Report by the Labor Members of the Committee
Senator Nick Bolkus (SA) & Senator Jim McKiernan
(WA)
INTRODUCTION
The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 represents a
fundamental attack on the rights of the disadvantaged and those who suffer
from discrimination in Australian society. It forms just one part of a
series of actions being undertaken by the Government that are depriving
many hundreds of thousands of Australians of the right to access justice
and to hold their government accountable.
This Government is attacking the rights held by Australians by making
cuts to a wide variety of justice related services. These include cuts
to legal aid, the federal courts and tribunals and the family services
program. The Government has also increased fees for federal courts and
tribunals and is considering limiting the rights of Australians to hold
their government accountable through the Commonwealth's administrative
law system.
In total the Government will have, from its election to the turn of the
century, cut more than $400 million from services that help Australians
access justice.
Cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Foremost amongst the cuts to access justice measures are the Governments
foreshadowed cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
The Government will reduce funding for the Commission from the current
$20.5 million provided in the 1996-97 financial year to $17.9 million
in the 1997-98 financial year and ultimately to approximately $13.3 million
in the 1998-99 to 2000-01 financial years.
When inflation and salary cost increases are factored in the cuts to
the Commission will be in excess of 43 percent of the Commission's budget.
Whilst the greatest proportion of the cuts are not due to take effect
until the 1998-99 financial year, the Commission, in evidence to the Senate
Constitutional Legal Legislation Committee's consideration of the Appropriation
Bills, advised that it would be forced to implement the cuts with effect
almost immediately.
As a result of the cuts the Commission advised that it would have to
offer involuntary redundancy packages to 60 of the Commission's 180 staff.
The Commission advised that as the Government had made no provision for
these inevitable redundancy costs, the Commission would be forced to implement
these redundancies prior to the end of the 1997 calender year.
The Commission is yet to be able to determine exactly which of its activities
it will be unable to continue to carry out following the implementation
of the cuts. However, the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Sidoti, noted
that all areas of the Commission's activities would be expected to share
this burden. Mr Sidoti also stated that the cuts would inevitably force
the Commission to concentrate on its core statutory obligations such as
complaint handling.
Mr Sidoti's evidence is completely at odds with the Government's statements
as to the effects of the cuts. Acting Attorney-General, the Hon. Phillip
Ruddock MP stated in a Media Release dated 9 June 1997 that:
"Reports in the media today contain incorrect claims that changes
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) will have
a negative impact on disabled people."
Mr Sidoti confirmed in evidence to the Senate Committee that the services
provided by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner would be amongst
those to be affected by the cuts. The Government's deceit in not telling
some of most disadvantaged in our community of the real effect of these
cuts is simply deplorable and is condemned by the Labor members of the
Committee.
The Labor members of the Committee also note that these cuts are totally
unnecessary for the implementation of this Bill.
First, we note that the Government originally projected a cut of $1.5
million per year in the 1996-97 Budget to transfer the hearing function
from the Commission of the Federal Court of Australia. This cut was delayed
pending the passage of this Bill.
Even this cut was unjustified. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation
Committee's consideration of the Appropriation Bills for both the 1996-97
and 1997-98 financial years revealed that the true cost to the Commission
for the provision of the hearing function was only approximately $600,000
per year. Despite this evidence the Government has persisted with the
implementation of this cut on the basis that it incorrectly asserted in
the Coalition's Law and Justice Policy at the 1996 Federal election
that $1.5 million was the cost of the provision of the function.
The funding cuts proposed in the 1997-98 Budget are in addition to the
cut of $1.5 million announced in the 1996-97 Budget as discussed above.
Table of contents
Recommendation 1:
The Labor members of the Committee deplore the Government's decision
to cut over 43 percent from the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission because it will directly affect the ability of the most powerless
and disadvantaged in our community to enforce and protect their rights.
These cuts should be condemned by all fair and decent minded Australians.
Cuts to Legal Aid
The decision announced by the Government to cut $120 million over 3 years
from legal aid funding and thereby to dismantle Australia's national unified
legal aid system will also have a profound effect on the ability of Australians
to enforce their human rights. This will particularly be the case as,
in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, discrimination law disputes
will now be determined in the Federal Court of Australia.
