Annual Report 1999 - 2000
Human
Rights
Human Rights Commissioner
Chris Sidoti took up his appointment as Human Rights Commissioner in 1995. His five year term expires on 13 August 2000.
The Human Rights Commissioner's functions include
- promotion of public understanding, acceptance and discussion of human rights
- investigation and conciliation of complaints of discrimination in employment and of human rights violations by or on behalf of the Commonwealth
- reporting to the Attorney-General and Parliament on human rights complaints which could not be conciliated
- advising the Attorney-General and Parliament on action needed to ensure Australia's compliance with its human rights and non-discrimination undertakings, including through legislative amendment
- preparation of guidelines for the avoidance of human rights breaches.
The Commission's human rights responsibilities flow from
- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
- the Declaration of the Rights of the Child
- the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons
- the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons.
Its employment discrimination responsibilities are based on the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (ILO 111).
Education and promotion
Human rights in rural and remote Australia
The experience of people in rural and remote Australia has always featured prominently in the Commission's work. During the reporting year the Commission undertook two major projects addressing the human rights of children and young people in rural and remote Australia.
Rural and Remote Education Inquiry
The Commission's National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education commenced in February 1999 in response to the Human Rights Commissioner's Bush Talks consultations (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/rural/bushtalks) which identified education as a serious concern in rural Australia. Every child has the right to education (CROC article 28) without discrimination including discrimination on the ground of race or disability (article 2). That education should be directed to the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential among other objectives (article 29).
The terms of reference directed the Inquiry to examine the provision of education for children in rural and remote Australia with reference to
- the availability and accessibility of both primary and secondary schooling
- the quality of educational services, including technological support services, and
- whether the education available to children with disabilities, Indigenous children and children from diverse cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds complies with their human rights.
The Human Rights Commissioner conducted this inquiry on behalf of the Commission. Six Co-Commissioners were appointed to assist in their respective States and the Northern Territory.
Dr Alby W Jones, South Australia, was South Australia's Director-General of Education from 1970 until 1977.
Lady Pearl Logan, Queensland, has been prominent in the Country Women's Association and instrumental, among many other community activities, in the establishment of James Cook University in Townsville.
Barbara Flick, NSW, was the Director of the Commission's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Unit until late May 1999 and previously worked for many years as Manager of the Western Aboriginal Legal Service, NSW, among many other relevant appointments.
Associate Professor Brian Devlin, NT, taught in rural and remote schools in the Top End of the Northern Territory for 15 years and has been Dean of Education at the Northern Territory University.
Sister Patricia Rhatigan, WA, is Dean of the Broome Campus of Notre Dame University and taught in rural and remote schools in the Kimberley for over 20 years.
Tim Roberts, Victoria, is a senior secondary student living in Cohuna. He has been a member of the Prime Minister's Youth Roundtable.
The Inquiry visited 28 rural and remote communities in each State and the Northern Territory, taking evidence and holding discussions with students, teachers, administrators, parents and other community members. It also took formal evidence in every capital city and received 287 written submissions. A national survey was conducted for the Inquiry by the Youth Research Centre at the University of Melbourne to which there were 3,128 respondents, 55% of them rural and remote area students.
The inquiry utilised, in an exemplary way, a model of research, consultation and reporting highly suitable for exploring the issues related to education in rural and remote Australia. The mix of basic research and community consultations resulted in authentic and powerful outcomes which should be invaluable for rural communities, governments, and those professionals and scholars concerned with sustaining and enriching life and culture in rural Australia. With this timely Inquiry the Commission has demonstrated national and international leadership in the concern for rural and remote communities and rightly focussed on the role of schools in communities
(Dr David McSwan, Director, Rural Education Research and Development Centre, James Cook University, Townsville Qld).
The Inquiry was committed to ensuring that the views of students were heard and taken into account in developing its recommendations. It was pleased that thousands of children were able to express their views through the meetings in rural and remote communities and the national survey.
