COMPLAINANT 202012 v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [2023] ACAT 17 | Case summary

COMPLAINANT 202012 v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [2023] ACAT 17 | Case summary | Zoe

This decision is about whether the complainant in the present matter, known as complainant 202012 (the complainant), was discriminated against by the respondent, the Community Services Directorate of the ACT Government (the Directorate).
The complainant approached the ACT Human Rights Commission (HRC) over the period August to October 2019, asserting that she had been discriminated against by Child and Youth Protection Services (CYPS), which is part of the Directorate. The discrimination was alleged to have occurred because CYPS took into account one or more irrelevant criminal convictions in a decision about kinship and carer responsibilities for her grandchildren (this decision is referred to as the impugned action or the impugned decision). The Commission treated the approach by the complainant as a complaint under section 42(1)(c) of the Human Rights Commission Act 2005 (HRC Act). The Directorate and the complainant were unable to settle the complaint by conciliation, and on 21 February 2020, the Commission closed the complaint under section 78(1)(f) of the HRC Act. At the complainant's request, the Commission referred the complaint to this tribunal under section 53A of the HRC Act. That referral confers on this tribunal jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint, and if the tribunal finds unlawful discrimination, to make remedial orders under section 53E of the HRC Act.
The matter came to its present status by a long and sometimes convoluted process. Discrimination complaints are decided under the application of both the Discrimination Act 1991 (the Discrimination Act) and the HRC Act. To succeed, a complaint must meet a number of tests, and the complainant must identify a number of parameters of the complaint (such as the complainant's protected attribute and the area of public life in which the alleged discrimination occurred). There is an expectation that the essential parameters of the complaint will be set out before the hearing process commences, and the supporting evidence made available, at least in outline. This is needed both to clarify the scope of the matter so as to allow it to be resolved, and also because the respondent is entitled to know the case to be answered with reasonable precision, so as to be able to prepare a defence.
As a result of the above considerations, attempts were made to gather detailed outlines of the complainant's case and the evidence in support. Over an extended period and on a number of occasions, orders were made at directions hearings for the provision of witness statements and supporting evidence, but discrimination matters are complex, and it is sometimes difficult for a self-represented complainant to assemble and organise the material needed to define a case with any precision. The complainant has provided a large volume of material, but it is not organised in a way that clearly sets out and supports her case.
It became clear that the complainant would have difficulty in assembling a case in the organised way that would usually be expected. This would make the conduct of a hearing more difficult because the diffuseness of the complainant's case would make it hard to gather evidence with any efficiency. There being already a large body of material that could be drawn on, however, the parties agreed at a directions hearing before me on 24 February 2022 that the matter should be decided on the papers, as provided for under section 54 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (the ACAT Act). I made orders at the time that the parties should provide any further evidence or submissions by four weeks after the directions hearing, that is by 24 March 2022.
The impugned decision was itself remade three times, as detailed below. Before the 24 February 2022 deadline for evidence and submissions was reached, on 4 March 2022, the complainant lodged an application for administrative review of the most recent of the remade decisions (the decision of Ms Jenna Schoer dated 9 July 2021). The possibility of this development had been discussed in a number of directions hearings under the present matter as it was reasonably clear that the complainant's difficulty with the impugned decision was not only that she thought it discriminatory, but also that she thought it wrong on the merits. In light of the new application, the orders I made on 24 February 2022 were set aside on 24 March 2022. Presidential Member Robinson dismissed the new application on 26 April 2022. On 23 June 2022, I reinstated orders similar to those of 24 February 2022, seeking further evidence and submissions by 15 July 2022. The respondent sought and was granted additional time to lodge its submissions, which were filed on 18 July 2022.
The papers now before me comprise a large volume of material from the complainant and some material from the respondent. From the complainant there is material about her personal history and a great deal about the effect of the impugned decision on her and her life. Some of the material (such as the medical evidence) may have been supplied to support requests for adjournment or the extension of deadlines for material to be provided. Generally speaking, the material is of variable relevance to the matters at issue. The material is set out in the table below.