We note and draw attention to the more detailed discussion of the effect
of the cuts to legal aid funding is contained in the Senate Legal and
Constitutional References Committee's First and Second Reports on Australia's
Legal Aid System. Accordingly, we do not propose to discuss the details
of the cuts in detail in the context of the present report.
However, we note that a draft of the proposed Commonwealth-State legal
aid agreements, due to come into effect from 1 July 1997, contains the
following Guideline with respect to the funding of equal opportunity and
discrimination cases:
"5.1 The Commission may grant assistance for equal opportunity/discrimination
cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefit being gained
not only by the applicant but also by the public or any section of the
public."
In the view of the Labor members of the Committee such a Guideline, if
adopted would be totally unacceptable. The test provides a number of additional
qualifiers to the standard merits tests by requiring an applicant to demonstrate
that:
(a) they have strong prospects of success;
(b) those prospects are directed towards the attainment of a substantial
benefit; and
(c) that benefit will be acquired not only by the individual bringing
the complaint but also that the claim must serve a broader public interest
or otherwise be in the interest of section of the public.
The Labor members of the Committee believe that equal opportunity cases
should not be required to satisfy the stronger merits test as set out
in (a) above.
The Labor members of the Committee also state their firm view that the
creation of equality of opportunity or the elimination of discrimination
are matters which derive substantial benefits not only to the individual
complainant but also to the class of persons to which that complainant
belongs and to the public at large. Accordingly, the Labor members of
the Committee believes that tests (b) and (c) above are either redundant
or, to the extent that they impose some higher standard in breach of the
moral and international obligations of the Australian Government, should
be opposed
Recommendation 2:
The Labor members of the Committee call upon the Government to ensure
that adequate legal aid resources or other forms of legal assistance are
provided to ensure either that all discrimination law cases which meet
the traditional merits and financial tests for a grant of legal aid are
funded or that such cases are otherwise adequately resourced.
THE LEGISLATION
The Bill has two fundamental objectives. The first is to ensure that
discrimination determinations can be enforced in a timely, effective and
efficient manner and in accordance with the ruling of the High
Court in Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
The second is to implement a re-structuring of the Commission's complaint
handling mechanisms.
We acknowledge that since the Brandy decision was handed down
on 23 February 1995 it has been necessary to vest the power to make enforceable
determinations in discrimination cases in a body exercising the judicial
power of the Commonwealth pursuant to Chapter III of the Constitution.
It is noted that, following the Brandy decision, the previous
Labor Government introduced interim procedures for the handling of discrimination
complaints, which effectively re-instated the system which had applied
to discrimination complaints prior to 1993. These arrangements provide
for an initial determination to be made by the Commission which if acceptable
to the parties operates subject to their goodwill and continued compliance.
Determinations of the Commission are not legally enforceable.
Under the present scheme, enforceable determinations require a de
novo hearing of the dispute and a determination by the Federal Court.
We note the widespread view that the continued operation of the pre-1993
and post-Brandy arrangements for complaint determination would
be inappropriate. We note that these concerns are principally based around
the need for a second hearing of complaint, by the Federal Court, for
a determination to be enforceable. We believe that the current mechanism
is unwieldy and place all parties at a financial and temporal disadvantage.
We believe that there is a strong public interest in disputes being enforceable
once determined.
We believe that, as provided in the Bill, the creation of a specialised
Human Rights Registry within the Federal Court of Australia is the most
appropriate and cost effective way to give effect to this purpose. We
also support the Bill's effect in giving the Commission the power to mediate
disputes.
Under the proposed arrangements as set out in the Bill, complaints are
lodged with the executive President of the Commission who attempts to
conciliate the dispute. Should the dispute not be capable of conciliation
then the matter is referred to the Federal Court for determination.
Federal Court determinations are to be made by judges of the Court or
by judicial registrars acting under their delegation and direction. Determinations
by judicial registrars would be enforceable as orders of the Court. However,
appeals from the determinations of judicial registrars would be by way
of de novo appeal to a judge of the Federal Court in order to comply
with the decision of the High Court in Harris v Caladine.
The Labor members of the Committee broadly support the structure of the
Bill as being a necessary mechanism for the attainment of simplified and
effective complaint determination procedures.
However, as discussed below, we believe that a number of key amendments
to the Bill are required to ensure that the rights of complainants are
protected and that they are able to access those rights.