A great deal of the information provided to the Inquiry is published on the Commission's website, including submissions supplied in electronic format, transcripts of evidence, records of meetings, a bibliography commissioned from the Rural Education Research and Development Centre at James Cook University, the Youth Research Centre survey report and a series of briefing papers on aspects of the terms of reference (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/rural/education).
School is lots of fun. There are lots of activities. It's not just sport. School is about education and education is power for me. And there are a lot of things that I need to know about the whole world. When I leave school I might go to a University in Darwin. I want to be a scientist. I will find a school in Darwin before I go to University. In future I hope to be President of the Land Council
(student meeting at Nguiu NT).It is the practice in a number of areas that if the school receives a level of resources that the school considers insufficient to support the child [with a disablity], the family is asked to collect the child for example at lunch time a number of days per week
(Family Advocacy NSW submission).
The evidence and submissions received by the Inquiry were summarised in Emerging Themes published in March 2000 (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/rural/education/reports). The Inquiry's report, Recommendations, was tabled in Federal Parliament on 28 June 2000 and is also on the website. It presents a blueprint for rural education in 73 detailed recommendations for ensuring that education for all rural and remote children in Australia is available, accessible, affordable, acceptable and adaptable, eliminating discrimination, enhancing the participation of parents and other community members in education decision-making and provision, improving the recruitment and working conditions of teaching and support staff and improving the chances that rural and remote students will succeed at school. The recommendations are addressed to the full range of authorities responsible for the provision of school education in Australia including State and Territory Education Departments, Catholic Education Offices and other independent school authorities, the Commonwealth's Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) and the national Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).
The Inquiry will launch three further publications on rural and remote education early in 2000-01: a case study based evaluation of access to education in Australia, a case study based description of models of parent and community participation in school education and a kit for use in schools featuring the comments made to the Inquiry by rural and remote students.
Outlink
Network - Rural Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Young People
Recent studies have shown that young lesbian, gay and bisexual people in rural areas are a severely disadvantaged group within Australian society. They experience the stigma associated with homosexuality, the disempowerment common amongst young people and the difficulties of contemporary rural life. Research also shows that in the face of these difficulties they often receive less than adequate support from families, schools, youth services and the broader community. These factors combine to place lesbian, gay and bisexual young people in rural areas at high risk of drug and alcohol abuse, conflict with family and peers, early school leaving, homelessness and suicide.
The Commission, with the support of the Australian Youth Foundation, initiated a network of young lesbian, gay and bisexual people in rural areas and rural service providers. These young people often experience a high level of isolation, as do service providers concerned for their welfare. The Outlink Network aims to bring these individuals and groups together to share knowledge, skills and resources and have a united voice on issues such as community education, service provision, funding and government policy.
The Commission engaged Rodney Croome as Outlink Co-ordinator to establish the Network. Twelve months after his appointment, Mr Croome convened an interim committee of management in Sydney on 1 and 2 April 2000. The interim committee was constituted by one young gay man and one young lesbian from each of NSW, Qld, Tas and Vic, one young gay man from each of SA and WA and one young lesbian from the ACT, together with seven rural service providers (two from Vic and one each from NSW, SA, Qld, Tas and WA).
Outlink has an extensive contact database and a website. With funding assistance from the Commission, the ALSO Foundation and Rabbit International in Victoria, the Network has produced a rural service providers' anti-homophobia training manual. Not Round Here: Affirming Diversity, Challenging Homophobia, by Kenton Penley Miller and Mahamati, was launched by the Human Rights Commissioner in Bendigo on 13 June 2000 and in Cairns on 3 July 2000. Both events were well-attended and received positive media coverage.
The Outlink Network is now independent of the Commission although the Commission has a representative on its management committee. The Outlink website is at http://www.outlink.trump.net.au
Action Exchange project
Every child with the capacity to do so has the right to participate in decisions which affect him or her. Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that
(1) States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
The right to participate is a central element in all of the Commission's work involving children and young people. During the reporting year the Commission initiated Action Exchange, a project dealing specifically with this issue.
