Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander case studies
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.
- Race discrimination (Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples) : summaries of court and tribunal decisions
- Race discrimination (Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples) : summaries of conciliated outcomes
Court and tribunal decisions are made after all the evidence is heard, including details of loss and damage. The full text of court and tribunal decisions is available from:
Conciliated outcomes are where the parties have reached an agreement through conciliation at the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Court and tribunal decisions
Race discrimination in work
Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Work |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $76,704.81 |
Year | 2012 |
Summary The tribunal said the racially offensive comment about a colleague who was not present was sufficient in itself to amount to less favourable treatment. The refusal to swap shifts had the added detriment of depriving the man of benefits associated with a workplace where swapping shifts was common and potentially causing other workers to be resentful of him. The co-worker was directed to apologise to the man, but during the telephone apology she made it worse by making further inappropriate comments and effectively telling the man he needed to move on. The tribunal said the failure to apologise appropriately also constituted less favourable treatment. The man was awarded a total amount of $76,704.81, of which $40,000 was for general damages. The general damages had been discounted because of other factors which contributed to the man's depressive illness. The award of damages was upheld on appeal. Barney v State of Queensland & Anor [2012] QCAT 695 (1 November 2012) and |
Group of Aboriginal people refused service and ejected from nightclub
Type of outcome | Anti-Discrimination Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race – Aboriginal |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $10,000 each, plus interest of $1,375 each |
Year | 2000 |
Summary Other members of the group were then refused service at two of the bars when they tried to order drinks, including soft drinks. The group was then encircled by a number of security officers. One of the women was told she should go downstairs and see the man who had been ejected, and after she went downstairs, she was not allowed to re-enter the nightclub. The others were then encouraged to go downstairs and they too were refused re-entry. As they left, security officers said " The tribunal accepted that the members of the group were not intoxicated and their behavior was no different to other patrons in the nightclub. Records showed that security had been called because the nightclub wanted to eject a group of Aboriginal people. The tribunal found that the only reasonable explanation for the incidents was the group's race, and their relationship to each other. The tribunal said the discrimination was serious and blatant, and occurred over a period of time. An enjoyable and special evening had turned into a most upsetting and unfortunate encounter. It was intimidating and embarrassing for the six people, and they had been deeply hurt over the treatment they had to suffer. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation of $10,000 plus interest of $1,375 to each of the six people in the group. Wharton v Conrad International Hotel Corporation [2000] QADT 18 (8 December 2000) |
Refusing to rent to an Aboriginal person
Type of outcome | Anti-Discrimination Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $9,000 |
Year | 1997 |
Summary Because the woman didn't believe the man, she arranged for a relative to ring and enquire about the availability of the advertised unit. The man informed the relative that the unit was still available. The man claimed another person had agreed to rent the unit earlier in the day before he met the woman. However, the other person failed to return with the bond and rent the following day as arranged, so the unit had been put back on the market by the time the woman's relative rang. He claimed the phone call from the relative was 5 days after he met the woman. The tribunal found that phone call by the relative happened on the same day the woman met the man, and that the man told the woman the unit was not available when he realised she was Aboriginal. There was no reliable or credible evidence that the unit was not available when the woman met the man and had become available later that day. The tribunal found the woman had been treated less favourably because of her race, and awarded $9,000 in damages plus costs. D v G and O Pty Ltd [1997] QADT 8 (12 February 1997) |
Aboriginal woman told a rental house was too good for her
Type of outcome | Anti-Discrimination Tribunal decision |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race – Aboriginal |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome | Complaint upheld |
Compensation | $18,000 |
Year | 1995 |
Summary When the woman and her mother (also Aboriginal) went to inspect the house as arranged, the owner's wife indicated the house had been rented to someone else, and said the house was Later that day, the woman's sister-in-law rang the advertised number enquiring about the house to rent, and she was told the house was still available. That evening, the woman's husband also rang and spoke to the owner's daughter, who told him her father didn't want to rent to The tribunal accepted that an agreement to rent the house had been reached between the woman and the owner's wife over the telephone, and that the owner's wife had withdrawn from the agreement when she saw that the woman was an Aborigine with dark skin. The tribunal found the owner's wife was acting as the owner's agent, with both actual and ostensible authority. This meant the owner was responsible for the discriminatory conduct of his wife. The tribunal found the refusal to rent caused the woman to remain in overcrowded emergency housing with her husband and six children, for a number of months. Being told the house was too good for her, and that a sub-standard house down the road was more suitable for her, was deeply hurtful to the woman. She experienced continuing pain and humiliation from the refusal to rent, and had adopted the strategy of having her husband inspect houses for rent to avoid again being denied housing because of her Aboriginality. In awarding damages of $18,000, the tribunal took into consideration the blatant nature of the original refusal, and that the woman's offence, embarrassment and humiliation was added to by the way the proceedings were conducted. The owner was also ordered to pay the woman's costs. Lynton v Maugeri [1995] QADT 3 (4 May 1995) |
Conciliated outcomes
No mask for First Nations customer
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Written acknowledgement and statement of regret Review of policies and training about cultural awareness and diversity Review of Reconciliation Action Plan Vouchers to be used in-store |
