DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ON THE
BASIS OF CRIMINAL
RECORD
Click here to access:
Submission No. 19 - Michael Woods
I am concerned about the discrimination facing people who have been
subject to an A.V.O. We recently wished to hire an Aboriginal man to
cover for one of our employees who had gone on leave for 4 weeks.
However, the man we found - a perfect replacement - was unable to be
hired as he was on a "prohibited persons" list. The job primarily
involved working with Aboriginal men and boys at risk of self-harm, and
despite his potential for our service he is classified as a "risk".
This
was largely as a result of an AVO from his former wife. He (our potential
employee) claims there he had not been violent, or even threatened violence,
but rather that his "ex" had used this legal means
to harass him. He said he had agreed to the AVO as it seemed easier just
to go along with it rather than attend court, find a solicitor and try
to fight what would have been simply his word against hers. He was unaware
that he could be placed on this list and unable to obtain employment
in certain jobs as a result of this.
It does seem that the "prohibited persons" list
has gone a step too far in its intent to protect the community, and actually
can be an additional form of punishment over and above any court findings.
Perhaps some greater level of distinction is needed as to when a person
is really a threat.
In taking this one step further, I suggest that the "prohibited
persons" list is likely to inadvertently discriminate against Aboriginal
people in some cases. This is as a result of the increased likelihood
of an Aboriginal person being charged and convicted for crimes of "violence" -
especially the old trifecta of "offensive language, resisting arrest
and assaulting a police officer". While there is a process to have
one's name removed from the list, it is not easy, and mitigates against
the part of employment in helping to incorporate convicted people back
into the community. |