Conciliation Register

The complainant (C) is a national LGBTIQ+ organisation whose purpose is to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTIQ+ people in Australia and their families and children. C alleged that the first respondent statutory officeholder decided not to recommend that topics relating to gender identity, innate variations of sex characteristics and sexual orientation be included in the 2021 Census. C also alleged that the second respondent Ministerial office advised the Governor-General in line with that recommendation and thus it took effect. C alleged that the first respondent prepared the 2021 Census form that: framed the question on sex narrowly with reference to male, female or ‘non-binary sex’ only; framed the question on ancestry in the gender-specific and heteronormative terms of ‘father’ and ‘mother’ or otherwise seeking the country of birth of only one parent; and excluded those people who had selected 'non-binary sex' or who are trans men from the option to answer whether they had ever given birth to a child. The C alleged sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex discrimination and accessory liability. 

The respondents (Rs) submitted that the C's concerns about the decision relating to what topics to be included in the 2021 Census related to the automatic operation of the relevant legislation and/or the legislative process and thus they do not come within the Commission's complaint handling jurisdiction. Rs also submitted that the framing of the questions in the 2021 Census dealing with sex and ancestry was lawful for the purpose of the SDA, and also reasonable in the circumstances.

Both parties indicated their willingness to participate in an in-person conciliation conference to try to resolve the complaint, and reached settlement, terms of which included: 

• The federal government agency headed by the first respondent (the Agency) agreed to issue the C with a statement of regret, and to publish it on its website, acknowledging the C's complaint to the Commission; recognising the LGBITQ+ people's hurt, stress, anguish and other negative reactions to some 2021 Census questions; and noting its awareness that the framing of some 2021 Census questions and certain language used in those questions was seen or experienced by some as hurtful, confusing, demeaning and discriminatory. 
• The public statement of regret issued by the Agency was also to note the review and update that it has carried out since the 2021 Census on the Agency's Standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables in partnership with LGBTIQ+ community representatives; and to note the consultation process that the Agency expanded to maximise community participation.
• The Agency committed to establish an LGBTIQ+ Expert Advisory Committee for the 2026 Census to provide guidance and input into the Census topic review and framing of Census questions, and the way that Census data is processed and disseminated. 
• The relevant Minister agrees to meet with the Expert Advisory Committee in relation to his responsibilities with topics for the 2026 Census. 

The complainant applied for a role with the respondent government agency but was unsuccessful because he has diabetes.

The government agency claimed the complainant’s disability prevented him from safely performing the inherent requirements of the role but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant could proceed with the recruitment process and provide additional information about his disability.

The complainant is Ethiopian and has black skin. He was employed as a coordinator with the respondent charity. He claimed that members of the Anglo-Australian leadership team discriminated against him because of his race and colour, including by falsely blaming him for unexpected staff departures, falsely accusing him of being idle, suggesting they were unique people and did not need his leadership, and fabricating allegations of misconduct against him. He claimed they were trying to persuade him to quit. 

The charity denied that any of the alleged conduct arose due to the complainant’s race. The charity claimed tensions arose between the complainant and long-standing staff with a charity background because the complainant had previously been employed in the corporate sector. The charity acknowledged that there was poor communication with staff about the complainant’s role and objectives and robust change-management processes were not in place.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The charity agreed to pay the complainant his statutory entitlements, pay him $22,000 as general damages, write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to his complaint and provide him with a statement of service.

The complainant advised she had depression for a short period in the past and that this does not impact on her ability to work. She applied for an increase to income protection insurance which was granted with an exception for mental health issues. She said she applied for a further two increases to her income protection insurance and claims the respondent insurer granted the first request with an exception for mental health issues and declined the second request.

The insurer denied unlawful discrimination but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $9,000.
 

The complainant is legally blind and was employed as a senior staff member with the respondent recruitment agency. He alleged other members of senior staff and the business owner discriminated against him because of his disability, including by ridiculing him for not using two computer screens, making derogatory comments about his disability and threatening to demote him when he sought to access personal leave.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the employment relationship come to an end, the respondents pay the complainant $38,000 and provide him with a statement of service.