Recommendation 3:
The Labor members of the Committee support the passage of the Bill subject
to the Parliament's agreement to the amendments set out below.
Table of contents
The Conciliation of Disputes
The Labor members of the Committee believe that the specialist Commissioners
should continue to have the conduct of the conciliation of disputes. We
note that specialist Commissioners are in the best position to understand
the requirements needed for the conciliation of a particular type of dispute.
The argument advanced by the Government that the centralisation of the
conciliation process in the hands of an executive President of the Commission
ignores the need for different types of disputes to be conciliated in
different ways.
The suggestion that the centralisation of the disputes handling function
in an executive President would be more efficient ignores the fact that
if complaints are not conciliated in the most appropriate manner then
they will be less likely to be successfully conciliated and therefore
more likely to proceed for determination by the Federal Court. Accordingly,
we believe that the Government's arguments based on efficiency represent
a false economy.
The Labor members of the Committee also believe that the conciliation
function will operate most effectively when it is under the control of
a specialist Commissioner with the requisite experience in handling complaints
of that type. Specialist Commissioners can also bring their growing body
of experience, obtained through the exercise of his or her inquiry functions,
to the conciliation function thereby constantly improving the process.
Naturally, if a specialist Commissioner were to conciliate a dispute
it would be inappropriate for that Commissioner to appear as an amicus
curiae should the matter proceed to determination by the Federal Court.
Accordingly, an amendment should be moved to prevent a specialist Commissioner
appearing in a case with which they have been directly involved. In these
circumstances another Commissioner should be entitled to appear to assist
the court.
These amendments place the expertise of the specialist Commissioners
to where they ought best be directed, and where they are likely to be
most effectively deployed, namely the conciliation of disputes.
This process would avoid any suggestion of a conflict of interest between
the relevant specialist Commissioner and the role of another Commissioner
in appearing as amicus curiae to the Court.
We note that the Government and the Majority Report do not support this
view. They argue that under a such a proposal a perceived conflict of
interest could arise. However, no greater perceived conflict of interest
would arise in this case than under the proposal set out in the Bill which
would see a specialist Commissioner appear, on behalf of the Commission,
as an amicus curiae when another member of the Commission, in this
case, the new executive President, was unable to conciliate the dispute.
Recommendation 4:
The conciliation function of the Commission should be vested in the specialist
Commissioners and not in the new executive President of the Commission.
Accordingly, there would be no need to appoint a full-time executive President
of the Commission.
Recommendation 5:
As a result, specialist Commissioners should be prevented from appearing
as amicus curiae in disputes before the Federal Court involving
cases where that Commissioner sought to conciliate. The other specialist
Commissioners, appearing on behalf of the Commission, should be vested
with authority to appear as amicus curiae in such cases.
Reporting of Complaints to the Parliament
Regardless of whether complaints are conciliated by the executive President
or the specialist Commissioners, the Labor members of the Committee agree
with the submission put by the Commission that it would be inappropriate
for either the executive President or individual specialist Commissioners
to report to the Parliament on the outcome of complaints. Such reports
must necessarily report on the appropriateness of the conciliation process
adopted and would result in either the executive President or the specialist
Commissioner reporting on themselves.
It would be more appropriate for the reporting process to be subject
to peer review. Accordingly, it is appropriate that any report to the
Parliament be made by the Commission reporting as a whole.
Recommendation 6:
The responsibility for the reporting of complaints to the Parliament
should be vested in the Commission acting as a whole.
Commissioners and Proceedings in the Federal Court
The Labor members of the Committee acknowledge that because of the extreme
levels of disadvantage suffered by many victims of discrimination that
it may be inappropriate to rely upon complaints being brought by individual
complainants in order to eliminate discrimination. In many circumstances,
Commissioners, in the course of their inquiry powers may come across situations
were no complainant may be willing to come forward because of the very
oppressive nature of the conduct being complained of. In these, and other,
circumstances, we believe that the Commissioners have both a public duty
and a general moral responsibility to act to end the discrimination.
In this regard, all Commissioners should be vested with the power to
bring proceedings in relation to a breach or an attempted breach of one
of the relevant Acts. It is noted that a similar power is granted to the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under section 80 of the
Trade Practices Act 1974.