In January 2000 Action Exchange was launched on the National Children and Youth Law Centre's Lawstuff website (www.lawstuff.org.au). The Action Exchange webpages present information on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and give examples of youth action in Australia and across the world. For example, the Margaret River Youth Advisory Council in Western Australia is highlighted on the webpages, including photos of a skatepark the young people helped create. Action Exchange also encourages children and young people to submit examples of projects they are involved in. Up to eight of the best projects submitted will be highlighted on the webpages, allowing children and young people to exchange ideas on speaking out and participating.
Research and policy
Immigration detention
Conditions of Detention - Review
The Human Rights Commissioner reviewed the four then-existing immigration detention centres during 1998 and 1999:
- Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, WA
- Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, Sydney NSW
- Perth Airport Immigration Detention Centre, WA
- Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre, Victoria.
The Commissioner inspected each centre and was briefed in detail by Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) and Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) managers. Staff also interviewed randomly selected detainees. The Commissioner's review was published in March 2000. (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/asylum/index.html#idc_review).
Overall the Commission was impressed with the efforts of both DIMA and ACM in 1998 to enhance the physical conditions, the opportunities for activities and the support services in detention. Very substantial improvements had been made in a wide range of areas. However, the Commissioner noted a number of outstanding matters of concern:
- the refusal to advise new arrivals of their right to request legal assistance
- the failure of the detainee handbook to advise detainees of the existence, role and contact details of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
- the failure to employ interpreters and the failure to use interpreters at all times when needed, for example during induction at all centres and during medical appointments at Maribyrnong IDC
- inadequate phone lines at Villawood IDC resulting in inadequate incoming access for lawyers and others needing to contact detainees
- overcrowding at Villawood Stage One and long-term detention in overcrowded facilities with inadequate recreational facilities, no opportunity for classes or other productive activities, inadequate telephone access and no provision for privacy at Villawood Stage One and Perth IDC
- holding of distressed and disturbed detainees in Villawood Stage One where offenders and violent detainees are also held
- progressive tightening of security, including curfews, additional musters and increased transfer security, in response to a number of escapes - possibly inappropriate limits on expenditure on health care, especially dental and psychiatric care and the possibility that some medical staff and contractors are constrained by budget or contract pressures at the expense of their patients' well-being
- failure to provide schooling for all children at Port Hedland IRPC, except attendance with adults at ESL classes.
It was also disturbing that the proposed redevelopment of the Villawood site, scheduled to commence in 1999, had been indefinitely delayed. Villawood Stage One, in particular, is unsuitable for use as a detention centre.
In March 2000 the Human Rights Commissioner inspected the new Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre near Roxby Downs in South Australia. The cramped environment at the centre and the lack of adequate facilities, especially for children, are matters of serious concern. The relatively remote location of the Centre means that there is almost no access to trauma counselling and other specialist services.
The Commission is concerned that conditions within some detention centres may have deteriorated in 1999-2000 following the substantial increase in the number of detainees. The President will visit the Port Hedland IRPC and Villawood IDC and the Human Rights Commissioner will visit the Curtin IRPC early in the 2000-2001 reporting year.
Immigration Detention Guidelines
With a view to enhancing clarity and certainty as to the rights of detainees in immigration detention and the obligations of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and ACM, the Commission published Immigration Detention Guidelines in March 2000 (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/asylum/index.html#idc_guidelines ).
The Guidelines draw on relevant international minimum standards which detail what is required for humane detention consistent with respect for human dignity as required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Guidelines will assist the Commission in its investigation of complaints about the treatment of detainees.
Inhumane Detention - Perth Immigration Detention Centre Complaint
During the 1999-2000 year the Commission reported to federal parliament on an individual complaint of the violation of the human rights of a person in immigration detention.
On 22 April 1996 a Nigerian national, Mr George Johnson, entered Australia at Perth Airport without valid travel documents. As a result of the complainant's unlawful entry into Australia, he was placed in immigration detention at the Perth Immigration Detention Centre (IDC). Immigration detention centres are operated by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs but detention services, including security, are contracted out. At the time of Mr Johnson's detention, the contractor was Australian Protective Services (APS), a federal government agency.
On 15 May 1997 the complainant lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging that he had suffered treatment during his detention at the Perth IDC which constituted breaches of his human rights.
