Equal Opportunity Division of New South Wales CITATION: A on behalf of V & A -V- New South Wales Department of Education [1998] NSWEOD COMPLAINANT: A on behalf of V & A RESPONDENT: New South Wales Department of Education NUMBER: 109 of 1998 Judge H G Murrell ( Senior Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: L Mooney O McDonald O.A.M. GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: Race discrimination in education DATES OF HEARING: 11/06/1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/06/1998 Complainant: Ms A. Tibbey Legal Aid Commission (Solicitor) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr M Lynch of Counsel JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF: Complainant Summary Background 1. The respondent sought a non-publication direction on the basis that publication might lead to irresponsible media coverage and commentary, which might cause distress to minority groups. Held 2. The application should be refused because the public was entitled to be informed about the proceedings. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES (EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION) NO. 109 of 1998 A obo V & A -v- NEW SOUTH WALES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPLICATION FOR A SECTION 110A(1)(a) NON-PUBLICATION DIRECTION 1. Pursuant to section 110A(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 , the respondent seeks an order prohibiting the publication or broadcasting of a report of the proceedings or evidence given to the Tribunal. The complainant opposes the making of such an order. 2. The respondent argues that such an order should be made because it is in the public interest. The respondent contends that the publication or broadcasting of the inquiry may lead to irresponsible media coverage and commentary, and may result in distress to minority groups. 3. Justice should be openly administered, whether in a court or in a tribunal. In Raybos Australia Pty Limited v Jones (1985) 2 NSWLR 47 at 55, Kirby P. made the following statement. …by our tradition, the open administration of justice is the rule. Statutory derogation from openness is the exception. In defence of the rule, such statutes will usually be strictly and narrowly construed. Unless the derogation is specifically provided for, courts are loathe to expand the field of secret justice: see Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 at 133, 135-136; ALR 228 at 233-234, 236; see also Re Armstrong and State of Wisconsin (1972) 7 CCC(2d) 331; CB v The Queen (1982) 62 CCC(2d) 107. 4. At 55E the President said the following. The principles which support and justify the open doors of our courts likewise require that what passes in court should be capable of being reported. The entitlement to report to the public at large what is seen and heard in open court is a corollary of the access to the court of those members of the public who choose to attend. 5. The Tribunal expects that these proceedings will be the subject of media coverage and will generate widespread and legitimate public discussion. In our democratic society such discussion is to be expected. The Tribunal encourages the community and the public generally to ensure that the discussion is conducted in a tolerant and objective manner. 6. The application is refused . DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.