TERENCE BROOKS AND ACT GOVERNMENT - [2008] ACTDT 5

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

CITATION:TERENCE BROOKS AND ACT GOVERNMENT
[2008] ACTDT 5 (3 July 2008)

DT 07/18

Catchwords: Discrimination in area of housing – failure to comply with basic human right to adequate housing – no seriously arguable case of discrimination.
Discrimination Act 1991, ss8, 21, 77A, 79
International Bill of Rights

McCormack and Charles Sturt University [2008] ACTDT 4 of
30 June 2008

Tribunal:Mr G C Lalor, Deputy President
Date:3 July 2008

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) DT 07/18

DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL )

RE: TERENCE BROOKS
(Complainant)

AND: ACT GOVERNMENT
(Respondent)

ORDER

Tribunal: Mr G C Lalor, Deputy President

Date: 3 July 2008

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, pursuant to section 79 of the Discrimination Act 1991, that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that it lacks substance.

G C Lalor

Deputy President

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL ) NO: DT 18 of 2008

RE: TERENCE BROOKS

Complainant

AND: ACT GOVERNMENT
Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

3 July 2008 Mr G C Lalor, Deputy President

By application dated 16 May 2007 Mr Terence Brooks (“the complainant”) complained to the Human Rights Commission essentially that the Government of the Australian Capital Territory had treated him unfavourably because of a number of designated personal attributes including his multiple disabilities, his political conviction which was set out as being a belief in “a genuine democracy”, his religious conviction, set out as “thinker” and his profession, trade, occupation or calling, all of which are set out as “thinking”.

The complainant appended photocopies of various newspaper articles and the International Bill of Rights in so far as it related to the human right to adequate housing. A report dated 15 January 2007setting out the existence of asbestos in 16 Block B/41 – 45 Allambee Street, Reid and an advisory form concerning management of asbestos was also attached.

By letter dated 16 November 2007 a delegate for the ACT Discrimination Commissioner advised the complainant as follows:

“As outlined in my letter to you dated 3 August 2007 in order to proceed further with your complaint, I required you under s.73 of the HRC Act to clarify the organisation or the individuals you are making your complaint about and how you allege they have discriminated against you. You have stated that you do not wish to amend your complaint and have not provided any further information. As indicated in my letter to you dated 3 August 2007 I have now closed your complaint under s.78(1)(c) and s78(2)(c)(iv) of the HRC Act as it does not reveal any discrimination and you have not provided the further information requested”.

The complainant on 23 November requested that his complaint be referred to this Tribunal.

On 6 December 2007 directions were given in relation to the conduct of this matter before the tribunal. The complainant in compliance with these directions, filed further material including:
1.Reasons for Decision dated 21 November 2007 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant him rental assistance under the Social Security…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read TERENCE BROOKS AND ACT GOVERNMENT and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] ACTDT 5
Decision Date: 3 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Terence Brooks and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government, with the dispute centring on alleged discrimination in housing. The matter was heard by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) under the provisions of the Discrimination Act 1991. Brooks alleged that the ACT Government had discriminated against him in the area of housing, arguing that their failure to provide adequate housing constituted a breach of his basic human right to adequate housing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Brooks' complaint of discrimination was seriously arguable. The court had to determine if there was a reasonable basis for the complaint to proceed, given that the ACT Government had denied any discriminatory intent or action in its housing policies and practices. The court examined the evidence presented by Brooks and assessed whether it was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Act.

The tribunal found that Brooks had not presented a seriously arguable case of discrimination. The court noted that Brooks' complaints related to general issues with the housing system, rather than specific actions taken by the ACT Government that targeted him due to his protected attributes. The evidence provided did not substantiate a claim that the government's actions were discriminatory, nor did it show a failure to comply with the basic human right to adequate housing. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked substance.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, pursuant to section 79 of the Discrimination Act 1991, that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that it lacks substance.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.