Allegation 1: Following an argument with an APS officer, the complainant was placed in a room without a window, where he remained for six days. He was handcuffed for 8.5 hours and shackled for 7 hours.
Allegation 2: APS officers at the Perth IDC required that the complainant be handcuffed when escorted to an external medical facility for treatment for a continuing medical condition. The complainant refused to be handcuffed and accordingly was not treated for his condition.
Allegation 3: The complainant was held in detention at the Perth IDC for more than 12 months in poor conditions of detention.
Before the Commission could interview Mr Johnson in relation to these complaints, he was removed from Australia. The Commission decided, however, that the allegations were sufficiently serious to warrant continuing the investigation in his absence. In his report (Report of an Inquiry into a Complaint of Acts or Practices Inconsistent with or Contrary to Human Rights in an Immigration Detention Centre, HRC Report No. 10, 28 June 2000; http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/HRC_10.pdf ) the Commissioner found that Mr Johnson's treatment in relation to Allegation 1 violated his right under ICCPR article 10:
All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
The report details the treatment Mr Johnson received and the Commissioner's findings and recommendations. Recommendations include that the Department ensures the Operational Orders for the Perth IDC contain clearer stipulations with respect to the use of restraints and the application of force in the treatment of detainees. Staff training was also recommended, to ensure that IDC staff deal with distressed or aggressive detainees in an appropriate manner. This training should emphasis techniques that allow detainees to be restrained dignity and with minimum use of force.
Detention services are currently provided under contract by a private company, Australasian Correctional Management. During inspections in October 1998 the Human Rights Commissioners found the conditions at the Perth IDC very much improved.
Legislative reform and assessment
Mandatory Sentencing in NT and WA
The Commission has been concerned about mandatory detention of juvenile offenders since mandatory detention laws were first introduced in WA in 1992. In the 1997 report Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process, the Commission, jointly with the Australian Law Reform Commission, condemned these laws as they then operated in both WA and the Northern Territory.
CROC article 37 provides in part:
(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.
The highly punitive, arbitrary and racially discriminatory operation of the Territory laws in particular moved a group of federal Members of Parliament to develop with the assistance of the Commission a proposal for their repeal: the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999. The Commission published a Briefing Paper which evaluated the WA and NT legislation (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/child_rights/h5_1_7.html ) in and made a submission to the inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee into the Bill (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/child_rights/h5_1_8.html ).
In a historic press conference on 17 February 2000, the Commission's President joined the Human Rights Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in condemning the NT legislation and calling for it to be overturned by federal parliament (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/child_rights/h5_1_9.html). The President noted that the NT and WA laws affect adults as well as juveniles and therefore also contravene the prohibition of arbitrary detention in article 9 of the ICCPR as well as article 37 of CROC.
Discrimination in Employment and Occupation
The Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention - known as ILO 111 - (1958; 362 U.N.T.S. 31; http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/n3ilo111.htm ) was ratified by Australia in 1973. It requires States Parties to eliminate employment-related discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin (article 1.1(a)). Article 1.1(b) permits a State Party to add grounds unilaterally for its own domestic purposes. In 1989 Australia added the following grounds: age, medical record, criminal record, impairment, marital status, mental, intellectual or psychiatric disability, nationality, physical disability, sexual preference and trade union activity (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Regulations 1989).
ILO 111 is not incorporated into Australian domestic law. However, it is scheduled to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (HREOCA) with the effect that people aggrieved by employment-related discrimination on one or more of the extended list of grounds may complain to the Commission (HREOCA section 31(b)).
The Commission is empowered `to endeavour, by conciliation, to effect a settlement' between the disputing parties. If the Commission considers conciliation inappropriate or the attempt has been unsuccessful, the Commission may report to the Attorney-General and, through him, to Parliament.
In contrast with other discrimination complaints, both federal and State or Territory, HREOCA employment discrimination complaints cannot be dealt with by a court or tribunal and therefore cannot lead to an enforceable remedy.
Several of the other international instruments for which the Commission has responsibility also contain prohibitions on discrimination, although they do not focus specifically on employment.
