FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Commonwealth of Australia v Wood [2006] FCA 60
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – suicide of 15-year-old member of Air Training Corps – complaint by mother under Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) – whether as a matter of construction Act applies to Commonwealth and its agents – whether Act permits complaints in respect of discrimination against deceased persons – whether mother has arguable complaint in her own right
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – whether Act breaches Ch III of the Constitution – whether Anti-Discrimination Tribunal established under the Act is a court of State – whether Act inconsistent with Air Force Act 1923 (Cth) and/or Cadet Forces Regulations 1977 (Cth) – whether Act would impair the capacities of the Commonwealth Executive
WORDS AND PHRASES – “court”, “court of a State”
Act of Settlement1700 (Imp) The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia ss 77(iii), 109
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Commonwealth v Wood
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth v Wood [2006] FCA 60
Case
[2006] FCA 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Commonwealth v Wood involved the application of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 to conduct by the Commonwealth and its agents, including Mr Smith. The primary dispute centred around whether the Anti-Discrimination Act applied to the Commonwealth and its agents and whether it allowed for complaints to be made in instances where the person discriminated against had died. The respondents, Ms Campbell and Mr Smith, sought to have the application dismissed, arguing that the Act did not apply to them or allow for such complaints.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the Anti-Discrimination Act applied to the Commonwealth and its agents, whether the Act permitted complaints to be made by the deceased person's next of kin, and whether the Act was consistent with other relevant laws, including the Commonwealth's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Air Force Act 1923, and the Cadet Forces Regulations. The court also had to determine whether the Act breached Chapter III of the Constitution or impaired the capacities of the Commonwealth Executive.
The court found that the Anti-Discrimination Act did apply to the Commonwealth and its agents, including Mr Smith, and that it did permit complaints to be made by a deceased person's next of kin. The court held that the Act was consistent with other relevant laws and did not breach Chapter III of the Constitution or impair the capacities of the Commonwealth Executive. The court therefore dismissed the application and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs, including reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs, including reserved costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
HEEREY J
The present case is concerned with the application of a Tasmanian statute proscribing discriminatory conduct in that State in various areas of activity, including education and training. It is consistent with similar beneficial legislation in other States and Territories and in the Commonwealth itself (which explicitly leaves open resort to State and Territory legislation: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 4(1)). The executive capacity of the Commonwealth will not be impaired by agents such as Mr Smith being required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Anti-Discrimination Act, along with other Tasmanian laws, as the Manual recognises. Certainly this is so in the absence of any express Commonwealth law to the contrary: cf Pirrie at 183.Conclusion The Anti-Discrimination Act applies to the Commonwealth and its agents. The Act authorises complaints where the person discriminated against has died. Ms Campbell has an arguable complaint in her own right of discrimination contrary to the Act. In conferring on the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints against the Commonwealth the Act does not breach Ch III of the Constitution. The Act is not inconsistent with the Air Force Act or the Cadet Forces Regulations within the meaning of s 109 of the Constitution. The Act does not impair the capacities of the Commonwealth Executive.Orders There will be orders that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondents’ costs, including reserved costs.