Clearly, in such cases, it would be inappropriate for the relevant Commissioner
to be able to conciliate the dispute. In such cases another of the Commissioners
could be appointed to conciliate the dispute. Alternately, the Commission
should have the power to approach the Court to seek the appointment of
an independent conciliator who would be required to operate within the
terms of the relevant Acts.
Recommendation 7:
Specialist commissioners should be empowered to initiate proceedings
in the Federal Court as a complainant. If required, the Federal Court
could be given the power to order the conciliation of such disputes.
Systemic Discrimination
Systemic discrimination against people is one of the most insidious forms
of oppressive conduct in our society. Individual case based discrimination
is largely ineffective is addressing discrimination on this scale. Often,
in such cases, it is also inappropriate to blame individual respondents
for blindly accepting what may often be seen as a societal or economic
norms.
To address such deep rooted discrimination it is appropriate that the
Commissioners be given the power to address systemic discrimination. Reliance
upon individual case law is often slow, piece-meal and unreliable. Further,
reliance on the educative function of individual commissioners, particularly
in the context of strict budget constraints, is unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Commissioners should be given the power to investigate
conduct they believe to be unlawful under the relevant discrimination
Acts. In exercising their powers, Commissioners should not need the consent
of the Commission as a whole and should have all relevant powers of discovery.
Commissioners, upon concluding an investigation would report to the Attorney-General
who would be required to table the report in the Parliament. A Commissioner
should be excluded from exercising these powers whilst a current conflicting
complaint was before him or her for conciliation.
Recommendation 8:
The Labor members of the Committee support amendment of the Bill to provide
the Commissioners with powers to enable them to address systemic discrimination.
Table of contents
Complaints Against Commonwealth Agencies
The Labor members of the Committee believe that it is totally unacceptable
that private citizens will only be able to enforce discrimination complaints
against Commonwealth government departments and agencies through the determination
of a complaint in the Federal Court. Commonwealth government department
and agencies have a heightened responsibility to comply with the legislation
of the Federal Parliament. They should do so as a matter of administrative
practice and not merely as a result of judicial order.
Accordingly, the Labor members of the Committee support the continuation
of the present provisions in the relevant legislation which allow disputes
against Commonwealth government departments and agencies to be pursued
and enforced by administrative means.
Recommendation 9:
The Labor members of the Committee believe that Commonwealth government
departments and agencies should continue to be bound by the current administrative
mechanisms for ensuring adherence to Commonwealth discrimination law.
Amending Complaints
The Bill does not currently allow complainants to amend complaints once
they are referred for conciliation by the Commission. We believe that
this is too restrictive. It ignores the real fact that parties can continue
to suffer discrimination of the type, or of an escalated nature to the
type, originally complained of or suffer further discrimination consequent
upon the bringing of a complaint.
The notion that such further but related acts should be conciliated prior
to preceding to the Federal Court is simply absurd and denies the ability
that this could give to those engaging in discriminatory conduct to frustrate
the complaints process.
The Labor members of the Committee believe that the proposed clause 46PL(3)
of the Bill is insufficient to achieve this purpose.
Recommendation 10:
The Labor members of the Committee support complainants being given the
ability to amend a complaint to include acts incidental to, or flowing
from, the initial act or acts of discrimination complained of, including
acts of discrimination resulting from the lodgement of a complaint.
Compulsory Conferences and Confidentiality
The confidentiality of compulsory conciliation conferences is essential
to the proper operation of the conciliation system. The Labor members
of the Committee believes this issue should be put beyond doubt and, whilst
noting the Attorney-General's view that the common law attaching to without-prejudice
communications and the statutory protection afforded to some documents
under section 131 of the Evidence Act 1995 provides adequate protection,
supports the inclusion of a provision to make this protection certain.
Recommendation 11:
The Labor members of the Committee support the inclusion of a provision
to ensure the confidentiality of compulsory conciliation conferences.
Recording The Outcome Of, And Enforcing, Conciliated Agreements
The Labor members of the Committee believe that parties who conciliate
agreements should be advised of their right to record a binding agreement.
Should the parties request assistance to record the agreement reached
then the Commission should assist parties to record that agreement.
Such provisions will greatly assist parties to enforce conciliated agreements
in the Federal Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction.