In a general sense, the facts in this matter are not disputed. The complainant's criminal record consists first of three offences dating from 1987 when she was 17 years old, and one further offence occurring in 2010. The three offences from 1987 occurred on two successive days and consist of two counts of offensive behaviour in a public place (one on one day and one on the next), and one of "escape, break out of custody". The complainant appeared on the charges before the ACT Children's Court. On the earlier charge of offensive behaviour, the complainant was admonished and discharged with no finding of guilt. On the later of the offensive behaviour charges, a good behaviour bond of $100 was imposed for 12 months, and on the escape from custody charge the complainant was fined $50.[23]
In 2010, the complainant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with a level of alcohol in the blood above that permitted. The ACT Magistrates Court found the offence proved without conviction under section 17(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and imposed a good behaviour order for six months with a bond of $500.[24]
The complainant's family circumstances are that she had four children, and one of her sons had three children of his own. In 2016, the complainant applied to CYPS to be appointed kinship carer of these three grandchildren.[25] CYPS undertook a preliminary kinship carer assessment and the Delegate, identified as "Operations Manager South" in CYPS, decided not to authorise the complainant as a kinship carer for her grandchildren under the CYP Act.[26]
The decision comprises three distinct documents. The first is the preliminary kinship carer assessment and recommendation which appears to have been prepared by the Case Manager. This document presents as a compilation of the material assessed as potentially relevant and recommends that the application be rejected. The page evidently intended for the decision-making step includes the Case Manager's name, but not her signature, with the date of 6 December 2016. There is a signature by a Team Leader (presumably the Case Manager's supervisor) dated 5 December 2016; and a signature by the Delegate, also dated 5 December 2016, with a checked box explicitly refusing to authorise the complainant as kinship carer. The second document is a letter conveying the decision to the complainant, signed by the Delegate and dated 6 December 2016 in typed material at the commencement, but with a handwritten date of 22 December 2016 accompanying the signature. The letter includes no explanation of how the decision was arrived at, and there is no mention of the complainant's criminal record. The third document is a statement of reasons, and it is that document that sets out what the Delegate appears to have taken into account, out of the compiled information in the assessment, and explains how and why she arrived at her decision. It is signed by her and dated 23 December 2016.
These three documents - referred to, henceforth, as the assessment, the notification letter and the statement of reasons - deal with the complainant's criminal record in different ways. As the notification letter does not mention the complainant's criminal history, I do not need to refer further to it. The assessment compiles a significant quantity of information under various headings, covering several different aspects of the complainant's life. The references to the complainant's criminal record are as follows:

The Delegate provided a witness statement dated 12 July 2022, in which she stated that the complainant's criminal history "did not carry much weight" in the decision-making process in comparison to other matters;[30] and again that although "some regard" was given to the complainant's criminal history, "it carried no significance" compared to other considerations.[31]
It appears that the complainant wrote to CYPS seeking a review of the Delegate's decision. On 17 March 2017, Ms Vicki Anderson, identified as "Senior Manager South" for CYPS, conducted a review of the decision (the Anderson decision) and arrived at the same outcome that Ms Anderson decided once again not to authorise the complainant as kinship carer for her grandchildren. In her decision which appears to have been conducted as a merits review in the sense of a fresh decision taking into account the available evidence, Ms Anderson makes limited reference to the complainant's criminal history. She mentions the complainant's criminal record as an element in the Delegate's statement of reasons and includes the record as one of the documents taken into account, but her summary of reasons for arriving at the decision to deny kinship carer status makes no reference to the criminal record. In a witness statement dated 14 July 2022, Ms Anderson gives an explanation of how she arrived at her decision and once again does not mention the complainant's criminal history.
There were two subsequent decisions remaking the decision alleged to be discriminatory, both made in 2021. On 1 February 2021, an independent social worker, Ms Emma Selby, made an assessment of the complainant's suitability to be an approved carer (the Selby decision), concluding that she was not suitable for that role. On 9 July 2021, Ms Jenna Schoer, a delegate of the Director-General of the Directorate, made a decision not to approve the complainant as a carer under the CYP Act (the Schoer decision).
The complainant approached the HRC in August 2019, asserting that the initial decision of CYPS - i.e., the impugned decision - had discriminated against her. The series of emails in which she raised her complaint starts as follows, on 15 August 2019:

In my view, this is an accurate account of the process set out in the CYP Act and the argument is persuasively put. However, Mr Oram notes that there is also case law to the contrary: Director-General, Department of Community Services v MM[41] (MM) is an illustration of the point that in certain circumstances the director-general, when performing functions under the CYP Act, may indeed be delivering services to children and young people, but may be at the same time potentially delivering services to their family or carer.
In MM, Mr Oram, quite properly, has drawn to my attention a case that points away from rather than towards the conclusion for which he is arguing, noting however that the decision in MM was made in a different jurisdiction, under a different statute and in different circumstances. His contention is that in the present circumstances and with the present ACT statute, I should reach the conclusion he urges upon me rather than follow MM. But MM is on all fours with the present case. In that matter, the NSW equivalent of ACAT referred a question to the NSW Supreme Court asking whether the assessment of an applicant for foster carer status was the provision of a service to the applicant, provided under the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 (NSW), the NSW equivalent of the CYP Act, for the purposes of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The answer given by Barr J was that the assessment provided a service to the applicant.
The particular case involved partnered foster carers, one of whom suffered from a mental illness. For that reason, the NSW Department had denied them foster carer status. In his judgment, Barr J first notes the strong endorsement in the case law for a broad understanding of the term "services" and canvasses the view of the courts in the leading cases. His Honour then notes that even if it is clear that any service being delivered is first and foremost to the children and young people whose care and protection is necessarily the Department's paramount consideration, it does not follow that the activity does not at the same time provide a service to a second group, namely those seeking to take on care and protection responsibilities. His conclusion is to the following effect:

The definition of "irrelevant criminal record" in the Dictionary of the Discrimination Act describes in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) characteristics of the criminal record of the person who claims to have been discriminated against, and in paragraph (e) describes how the person has been treated in the course of the action claimed to have been discriminatory, that is, by the impugned action.
In the present case, it is not a matter of dispute that the complainant has a criminal record, nor that that record was taken into account in the Delegate's decision. The question is whether the criminal record itself or the way that the assessment and decision dealt with the criminal record met the definition of "irrelevant criminal record" under the legislation. Of the six ways in which a criminal record can be irrelevant, in paragraphs (a) to (f), the first four are not applicable in this case, but paragraphs (e) and (f) are both potentially applicable.
Taking paragraph (f) first, a criminal record is irrelevant under the Discrimination Act if "the person has a spent conviction or an extinguished conviction, within the meaning of the Spent Convictions Act 2000, for the offence."
Applying the definition of "spent conviction" in section 12 of the SC Act, it is clear that the complainant's convictions are all spent (and that is common ground between the parties). The consequence of a conviction being spent, as spelt out in section 16 of the SC Act, is that the conviction cannot be taken into account in a range of circumstances; but that consequence is excluded under the circumstances set out in section 19 which applies specifically to decisions of the kind now impugned. Thus, the SC Act provides specifically for convictions, even when spent, to be taken into account in decisions about the care and supervision of children and young people; but it appears that such decisions might be discriminatory under the Discrimination Act if all the other parameters of the latter Act are met.
Legislation is in general interpreted so that, as far as possible, contradictions of this kind are avoided, and different statutes operate together harmoniously: it makes no sense, in the present instance, to think that the legislature passed a statute that requires or permits spent convictions to be taken into account in particular circumstances but chose not to exclude such actions from the ambit of the discrimination statute. The respondent's contention on this point is that the specific arrangements in the SC Act should prevail over the general provisions of the Discrimination Act.[42]
There is a rule of statutory construction that a general provision, passed later than an earlier inconsistent specific provision, whether in a different or the same statute, does not impliedly repeal the earlier provision. This is sometimes referred to by the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. The principle was stated as follows by Spigelman CJ in The Ombudsman v Laughton (Laughton):[43]