The complainant is a single mother of a school-aged child and worked in a management role with the respondent company. The company required staff in management to work on both days on weekends. The complainant said she informed the company she would be unable to work on both days on the weekend because of her family responsibilities. She said that, after initially accommodating her needs, the company later required her to work both days on weekends.

The company said all managers were required to work both days on weekends to meet operational needs and claimed this policy was developed in consultation with managers. The company said it encouraged the complainant to consider whether she could make arrangements for the care of her child or consider a different position in the company. The company said it was left with no option but to terminate the complainant’s employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $25,000 as general damages.

The complainant was a student of the respondent vocational training body. She alleged the training body informed her that due to her pregnancy, she would not be permitted to participate in a module with potentially distressing content, and that she could not complete three mandatory practical components of the course until six months post-partum. 

On being advised of the complaint, the training body indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the training body to change its policy to enable pregnant students to participate in the module that contained potentially distressing content subject to students signing a waiver confirming their awareness of the subject matter and potential for distress. The training body also undertook that while pregnant students would not be able to complete practical modules of the course in their last trimester for safety reasons, their ability to do so post-partum would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The complainant’s six-year-old son has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder and developmental delay. The complainant alleged the respondent independent school did not allow her son to attend the first week of kindergarten because he may scare other children and then would only allow him to attend school for three hours per day. The complainant also alleged that the school did not accommodate her son’s disability in the classroom, did not make allowances for her son’s disability when applying disciplinary policy and did not develop an individual plan for her son. The complainant’s son was ultimately suspended and the complainant removed him from the school. 

On being notified of the complaint, the school denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $25,000. The complainant agreed to take down negative social media content she had posted about the school.

The complainant has memory loss. He said he sought to import his mobile phone number with the respondent telecommunications provider to a different provider. He said he was unsuccessful because personal information held by the two providers did not match. The complainant alleged that when he contacted the respondent to address the issue, he was required to answer a number of personal questions to establish ownership of the account. As the complainant could not recall the answers to the questions, he was unable to establish ownership of the account. 

On being notified of the complaint, the telecommunications provider denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved once the telecommunications provider established the complainant was the owner of the account. The provider agreed to offer the complainant a free one-year phone plan.

The complainant works as a software support officer at the respondent company. He said that his son has a learning disability, asthma and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and needs a lot of one-to-one support and tuition. He alleged the company denied his request for a small reduction in working hours a few days a week to enable him to attend appointments and that a manager told him 'this is not a child care' and that it would affect the productivity of the team. He alleged he was singled out and required to take breaks at specific times.

The company said the complainant’s request could not be accommodated due to operational requirements. The company denied the alleged comment and said that all staff were required to take breaks for health and safety reasons.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant work from home for a set period. As the complainant would not need to travel to and from work, he would be able to take his son to appointments without changes to his working hours.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a driver for a goods transport company. She alleged that when her partner told the operations manager that she was pregnant, he said words to the effect that "we can't have pregnant chicks working here" and she was not offered any more work.

The company denied that the alleged statement was made and said the complainant was not offered work because there was no work available that met her requirements with regard to hours of work and type of vehicle used.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,650 as an Employee Termination Payment and develop a workplace anti-discrimination policy.

The complainant is gay. She was employed for three months with the respondent sports governing body. The complainant alleged that a colleague made comments about gay women which made her uncomfortable in the workplace including that playing the sport “will make you gay”, that gay women are more likely to have psychological issues and display predatory behaviours and that he would prefer that his children not be gay. The complainant also alleged another colleague made a comment of a sexual nature about a female celebrity and told her he did not want to be in a relationship because he “liked lots of girls”, which make the complainant uncomfortable. The complainant said she resigned and reported her concerns internally.

On being advised of the complaint the sport governing body indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the sport governing body pay the complainant approximately $10,000 less applicable tax (the equivalent of 8 weeks' pay) and provide her with a statement of service.