Parties should be advised of this right at the start of the conciliation
process so as to avoid any concern when this matter is raised later in
the conciliation process.
Recommendation 12:
The Labor members of the Committee believe that the Bill should be amended
to enable the Commission to assist the parties to record a conciliated
agreement in writing.
Referring Discriminatory Awards
The Labor members of the Committee accept the evidence of both Mr Peter
Bailey of the Australian National University and the Commission that the
Bill should be amended to enable discriminatory acts based on sex, racial
or disability grounds to be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations
Commission, in the case of an award or any other appropriate matter within
the terms of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, or in relation to
matters within the power of the Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence
Force Tribunal.
We note that currently only sex discrimination matters are referrable
to those bodies. There is no reason why race or disability discrimination
issues should be treated any differently.
Recommendation 13:
The Labor members of the Committee support the amendment of the Bill
to enable discriminatory acts based on sex, racial or disability grounds
to be referrable to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, in
the case of an award, or in relation to matters within the power of the
Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence Force Tribunal, to those Tribunals.
Table of contents
THE CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
The Labor members of the Committee also support the following recommendations
made in the Majority's Report:
- Recommendation 3 - which limits to specialist commissioners the power
to bring an action in relation to a matter which has significant implications
for the administration of one of the relevant Acts.
- Recommendation 4 - which amends clause 46PH of the Bill to allow a
legal representative or next friend of a disabled complainant to attend
a compulsory conference.
- Recommendation 5 - which amends clause 46PH of the Bill to ensure
that an applicant is not disadvantaged during conciliation with a respondent
who may be represented by a legally qualified person.
- Recommendation 7 - which ensures that where a complaint is terminated
on the request of the parties, that the complaint can still proceed
to the Federal Court.
- Recommendation 8 - which provides for the Human Rights Registry of
the Federal Court to notify the Commission of the filing of discrimination
complaints.
JUDICIAL REGISTRARS
The Labor members of the Committee note that the Human Rights Registry
of the Federal Court will principally be drawn from judicial registrars
of the former Industrial Relations Court who may have little practical
experience in dealing with discrimination cases.
We suggest that all judicial registrars and staff should undergo training
to familiarise them with the jurisdiction and to ensure a sufficient level
of awareness of the particular requirements of different types of discrimination
complaints and the needs of complainants.
THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS
The Labor members of the Committee note that the fact that discrimination
complaints have not previously been bound by the rules of evidence has
been of great assistance in determining complaints.
In this regard, we note with concern the evidence of Associate Professor
Tahmindjis that clause 46PO of the Bill would not prevent the operation
of the rules of evidence in accordance with the ruling of Spender J in
Aldridge v Booth. Similarly, we note the evidence of the National
Federation of Blind Citizens that it has received legal advice that the
provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 will apply to discrimination
matters.
We note that the Legal Aid Office (Queensland) and the Commission also
commented on this point.
Despite the evidence of the Attorney-General's Department that Evidence
Act 1995 has greatly simplified the rules of evidence in federal causes,
we believe that the rules of evidence should not apply in discrimination
cases.
Recommendation 14:
The Labor members of the Committee believe that clause 46PO of the Bill
should be amended to ensure that rules of evidence do not apply to discrimination
cases.
COURT FEES AND LEGAL COSTS
The increased Federal Court fees introduced by the Government in the
1996-97 Budget represent part of the fundamental attack on the right of
ordinary Australian citizens to enforce their rights in our justice system.
Under the Federal Court of Australia Regulations, the fees that will
apply to discrimination cases will include:
- filing initiating process $500
- filing a notice of motion $246
- hearing fee for a notice of motion $400
- issuing a subpoena $40
- setting down a proceeding for hearing $1,000
- daily hearing fee (after the first day) $400
In this context, a typical discrimination case, lasting two days, would
cost more than $3,200 in court fees alone.
Whilst fee waiver provisions are in place these would only assist the
most indigent in the community. The Sackville Report on Access to Justice
revealed that one of the great problems with our justice system is the
ability of ordinary Australians, who do not qualify for fee exemptions
but who are not sufficiently wealthy to be able to afford to pay court
fees, to access justice. The Government's decision in the 1996-97 Budget
to dramatically increase court fees has significantly exacerbated the
predicament of such people.
