 |
| Physical disfigurement | 22 |
| Presence in the body of organisms causing disease - HIV/AIDS | 9 |
| Presence in the body of organisms causing disease - other | 13 |
| Psychiatric disability | 88 |
| Neurological disability - e.g. epilepsy | 29 |
| Intellectual disability | 15 |
| Learning disability | 25 |
| Sensory disability - e.g. hearing impaired | 28 |
| Sensory disability - deaf | 17 |
| Sensory disability - vision impaired | 30 |
| Sensory disability - blind | 20 |
| Work related injury | 46 |
| Medical condition - e.g. diabetes | 45 |
| Other | 33 |
Total* |
645 |
* One complainant may have multiple disabilities.
Table 24: Disability Discrimination Act - complaints received by ground
Disability Discrimination Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Disability of person(s) aggrieved | 862 | 95 |
| Associate | 23 | 3 |
| Disability - person assisted by trained animal | 6 | 1 |
| Disability - use of appliance | - | - |
| Harassment | 12 | 1 |
| Victimisation | 2 | - |
Total* |
905 | 100 |
*One complaint may have multiple grounds.
Table 25: Disability Discrimination Act - complaints received by area
Disability Discrimination Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Employment | 480 | 53 |
| Goods, services and facilities | 220 | 24 |
| Access to premises | 36 | 4 |
| Land | - | - |
| Accommodation | 28 | 3 |
| Incitement to unlawful acts or offences | - | - |
| Advertisements | - | - |
| Superannuation, insurance | 17 | 2 |
| Education | 98 | 11 |
| Clubs, incorporated associations | 10 | 1 |
| Administration of Commonwealth laws and programs | 16 | 2 |
| Sport | - | - |
| Application forms, requests for information | - | - |
| Trade unions, registered organisations | - | - |
Total* |
905 | 100 |
* An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.
Table 26: Disability Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Disability Discrimination Act |
Total |
| Terminated | 219 |
| Not unlawful | 25 |
| More than 12 months old | 5 |
| Trivial, vexatious, frivolous, misconceived, lacking in substance | 100 |
| Adequately dealt with already | 11 |
| More appropriate remedy available | 8 |
| Subject matter of public importance | - |
| No reasonable prospect of conciliation | 70 |
| Withdrawn | 43 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, advised the Commission | 40 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, settled outside the Commission | 3 |
| Conciliated | 186 |
| Administrative closure* | 15 |
Total |
463 |
* Not an aggrieved party, state complaint previously lodged.
Chart 5: Disability Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act
Table 27: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - complaints received and finalised
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act |
Total |
| Received | 181 |
| Finalised | 192 |
Table 28: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - complaints received by ground
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Race - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Colour - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Sex - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Religion - ILO 111 | 16 | 8 |
| Political opinion - ILO 111 | 1 | 0.5 |
| National extraction - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Social origin - ILO 111 | 2 | 1 |
| Age - ILO 111 | 26 | 13 |
| Medical record - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Criminal record - ILO 111 | 30 | 15 |
| Impairment - including HIV/AIDS status (ILO 111) | - | - |
| Marital status - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Disability - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Nationality - ILO 111 | - | - |
| Sexual preference - ILO 111 | 20 | 10 |
| Trade union activity - ILO 111 | 21 | 11 |
| International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | 53 | 27 |
| Declaration on the Rights of the Child | 2 | 1 |
| Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons | 3 | 1 |
| Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons | - | - |
| Convention on the Rights of the Child | 15 | 8 |
| Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief | 3 | 1 |
| Not a ground within jurisdiction | 1 | 0.5 |
| Not a human right as defined by the Act | 6 | 3 |
Total* |
199 | 100 |
* One complaint may have multiple grounds.
Table 29: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - complaints received by area
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Acts or practices of the Commonwealth | 71 | 36 |
| Employment | 119 | 60 |
| Not act or practice of the Commonwealth - not employment cases | 9 | 4 |
Total* |
199 | 100 |
* An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.
Table 30: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - non-employment complaints received by sub-area
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act |
Total | Percentage (%) |
| Prisons, prisoners | 15 | 18 |
| Religious institutions | 1 | 1 |
| Family Court matters | 3 | 3.5 |
| Other law court matters | 2 | 2.5 |
| Immigration | 51 | 60 |
| Law enforcement agency | - | - |
| State agency | 1 | 1 |
| Other service provider - private sector | - | - |
| Local government | 1 | 1 |
| Education systems | - | - |
| Welfare systems | 2 | 2.5 |
| Personal or neighbourhood conflict | 1 | 1 |
| Health system | 2 | 2.5 |
| Other | 6 | 7 |
Total* |
85 | 100 |
* One complaint may have multiple sub-areas.
Table 31: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act |
Total |
| Declined | 161 |
| Does not constitute discrimination | 18 |
| Human rights breach, not inconsistent or contrary to any human right | 33 |
| More than 12 months old | 7 |
| Trivial, vexatious, frivolous, misconceived, lacking in substance | 37 |
| Adequately dealt with already | 10 |
| More appropriate remedy available | 20 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, advised the Commission | 26 |
| Withdrawn, does not wish to pursue, settled outside the Commission | 1 |
| Withdrawn or lost contact | 9 |
| Conciliated | 19 |
| Referred for reporting* | 12 |
| Administrative closure** | - |
Total |
192 |
* Complaints in this category were not conciliable and therefore transferred from the Commission's Complaint Handling Section to Legal Services for further inquiry and possible report.
** Not an aggrieved party or state complaint previously lodged.
Chart 6: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - outcomes of finalised complaints
1 It is noted that complaints are generally resolved at conciliation on the basis of ‘no admission of liability’ by the respondent.
2. 73 percent of complainants returned the demographic data survey in this reporting year.
3. Representation status may change during the complaint process.