public authority employees
public authorities bound by section 38 of the
Charter. Consistent with this obligation, under
the Public Administration Act 2004, human rights
are a "public sector value" to be respected
and promoted by public officials. Further, the
Code of Conduct for Victorian Public Sector
Employees requires employees to demonstrate a
commitment to human rights by making decisions
consistent with human rights and delivering
services and programs in a manner consistent
with the Charter.
decisions, where employees working in
community residential units were dismissed for
failing to respect human rights and for infringing
a individual's right not to be treated in a cruel,
inhuman and degrading way.
a community residential service by a disability
services officer amounted to cruel and degrading
treatment in breach of section 10(b) of the
Charter. The Charter breach amounted to serious
misconduct under the Public Administration
Act and was one of the grounds justifying his
dismissal.
disability services officers whose employment
was terminated after their treatment of a
resident was found to breach section 10(b)
of the Charter and section 8 of the Code of
Conduct for Victorian Public Sector Employees
(demonstrating commitment to human rights).
capacity, it is a public authority bound by section
38 to give proper consideration to human rights
and to act compatibly with them.
a decision to grant an exemption from the
provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.
The Equal Opportunity Act also expressly
requires VCAT to consider the Charter in
exemption applications, by requiring it to
determine whether the proposed exemption is a
reasonable limit on the right to equality (section 8
of the Charter).
(Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2012] VCAT 1384;
Cornish College (Anti-Discrimination Exemption)
[2012] VCAT 889; BAE Systems Australia Limited
(Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2012] VCAT 349.
recognised its Charter obligations but found that no
human rights were engaged: see Charteris v Victorian
WorkCover Authority (General) [2012] VCAT 817;
Tregale v Department of Human Services (General)
[2012] VCAT 722; and Whinnett v Office of Public
Prosecutions (General) [2012] VCAT 573.
in 2012. Three exemptions were granted, with
each held to be a reasonable limit on the equality
right.
girls and their young sons for two hours on Friday
evenings. VCAT found that an exemption was not
necessary because the conduct amounted to a
"special measure" under the Equal Opportunity
Act, which is a measure "for the purpose of
promoting or realising substantive equality for
members of a group with a particular attribute".
opportunities for women (and, in some cases, their
children) to participate in aquatic activities, when
they might not otherwise be able to do so due to
religious, cultural or other personal reasons.
freedom of information (FOI) applications. For
example, in Horrocks v Department of Justice,
request to the Department of Justice for a copy
of CCTV footage showing an assault on him by
prison security officers. The Department refused.
VCAT upheld the Department's refusal after
concluding that the footage was exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act 1982 because: it would be likely to impede
the proper administration of the prison; it would
be an unreasonable disclosure of information
relating to the personal affairs of prison staff;
and it revealed information about prison security
measures that was confidential information
under the Corrections Act 1986. VCAT found that
unconditional release of the footage would not
be in the public interest and therefore the "public
interest override" did not apply.