This is a case in which it is not a simple matter to apply the maxim. The Discrimination Amendment Act 2016 can be regarded as a general amendment as it deals with a number and variety of the provisions in the Discrimination Act, but the definition of "irrelevant criminal record" includes at paragraph (f) a specific reference to the SC Act. The latter is not a long and complex piece of legislation (there are only 45 sections), and a cursory look should have revealed the exclusions in section 19. This is not an example of a general provision, where in the words of Spigelman CJ "the very generality of the words ... indicates that the legislature is not able to identify or even anticipate every circumstance in which it may apply".
The alternative approach suggested by Basten JA offers some help in the present instance. Both the Discrimination Act and the SC Act are examples of legislation intended to help the vulnerable: in the Discrimination Act those who, because of one or more protected attributes, may receive treatment that is unfair; under the SC Act, those whose criminal history might otherwise pursue them through life. Section 19 of the SC Act identifies even more vulnerable groups, such as children and young people, to whom additional protection is provided. The purposive approach to statutory construction, reflected in the ACT by section 139 of the Legislation Act 2001, the equivalent of section 33 in the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), does not easily enable the inconsistency to be resolved, especially given that the Discrimination Act requires that a construction be adopted that is beneficial to people with protected attributes;[45] but giving effect to the clear intention in the SC Act that the protection of children and young people should be afforded additional protection seems to me the interpretation that would "best achieve the purpose of the Act".[46]
Taking all of the above into account, it is my view that the only sensible construction of the inconsistent sections from the two Acts is that the intention is that where the exclusions in section 19 of the SC Act are properly applied, it is not intended that the resultant actions or decisions would be unlawful under the Discrimination Act. That leads me towards a conclusion that an assessment of a kinship carer application that took into account a spent conviction should not be regarded as taking into account an "irrelevant criminal record" provided that the SC Act provision in section 19 were properly applied, which means applied with tests for relevance and consideration of the weight any reference to a spent conviction ought to be given, in accordance with the detailed provision in section 65(1)(a) of the CYP Act.
That is also the implication of paragraph (e) of the definition of "irrelevant criminal record": "the person has a conviction for the offence, but the circumstances of the offence are not directly relevant to the situation in which discrimination arises."
The complainant's criminal record is referred to in the statement of reasons (and in the assessment) without any consideration of the relevance of it to the decision under consideration. This is not some unimportant oversight: in particular, the convictions for offensive behaviour and escaping custody are from some thirty years earlier, given by the children's court, when the complainant was 17 years old. Although more emphasis is given in the statement of reasons to the complainant's child protection history, in the final summing up of the reasons the complainant's criminal record and her child protection history are referred to with equal emphasis. At no stage is any attention given to the relevance of the criminal history. This is entirely at odds with the intent of paragraph (e) of the definition of "irrelevant criminal record".
Was the complainant's criminal record directly relevant to the decision about kinship carer status? If the question had been asked, I believe the Delegate would have concluded that it was not. The inclusion of "directly" means that the criminal record must be more than marginally or adjectivally relevant; it must bear straightforwardly and with some immediacy on the decision or action being contemplated. Section 65(1)(a) of the CYP Act spells out a test for relevance, a test that was never applied in the impugned decision. The contrast with the later revised decisions could not be more stark. The Anderson decision notes the existence of the criminal record but does not include it in the reasons for the decision. The Selby decision states that for the purposes of section 65(1)(a) of the CYP Act the complainant's criminal history contains no relevant "conviction or finding of guilt", and the Schoer decision contains the statement that "It is also not necessary to consider s 65(1)(a) as there are no convictions or findings of guilt against [the complainant] for the types of offences listed under subsection 65(1)(a)(i)-(viii)".
Taking all the above into consideration, I have no hesitation in finding that the impugned action took into account an irrelevant criminal record under the Discrimination Act.
With regard to the tension between the SC and Discrimination Acts, it is not difficult to see how a simple amendment could resolve the issue. That might be worth the effort if there is a significant number of occasions on which spent convictions influence the outcome of carer assessments or other similar decisions covered by section 19 of the SC Act.

