"An efficient process, a fair hearing and a decision made according to law"

An interview with the Honourable Justice Roslyn Atkinson
First Member and President of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Qld.

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 established the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The Tribunal’s main function is to hear and determine complaints in relation to contraventions of the Act referred to it by the Commission. Complaints are referred to the Tribunal when they are unable to be settled through conciliation at the Commission.

The Tribunal is required to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice, equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case (section 208). Various forms of redress may be ordered by the Tribunal , including damages of "an amount the tribunal considers appropriate as compensation for loss or damage caused by the contravention" (section 209).

Roslyn Atkinson (as she then was) was appointed as first Member of the Tribunal in 1992 and continued in this role until 1994. At that time other members were appointed, and she was elevated to the position of first President of the Tribunal - a position held until 1997. Other positions held include : Hearing Commissioner for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Commissioner and Deputy Chairperson of the Queensland Law Reform Commission. Today the Honourable Justice Roslyn Atkinson is a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Brisbane.

The early days of the Tribunal were ground breaking times where policies and procedures were set in place to ensure "an efficient process, a fair hearing and a decision made according to law." Justice Atkinson however is quick to point out that parties who come to the Tribunal must realise that they are in a different place from the Commission. They have crossed from mediation, to an adjudicative process. While at the Tribunal, it was her aim to see that this process produced a result that was fair to all parties. In order to make the process fair, the proceedings were deliberately made informal and applied even handedly.

Justice Atkinson commended the high standard of legal representation for parties on both sides during her time at the Tribunal. At a time where every case was a landmark case and created valuable interpretation of the law, she thought the lawyers were keen to facilitate a fair outcome by representing their client’s interests. It was vital for the integrity of the Tribunal that it be conducted in a way that was scrupulously fair, so that its determinations would be respected by both parties.

The position of complainants before the Tribunal was well understood by Justice Atkinson. She commented "A complainant who has been discriminated against because of a vulnerable position, ironically, has to be quite strong to carry it through to the end, because litigation is hard. Any kind of litigation is hard."

As the sole member of the Tribunal, Member Atkinson (as she then was), presided over many major and landmark cases in discrimination law, not only for Queensland but Australia. She recalled that at the time, each new matter heard was a test case in its own way, and provided her with the unique opportunity to state how the law was to be applied, and this in turn would be followed in other cases.

In paying tribute to the early litigants she said "One thing that those relatively strong and determined individuals do, is they vindicate the rights of a lot of other people who don't then have to come to a hearing, because the Commission is then able to tell people what the law is in that area……They had such a long term impact on the lives of other people in this state."

Some cases which readily came to mind were Kevin Cocks v State of Queensland. This case, which concerned access to the front entrance of the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre for people with a mobility impairment, changed the view of the sorts of access that should be provided to public buildings.

With regard to sexual harassment, the cases of Relsie Doyle and Rebecca Moore v the Black Community Housing Service and others was highly significant, as it showed Aboriginal women asserting their rights not to be sexually harassed in their own community. The cases of Caroline Tulk and Sandra Boehmer v Stanley Moore and others sent a clear message about the right of women not to be harassed in the workplace. Narelle Hopper v Mt Isa Mines and others added to the case law, and pointed out that it wasn't enough for employers to employ women in difficult positions, and just leave them to sink or swim. It showed not only that women shouldn't be exposed to a hostile work environment, but indicated the sort of steps that should be taken to change such an environment.

The case of JM v QFG and GK and State of Queensland which involved the question of access to fertility treatment by a lesbian, was important for a reason other than the merits of the case. It was the first Queensland Tribunal case which had received a generally negative reaction from the media, and where the extent of discrimination faced by lesbians was manifested.

Justice Atkinson commended the Act as being comprehensive, clear and well set out, noting that these things are important if people are to be able to exercise their rights.

In summing up her time as Member and President of the Tribunal, Justice Atkinson described it as a "magnificent opportunity…..an enriching experience….It was just absolutely a privilege to me to have an insight into the people who appeared before me and their views of the world, and the contribution they have made to changing the world for everyone else."

index of this newsletter