Harrison v Commissioner for Housing - [2003] ACTSC 22

This is an appeal, pursuant to s 108D(1) of the Discrimination Act 1991 (the Discrimination Act), from a decision of the Discrimination Tribunal, constituted by Deputy President Peedom. In his reasons for decision dated 28 May 2002 the learned Deputy President dismissed Mr Harrison’s complaint that he had been unlawfully dealt with by the respondent.

Mr Harrison has represented himself throughout this litigation. He is an indigenous Australian, and clearly has a strong sense of grievance in relation to the way indigenous Australians have been dealt with since white settlement. That grave injustices occurred over a long period of Australian history has now been recognised by Australian law (Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1). In tracing the history of the dispossession of the traditional owners of their lands by white settlement, Deane and Gaudron JJ observed at 106 that:

The oppression and, in some areas of the continent, the obliteration or near obliteration of the Aborigines, were the inevitable consequences of their being dispossessed of their traditional lands.

Mr Harrison suffers from a serious and life threatening medical condition, and he also has sincere grievances in relation to long-standing issues relating to the provision of health services to Aboriginal people. The Court does not question Mr Harrison’s sincerely held views concerning long-term and systemic discrimination over generations in the provision of services to Aboriginal Australians. The task of the Court in this appeal, however, is to determine only the question of the specific complaints of discrimination that were referred by the Discrimination Commissioner to the Discrimination Tribunal and determined by the Deputy President.

I should make the observation that the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office, which has represented the respondent,…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Harrison v Commissioner for Housing

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Commissioner for Housing [2003] ACTSC 22
Case: [2003] ACTSC 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Alan Harrison, an Indigenous Australian, against the Commissioner for Housing, challenging a decision of the Discrimination Tribunal. Mr Harrison, who has represented himself throughout the proceedings, alleged discrimination by the Commissioner in relation to housing services. The appeal was limited to a question of law, as provided for in the Discrimination Act 1991. The primary legal issue was whether the appeal from the Discrimination Tribunal to the Supreme Court was restricted to questions of law, as the Act specified, or if it could encompass broader grounds such as errors of fact or mixed fact and law.

Justice Connolly, in his reasons for judgment, examined the legislative intent behind the appeal provisions in the Discrimination Act and considered the broader context of appellate jurisdiction in the Australian Capital Territory. He concluded that the appeal was indeed limited to questions of law, aligning with the plain meaning of the statute and consistent with similar provisions in other tribunal acts. Connolly J noted that while the Supreme Court has broad jurisdiction, the legislature retains the authority to define the scope of tribunal appeals. The judge found no error in the Deputy President’s application of the law and factual findings, thus dismissing the appeal. The court did not order costs to either party.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Discrimination Tribunal, affirming that the appeal was properly restricted to questions of law and found no legal errors in the tribunal's handling of Mr Harrison's complaints.

Orders