Year | 2021–2022 |
Summary The store disputed this and said that the complainant was treated the same as others in the store who were not wearing a mask, but agreed to provide the complainant with a written acknowledgement and statement of regret, to review their policies and training around cultural awareness and diversity, including review of their Reconciliation Action Plan, and to provide the complainant with vouchers she could use in-store. |
Police express regret about asking traditional custodians to move on while exercising their cultural rights
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination plus Human Rights Act (piggy-back) |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Administration of State laws and programs |
Relevant human rights |
Recognition and equality before the law (section 15) Freedom of movement (section 19) Cultural rights – Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) |
Outcome |
Public statement of regret Acknowledgement of hurt, humiliation, and embarrassment caused Commitment to take cultural sensitivities into account in the future |
Year | 2021 |
Summary Cultural rights of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples are specifically protected by the Human Rights Act , including the right to maintain their distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters with which they hold a connection. The family told the police that they had received expert advice that they could lawfully exercise their cultural rights and responsibilities. However, the police required the group to pack up their equipment and leave within an hour. The family says that this caused grief and trauma. The Queensland Police Service agreed to provide a statement of regret which was able to be shared publicly. The statement acknowledged that the events caused embarrassment, hurt and humiliation for the complainant and his extended family, that there are complex legal issues and cultural sensitivities, and that the QPS will commit to take into account the issues in the complaint in future responses. |
Racist comments at work
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Cultural supervision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff Review of hiring processes |
Compensation | $5,000 |
Year | 2018–2019 |
Summary The complainant alleged he had been subjected to racist comments by his supervisor. The complainant chose to pursue his complaint with the organisation as the supervisor had already left the organisation. He was of the view that the organisation should have included questions focussed on cultural awareness and sensitivity when hiring staff to avoid the racist treatment he had experienced, and to ensure appropriate hiring. At conciliation the parties discussed broader systemic issues around the organisation’s hiring process as well the professional supports available for employees who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. The agreement included:
|
Race discrimination in accommodation
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Accommodation |
Outcome | Financial compensation |
Compensation | $3,000 |
Summary He was very upset as he had an exemplary rental record but thought he was not even considered because of his race. The respondents were unable to field a satisfactory explanation. The matter settled for $3,000. |
Racist comments in meal breaks
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Work |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Apology Improved induction process |
Summary Because the complainant felt he could no longer work with the three men, the employer moved him to a different location. The position to which he was moved became redundant shortly after he arrived and the employer would not find him an alternative position. The employer denied any liability. At the conciliation conference the employer admitted that the workers who had made the comments had not been made aware of the company's discrimination policies. They agreed to pay the complainant compensation and provide an apology as well as instigate a better induction process. The employees offered to provide a written apology. |
Sensitive matters
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Not available |
Attribute | Not available |
Area | Not available |
Outcome | Not available |
Summary: An Aboriginal woman lodged a complaint against the Chair of a local organisation. The details of the complaint were of a very sensitive nature. The respondent denied all of the allegations. The lodgement of the complaint caused disquiet in the small community where the respondent, and many of the complainant's family lived. The parties declined to participate in a face-to-face conciliation conference. The Commission staff conducted a |
Race discrimination at sporting centre
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Supplying goods or services |
Outcome |
Written apology Free individual sport program for each complainant |
Summary The complainant, who was alleged to have been rude to the non-Aboriginal patron, denied the allegation and asked the respondent to arrange for her to speak to the non-Aboriginal patron to sort out the issue. The respondent would not listen to the complainant's explanation and the complainants believed that earlier requests for medical certificates pointed to race discrimination, particularly as non-Aboriginal groups did not face the same requests. Following a conciliation conference the respondent agreed to provide a written apology to each complainant acknowledging the complainants' hurt and humiliation caused by the respondent's decision to exclude them from the program. The respondent agreed to provide an individual sport program free of charge to each of the women. |
Race discrimination at interview
Type of outcome | Conciliation |
Contravention | Discrimination |
Attribute | Race |
Area | Applying for work |
Outcome |
Financial compensation Written apology Non-discriminatory recruitment process |
Compensation | $1,000 |
Summary The complainant became suspicious about the interview, as she believed she had all the experience and skills necessary to do the job, and further was told by her previous employer that he had provided a glowing referee report to the interviewer of her work performance to date. The woman became concerned when, after being informed that she was unsuccessful for the position, she saw the very same position advertised again a week later. She contacted the hotel for an explanation, but could not get one. The woman then decided to lodge a complaint of discrimination on the ground of race, as she alleged the interviewer displayed surprise that she was Aboriginal when she turned up for the interview for the position. In conciliation the respondent paid her compensation of $1,000 for hurt and humiliation, provided a written apology and agreed to include a reference to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) in advertising and to incorporate EEO in future vacancy selections and interviewing. |