The Commission has dealt with issues of employment discrimination through broad national inquiries, development of guidelines, examination of legislation and individual complaints.
Age Discrimination Inquiry
Despite the limits to its jurisdiction, the Commission has received numerous complaints about employment-related age discrimination including
- complaints about age stipulations in job vacancies listed by the former Commonwealth Employment Service and now Job Network agencies
- complaints about age stipulations in job vacancies and training and promotional opportunities in the defence force
- complaints from workers over 65 who were refused employment by employers citing age limits under legislation
- complaints about age discrimination in trade union membership
- complaints from older people about discrimination in the offer of redundancy packages and the monetary value of the packages
- complaints from older people about compulsory retirement.
In light of concerns about age discrimination, the inconsistencies between State and Territory anti-discrimination laws and the fact that Commonwealth employees and many Commonwealth laws and policies are not free from age discrimination, the Commission instituted an inquiry into the need for federal age discrimination legislation by publishing a discussion paper entitled Age Matters? in April 1999.
It is nonsense and ridiculous that the year I was born dictates that I have to be retired, when I am both an excellent performer and in dire need of the dollars. And have never been ill or incapacitated or absent. Performance and attendance should be the only criteria - measurable ability to do the job, and being there to do it every day (submission 25 to Age Matters? inquiry).
Fifty-seven submissions were received in response to the discussion paper. These were evaluated and the Commission's report entitled Age Matters: a report on age discrimination was tabled in the Federal Parliament on 28 June 2000 (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/older_aust/h5_6_4.html ). The Commissioner launched the report in Melbourne on 18 July.
The report makes recommendations for Commonwealth compliance with ILO 111 and also with the non-discrimination and equality before the law provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC).
Submissions to the Age Matters? inquiry strongly favoured the introduction of comprehensive federal age discrimination legislation on the lines of the existing federal discrimination acts covering race, sex and disability discrimination. The Commonwealth now lags well behind every state and territory in protecting people from discrimination based on age. As a result, there are many discriminatory laws, policies and practices of the Commonwealth that cannot be justified as reasonable and proportionate. The Commission's 14 recommendations include the need for the Commonwealth to conduct a national public and business education program to counteract prevalent negative stereotypes about young people and older people, to retain special measures for the assistance of unemployed young workers, to introduce additional special measures of assistance for unemployed older workers and to amend discriminatory federal legislation including legislation and regulations dealing with defence force employment. The report also recommends that Federal Parliament enact a more rigorous and effective legal regime to prevent and to remedy acts of discrimination based on age.
Religious Belief Discrimination - Guidelines
In late 1999 the Commonwealth contracted a number of religious organisations, including the Salvation Army, Centacare, Wesley Mission and Mission Australia, to undertake job search on behalf of unemployed people. Early in 2000 the Commission received a number of complaints of discrimination on the ground of religion in employment on the part of a number of these Job Network agencies.
The complaints alleged that selection criteria for employment with some of those agencies either explicitly or implicitly required applicants to profess the religious beliefs of the employing agencies.
While the complaints were successfully conciliated, the Human Rights Commissioner decided to produce guidelines for the benefit of all private agencies contracted to provide services on behalf of the Commonwealth and of service recipients. An expert consultant was commissioned to draft guidelines on religious values and selection criteria for these agencies, using relevant international law and policy as the reference point. The draft guidelines are currently being circulated for stakeholder consultation and will shortly be published in final form. The guidelines will be of assistance to Commonwealth funding bodies, Commonwealth-funded services and members of the public, especially those interested in employment with a Commonwealth-funded service.
Sexual Preference Discrimination - Examination of Federal Legislation
In the report Superannuation Entitlements of Same-Sex Couples (HRC Report No. 7, 1999) the Human Rights Commissioner found that, by denying a same-sex partner of a superannuation fund member the right to be a beneficiary in the event of the member's death, the enactments are inconsistent with the human right to equality before the law (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 26) and nullify equality of treatment in employment (International Labour Organisation Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, No. 111). The report recommended amendment of federal superannuation legislation. The Parliament is considering a private member's bill which would implement that recommendation. The Government is not supporting the Bill.