A great deal has been written about causation in the context of discrimination matters. Causation in such matters is often complex and hard to disentangle, and the evidence may be scant. The leading Australian case is Purvis v New South Wales,[47] in which the High Court made a detailed examination of the causation test, in that case under NSW law, although the law in the ACT is closely similar in relevant ways. The plurality referred to several ways of dealing with causation (relating to matters such as motive, purpose and effect), rejecting them and framing the test as follows: "Rather, the central question will always be - why was the aggrieved person treated as he or she was?"[48]
This test, although simply worded, is nevertheless not always simple to apply. But in the present matter I have a statement of reasons by the Delegate, explaining her decision. On the basis of that statement, and for the two reasons explained below, I think that it is reasonable to conclude, in the absence of any other evidence, that the impugned decision treated the complainant unfavourably because of her irrelevant criminal record.
First, the statement of reasons by the Delegate gives weight to the complainant's criminal record - a weight not significantly different from that given to her child protection history. The two sentences that appear under the heading "Statement of reasons" say first that she is willing to be a kinship carer and then note that because of her criminal record and child protection history, she is not suitable. That formulation does not easily lend itself to an interpretation that the criminal record carried little or no weight in the conclusion.
The following sentence occurs earlier in the statement of reasons: "In relation to s65 of the Children and Young People Act 2008 I have not assessed [the complainant] as a suitable entity as a kinship carer as there is a history of a conviction in relation to drive motor vehicle with alcohol in blood, 2 times offensive behaviour in a public place and escape, break out of custody". That would seem a direct statement of causation.
Second, section 4AA of the Discrimination Act requires me to interpret the Act beneficially to the person with the protected attribute, so far as to do so is consistent with the objects of the Act and the Human Rights Act 2004, and subsection 4A(2) states that doing a matter under the Act includes "doing an act because of 2 or more matters that include the particular matter, whether or not the particular matter is the dominant or substantial reason for doing the act". The result of applying these interpretive provisions is that I am encouraged to regard the irrelevant criminal record as a cause of the unfavourable treatment in the complainant's case, even if it is not the dominant cause or even a substantial cause.

I have already considered point (a) above concluding that the CYPS decision was indeed the provision of a service. On point (b), I am in agreement with the respondent's argument, so far as it goes,[49] but the respondent's submission does not deal at all with paragraph (e) of the definition of "irrelevant criminal record", nor does it consider how a spent conviction taken into account under section 19 of the SC Act should be tested for relevance to minimise any possibility of discrimination. On those points, I have already reached the conclusion that the complainant had an irrelevant criminal record for the purposes of the Discrimination Act.
With regard to the question of causation - whether or not the unfavourable treatment was caused by the complainant's criminal record - the respondent relies heavily on the statements by the Delegate in her witness statement to the effect that it was the complainant's child protection history that led to the refusal of kinship carer responsibility, and not the criminal record. That is supported by the statement of Ms Anderson and by the general disposition of subsequent decisions in the matter, which were all to the same effect - denying the complainant kinship carer status - and all of which, after that by the Delegate, arrived at that outcome without relying on the complainant's criminal record.
It is generally the case that where a document has a legal purpose, it is the wording of the document itself that is the best guide to its meaning. That doctrine is given legal force in relation to contracts (the parole evidence rule), legislation (constraints on use of extrinsic materials) and wills, among others. However, the same logic that underpins those rules also applies here. Section 22B of the ACAT Act provides that where a decision-maker makes a reviewable decision and a person affected requests it, the decision-maker must provide a statement of reasons, unless such a statement has already been provided with the decision. It is common practice for reviewable decisions to be accompanied by statements of reasons. These statements set out the basis on which the decision was taken, give information to the person affected, and help enable them to decide whether to seek review.
In the present instance, the Delegate gave a statement of reasons, and that document can be expected to provide an accurate account to the complainant of how a decision adverse to her interests came to be made. It is surely reasonable to rely on that contemporaneous statement to discover the truth about how the decision came to be taken, rather than to turn to the Delegate's witness statement, a statement made well after the event and at risk of being self-serving or justificatory. For that reason, I prefer to rely on the statement of reasons given at the time.
That statement points unmistakably, in my view, to the complainant's criminal record having played a part in the Delegate's decision. It would be possible to treat the somewhat pro forma references to the criminal record in the statement of reasons as an indication of the paucity of attention given to that factor compared with the rather fuller and more immediate account of the child protection history, and so conclude that the criminal record of the complainant was, ultimately, of no causal significance to the decision. But to do so, in my view, would be to engage in an ex post facto rationalisation and justification rather than a fair reading of the document.

