4. I say at the outset that I do not interpret these requirements as meaning that a bald allegation without any detail is sufficient. To simply allege, for example, "I was discriminated against by Cummins Engine Co Pty Ltd on the basis of sex", and complain of nothing more, would, in my view be insufficient. If Mr Irving is so arguing, and at one stage it appeared to me that he was, I am against him. To rule otherwise would be to render useless the provisions of s.75 of the VCAT Act. Whilst it is the allegation, as opposed to the evidence, that is important, the Tribunal is required to investigate whether or not s.75 operates - whether the proceeding is entirely or in part frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or otherwise an abusive process. If it is sufficient for an applicant to complain by way of a bald allegation or by simply repeating the words of the Act, no "strike out" application could ever succeed unless there was a failure to complain or recite with accuracy. That in turn smacks of arguments concerning pleadings. With the exception of two affidavits to which I shall turn in a moment, this particular case proceeded solely on the basis of submissions which in turn related to the complaints of the applicant. These complaints, whilst repetitious, are detailed. In my opinion, it is necessary for me to look not just at the fact that a complaint or allegation has been made, but at the substance of the allegation, and assume that the facts in it can be proved, in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the proceeding is one which falls within s.75. It does not seem to me to be enough to recite, in a pro forma way, a type of pleading without any or any sufficient substance or detail.