Age Discrimination - Australian Defence Force Complaints
The Human Rights Commissioner's eighth report (Age Discrimination in the Australian Defence Force, HRC Report No. 8, 28 June 2000; [url to be included when known) under section 31(b) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) dealt with four complaints of age discrimination in the Australian Defence Force which could not be conciliated. The complaints were made by three prospective entrants to the ADF and one serving member of the ADF:
- Mr Robert Bradley who complained about the upper age limit of 35 for applicants for helicopter pilots in the army
- Mr Kenneth Barty who complained about the upper age limit of 35 for applicants for Administrative Officer positions in the Royal Australian Air Force
- Mr E W Petersen who complained about the upper age limit of 35 for applicants for Administrative Officer positions in the ADF generally and
- Mr Ken Van Den Heuvel who complained about the upper age limit of 35 for remustering to a Load Officer position in the RAAF.
The Commissioner concluded that each complainant had experienced age discrimination in employment contrary to ILO 111 and that the age distinctions imposed could not be justified by reference to the inherent requirements of the positions. He recommended that the ADF should apologise to and/or compensate some of the complainants and remove the age limits which denied them access to the positions for which they applied.
Trade Union Activity Discrimination - O'Brien Metal Complaints
The complainants, Mr Ernest Edwards, Mr Ian Farrell and Mr Wayne Moate, were employed by O'Brien Metal Products Pty Ltd, a small steel fabrication business comprising a metal section and warehouse. They and several coworkers joined the National Union of Workers on 28 May 1997 because of their concerns about perceived unsafe working conditions following some accidents in the factory. Until then, no employee of O'Brien Metal had been a member of a union. The complainants alleged that, after they joined the Union and attended two meetings with its organiser in June 1997, they were subjected to less favourable treatment in the workplace, including harassment by management, a reduction in the level of their work duties and a reduction in the amount of work allocated. Each alleged that he was forced to leave his employment because of the discriminatory treatment based on his trade union activity.
The Human Rights Commissioner's report (Discrimination on the Ground of Trade Union Activity, HRC Report No. 9, 28 June 2000; http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/HRC_9.pdf ) details the nature of the treatment of the complainants in detail. The Commissioner found that the weight of evidence supported the claims of Messrs Edwards, Farrell and Moate that the actions of O'Brien Metal through its managers occurred solely or partly because of their trade union activity. There was a clear atmosphere of hostility towards the union in the company from the time some of the employees joined it. Therefore, they suffered discrimination in employment within the terms of the Act as O'Brien Metal nullified or impaired their equality of opportunity in relation to the terms and conditions of their employment because of their trade union activity. This culminated in the complainants' forced departures from their employment. The Commissioner recommended that each complainant should receive $5,000 compensation.
Speeches
Futures: Victorian Rural Health Forum, Country AIDS Network of Victoria, Bendigo. June 1999.
Rights for All: A human rights perspective on regional development, 27th National Congress of the Royal Australian Planning Institute - Planning in the Hothouse, Darwin. September 1999.
Rural youth suicide: convention, context and cure, The Australian College of Health Service Executives (SA), Adelaide. 14 October 1999.
The human rights of older Australians in the bush, Seminar on Rural Ageing entitled Harnessing the wisdom - Harvesting the gains. 1-3 November 1999.
Surviving the bush: health and rural communities, Australian Healthcare Association National Congress, Melbourne. 10 November 1999.
Rights for all: Building inclusive communities for all generations, 1999 Sax Oration. 18 November 1999.
Statement on Mandatory Sentencing, HREOC Press Conference. 17 February 2000.
Beyond Bush Talks, Outback & Australian Association of Rural Nurses Toowoomba conference. 24 February 2000.
Age Matters: a report on age discrimination - Council on Ageing (COTA) Australia, Melbourne. 18 July 2000.
Access to education: a human right for every child, 29th Annual Federal ICPA Conference. 3 August 2000.
Last updated 1 December 2001.