(a) the commission refers a complaint to the ACAT under this division; and

(b) the ACAT is satisfied that the person complained about engaged in an unlawful act.

(2) The ACAT must make 1 or more of the following orders:

(a) that the person complained about not repeat or continue the unlawful act;

(b) that the person complained about perform a stated reasonable act to redress any loss or damage suffered by a person because of the unlawful act;

(c) unless the complaint has been dealt with as a representative complaint - that the person complained about pay to a person a stated amount by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by the person because of the unlawful act.

_(3) In making an order under subsection (2) (c), the ACAT must consider - _

(a) the person's right to equality before the law and the impact of the discrimination on the enjoyment of that right; and

(b) the inherent dignity of all people and the impact of the discrimination on the person's dignity; and

(c) the public interest in ensuring an appropriate balance between the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination and equality before the law without distinction or discrimination and other human rights; and

(d) the nature of the discrimination; and

(e) any mitigating factors.

Examples - par (b) - impact of discrimination

distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, loss of enjoyment of life

Example - par (c) - other human rights

freedom of expression

Examples - par (d)

serious or repeated discrimination, intentional or malicious discrimination, discrimination on the grounds of 2 or more protected attributes under the Discrimination Act 1991

Examples - par (e)

a public apology, systemic changes to protect against further discrimination

(4) The commission may, with the ACAT's consent, intervene in a complaint to make submissions about an order under subsection (2) (c).

(5) In this section:

representative complaint means a complaint that is dealt with by the commission as a representative complaint under section 71.

The three kinds of remedy set out in subsection 53E(2) may be summarised as reform, redress and compensation. The complainant has not given any clear indication of the remedies she is seeking, although it appears to me that a finding that discrimination has occurred would be among her primary aims. In the absence of any specification of preferred remedies, I propose to canvass the range of remedies in the section.
With regard to the possibility of an order under section 53E(2)(a) to the Directorate or to CYPS "not to repeat or continue" the discriminatory behaviour, I note that in Australian Capital Territory v Wang,[60] the Tribunal noted the narrow scope of the power granted under this provision.
The impugned decision does not follow the guidelines that CYPS has adopted for decisions of this kind.[61] Those guidelines are comprehensive and closely aligned with the legislative framework under which they are made, including with section 65 of the CYP Act (setting out suitability information, including an applicant's criminal history). They limit any reference to a person's criminal record to the characteristics identified in section 65(1)(a) of the CYP Act as relevant to a decision about kinship carer status. Clearly those guidelines were not applied in the impugned decision as the question regarding potential relevance appears not to have been even asked.
I have therefore made orders that the Directorate ensure that decision-makers taking kinship carer decisions under the CYP Act take applicants' criminal records into account in accordance with the provisions of section 65 of the CYP Act. My jurisdiction is limited to the kinds of decision taken in the present matter; but it is of course open to the Directorate to look more widely at the decision-making practices of delegates making other similar decisions.
I do not propose to make any orders under paragraph (b) of section 53E(2). The impugned decision was discriminatory, but it does not follow that it arrived at the wrong outcome. The same decision would have been arrived at without relying on the complainant's criminal record. This is not an application for administrative review, and it is not my role to remake the impugned decision; but that decision was remade three times, each time with the same outcome, and without substantial reference to the complainant's criminal record. No evidence has been advanced, and no substantive argument put, that those subsequent decisions were wrong, discriminatory or mistaken as to fact or law. The complainant herself clearly disagrees with them but has offered no detailed explanation of where they depart from fact or reason. There is an abundance of evidence provided in the T‑documents which would explain how and why a decision to deny kinship carer status to the complainant could be arrived at.[62] At the complainant's application the decision was remade; the defects in the impugned decision do not appear in the remade decisions. If there is no basis for concluding that the decision arrived at the wrong outcome, there is no basis for an order in the nature of redress.
When considering compensation under section 53E(2), subsection 53E(3) lists matters that the ACAT must consider, as follows:

COMPLAINANT 202012 v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (206 paragraphs)

COMPLAINANT 202012 v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE (Discrimination) [2023] ACAT 17 (14 March 2023)

Parties

Legislation Cited (10)

Cases Cited (1)