sec.319GWhen treatment of offender by protected defendant is not direct discrimination

### sec.319G When treatment of offender by protected defendant is not direct discrimination This section applies if a protected defendant treats, or proposes to treat, an offender with an attribute less favourably than another offender without the attribute in circumstances that are the same or not materially different. For the Anti-Discrimination Act , section 10 the protected defendant does not directly discriminate against the offender if the treatment, or proposed treatment, is reasonable. In considering whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, is reasonable, the tribunal must consider any relevant submissions made about any of the following— the security and good order of any corrective services facility in which the offender was detained when the protected defendant treated, or proposed to treat, the offender less favourably; the cost to the protected defendant of providing alternative treatment; the administrative and operational burden that providing alternative treatment might place on the protected defendant; the disruption to the protected defendant that providing alternative treatment might cause; the budget constraints of the protected defendant; the resources constraints of the protected defendant; whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, adequately meets the needs of the offender, notwithstanding the availability of alternative treatment that more ideally meets the needs of the offender; the need to respect offenders’ dignity; whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, unfairly prejudices other offenders; any other matter the tribunal considers relevant. In a case involving an allegation of direct discrimination by an offender against a protected defendant, the protected defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment, or proposed treatment, is reasonable. s 319G ins 2008 No. 53 s 4 amd 2024 No. 47 s 54A (uncommenced amendment) (sec.319G-ssec.1) This section applies if a protected defendant treats, or proposes to treat, an offender with an attribute less favourably than another offender without the attribute in circumstances that are the same or not materially different. (sec.319G-ssec.2) For the Anti-Discrimination Act , section 10 the protected defendant does not directly discriminate against the offender if the treatment, or proposed treatment, is reasonable. (sec.319G-ssec.3) In considering whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, is reasonable, the tribunal must consider any relevant submissions made about any of the following— the security and good order of any corrective services facility in which the offender was detained when the protected defendant treated, or proposed to treat, the offender less favourably; the cost to the protected defendant of providing alternative treatment; the administrative and operational burden that providing alternative treatment might place on the protected defendant; the disruption to the protected defendant that providing alternative treatment might cause; the budget constraints of the protected defendant; the resources constraints of the protected defendant; whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, adequately meets the needs of the offender, notwithstanding the availability of alternative treatment that more ideally meets the needs of the offender; the need to respect offenders’ dignity; whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, unfairly prejudices other offenders; any other matter the tribunal considers relevant. (sec.319G-ssec.4) In a case involving an allegation of direct discrimination by an offender against a protected defendant, the protected defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment, or proposed treatment, is reasonable. - (a) the security and good order of any corrective services facility in which the offender was detained when the protected defendant treated, or proposed to treat, the offender less favourably; - (b) the cost to the protected defendant of providing alternative treatment; - (c) the administrative and operational burden that providing alternative treatment might place on the protected defendant; - (d) the disruption to the protected defendant that providing alternative treatment might cause; - (e) the budget constraints of the protected defendant; - (f) the resources constraints of the protected defendant; - (g) whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, adequately meets the needs of the offender, notwithstanding the availability of alternative treatment that more ideally meets the needs of the offender; - (h) the need to respect offenders’ dignity; - (i) whether the treatment, or proposed treatment, unfairly prejudices other offenders; - (j) any other matter the tribunal considers relevant.