Gardener Roberts v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWADT 166

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gardener Roberts v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWADT 166 Hearing dates: 4 June 2013 Decision date: 26 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave for the complaints to proceed is refused Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - Application for declined complaint of race discrimination to proceed - whether fair and just for leave to be granted Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 Jones and Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Guy Gardener Roberts (Applicant) The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel R Perla (Respondent) G Gardener Roberts (Applicant in person) File Number(s): 131017

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1Mr Gardener Roberts, an Aboriginal inmate at the Parklea Correctional Centre, complains of race discrimination against the operator of the Centre, The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (GEO). He complains about: the way in which his application to attend his father's funeral was dealt with; not receiving adequate psychological counselling following the death and having a visit from his mother terminated. He says each of those incidents was on the ground of his race. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined these complaints as lacking in substance. When that happens, the Tribunal must give permission (or 'leave') before the complaint can go ahead. The test is whether it is fair and just to do so: Jones and Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388. 2In this case it is not fair or just for the complaints to proceed because: (1)GEO did not have all the information it needed to process Mr Gardener Roberts' application to attend the funeral and even if more assistance had been given to complete the paper work, his application would have been refused; (2)Mr Gardener Roberts was not provided with counselling support following his father's death but there is no evidence that any failure was on the ground of race; and (3)his mother's visit was terminated because of his own actions not because of his Aboriginality. 3Mr Gardener Roberts has withdrawn a fourth complaint about phone access with his mother.