The Government's failure to provide for the waiver of court fees also
ignores the traditional view (which applies in industrial cases) that
institutionally weaker parties (such as employees) should not be required
to pay any more than the most nominal court fees. Clearly, victims of
discrimination are at an institutional disadvantage by virtue of the discrimination
they face.
Currently in industrial cases only a filing of fee of $50 applies.
Accordingly, the Labor members of the Committee support an amendment
to the Bill to apply no more than nominal filing fees for discrimination
cases.
Recommendation 15:
The Labor members of the Committee support an amendment to the Bill to
apply no more than nominal filing fees for discrimination cases.
Likewise, the awarding of costs has never been a feature of the handling
of discrimination law cases.
We believe that it is most inappropriate that the costs follow the event
rule apply. This rule would only enable the institutionally stronger party
in discrimination cases to threaten the weaker party with retribution
should the claimants case fail.
However, this is not to say that cost penalties should not apply in all
cases. Where a complainant or defendant has acted in a frivolous or vexatious
manner the Court should retain a discretion to award costs against the
party concerned. In such cases, costs should be able to include not merely
party-party costs but also solicitor-client costs.
Recommendation 16:
The Labor members of the Committee support amending the Bill to prevent
costs being awarded against a party in a discrimination case except where,
in the judgment of the court, the party has behaved in a frivolous or
vexatious manner in which case the court should have the discretion to
award solicitor-client costs in addition to party-party costs.
The Labor members of the Committee support the conclusion reached in
the Majority's report that there is no public policy reason why lawyers
acting in discrimination cases should be limited to charging their clients
party-party costs.
REPRESENTATIVE COMPLAINTS
The Labor members of the Committee note the importance of representative
complaints or class actions in combating discrimination. We believe that
greater flexibility should be provided in the Federal Court of Australia
Act and the Rules of the Federal Court of Australia to allow
for class actions in discrimination cases.
In this regard, the current rules that apply to complaints to the Commission
should apply in the Court: namely that any two or more people may bring
a class action. Under the Federal Court of Australia Act the current
minimum number is 7: section 33C and 33L.
The Labor members of the Committee also support the concerns raised by
the Human Rights and Discrimination Committee of the Combined Community
Legal Centres' Group (NSW) which stated that class actions should be permissible
even where members of the class were seeking different remedies to address
the same cause of discrimination.
Finally, we also support the concerns expressed by Human Rights and Discrimination
Committee of the Combined Community Legal Centres' Group (NSW) that greater
flexibility should be provided for in the replacement of complainants
in class actions. We note that this concern was also supported in the
Majority's Report.
Recommendation 17:
The Labor members of the Committee support amending the Bill to provide
for representative actions to be brought by 2 or more people, to allow
persons alleging the same source of discrimination but seeking different
remedies to form part of the one action and for greater flexibility to
be provided in the replacement of representative complainants.
Table of contents
Representative Complaints By Unions
The Labor members of the Committee believe it is totally unacceptable
to prevent a person or trade union, other than a complainant, to bring
an action with the consent of a complainant in the Federal Court.
Clause 46P(2)(c) permits such people or groups to bring an action to
the Commission for conciliation. However, clause 46PL limits the right
to commence an action in the Federal Court to "an affected person".
In our opinion, there is no logic supporting this distinction. Trade
unions and other beneficial organisations have a proud and valuable history
of representing their members in such fora. Indeed, in many industrial
circumstances, the action in question is representative of discrimination
being experienced on behalf of the entire, or a significant proportion
of, the workforce. In such cases, the conduct of the case by the relevant
trade union is clearly appropriate.
Providing the relevant body has the consent of the "person affected"
then the relevant body should be able to bring the discrimination case
in the Federal Court.
Recommendation 18:
The Labor members of the Committee support amending clause 46PL of the
Bill to allow persons and trade unions to bring discrimination cases on
behalf of 'a person affected" providing the "person affected"
consents to the person or trade union so doing.
FEDERAL COURT FACILITIES
Finally, the Labor members of the Committee wish to acknowledge their
appreciation for the endeavours of the Federal Court of Australia, in
particular of the Chief Justice and the Registrar, in preparing the facilities
of the Federal Court for its taking up of responsibility for the enforceable
determination of discrimination law cases.
Senator Nick Bolkus Senator Jim McKiernan
25 June 1997