PJ v AMP FinancialPlanning Pty Limited

[2014] AusHRC 89

© Australian Human Rights Commission 2014.

ISSN 1837-1183

The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information presented in this publication.

All material presented in this publication is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence, with the exception of the Australian Human Rights Commission Logo.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0/au.

In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Australian Human Rights Commission and abide by the other licence terms.

Design and layout Dancingirl Designs

Printing Masterprint Pty Limited

Electronic format

This publication can be found in electronic format on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html.

Contact details

For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission, please visit www.humanrights.gov.au or email communications@humanrights.gov.au. You can also write to:

Communications Team Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited

Report into discrimination in employment on the basis of criminal record

[2014] AusHRC 89

Australian Human Rights Commission 2014

iv

1 Introductionandsummaryoffindings 3

2 Backgroundtocomplaint 32.1 ComplaintbyPJ 32.2 SubmissionsbyAMPFP 52.3 Conciliation 7

3 Relevantlegalframework 7

4 Consideration 84.1 Isthereanactorpractice? 84.2 Doestheactorpracticeinvolveadistinction,exclusion

or preferenceonthebasisofcriminalrecord? 84.3 Doesthedistinction,exclusionorpreferencehavetheeffect

ofnullifyingorimpairingequalityofopportunityortreatment inemploymentoroccupation? 9

4.4 Wastheexclusionbasedontheinherentrequirements ofthejob? 10

5 Conclusion 11

6 Findingsandrecommendations 136.1 Powertomakerecommendations 136.2 Considerationofcompensation 136.3 Apology 15

7 AMPFinancialPlanningPtyLimited’sreponse tomyfindingsandrecommendations 16

Contents

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 1

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level3,175PittStreet,SydneyNSW2000 GPOBox5218,SydneyNSW2001Telephone:0292849600 Facsimile:0292849611 Website: www.humanrights.gov.au

October2014

SenatortheHon.GeorgeBrandisQC Attorney-General ParliamentHouse CanberraACT2600

DearAttorney

Ihavecompletedmyreportpursuanttosection31(b)(ii)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)(AHRCAct)intothecomplaintmadebyPJagainstAMPFinancialPlanningPty Limited(AMPFP).

IhavefoundthatAMPFP’sactofrefusingtoappointPJasanauthorisedrepresentativeunderAMPFP’sAustralianFinancialServicesLicencebecauseofPJ’scriminalrecordconstitutedanexclusionmadeonthebasisofacriminalrecord.

On4August2014,IinvitedAMPFPtoinformmeofanyactionithadtaken,orproposedtotake,withrespecttomyfindingsandrecommendations.On5September2014,AMPFPindicatedthat itwouldnotprovideanysubstantiveresponsetothisrequest.

Iencloseacopyofmyreport.

Yourssincerely

GillianTriggsPresident AustralianHumanRightsCommission

2

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 3

1 Introduction and summary of findings1. ThisisanoticeofthefindingsoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionfollowinganinquiryinto

acomplaintbyPJagainstAMPFinancialPlanningPtyLimited(AMPFP)allegingdiscriminationinemploymentonthebasisofcriminalrecord.TheCommissionissuedapreliminaryviewtothepartieson30August2013and,followingthereceiptoffurthersubmissions,issuedarevisedpreliminaryviewon4 November2013.

2. Thisinquirywasundertakenpursuanttosection31(b)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)(AHRCAct).Asaresultofthisinquiry,theCommissionhasfoundthatPJwasdiscriminatedagainstbyAMPFPonthebasisofhiscriminalrecord.

3. Inlightofthesefindings,IrecommendthatAMPFP:

• payfinancialcompensationtoPJintheamountof$5,000asgeneraldamagesforhurt,humiliationanddistress;and

• apologiseinwritingtoPJ.

4. FollowingarequestfromPJ,IhavemadeanorderprohibitingdisclosureofPJ’sidentitypursuanttosection14(2)oftheAHRCAct.Forthatreasonhehasbeenreferredtointhisnoticebythepseudonym‘PJ’.

2 Background to complaint2.1 Complaint by PJ5. PJmadeacomplaintinwritingtotheCommissionon12June2012allegingdiscriminationin

employmentoroccupationonthebasisofhiscriminalrecord.

6. On13April2012,PJappliedtoAMPFPtobecomeanAuthorisedRepresentativeunderAMPFP’sAustralianFinancialServicesLicence(AFSLicence).SuchauthorisationwouldhaveenabledPJtoprovidefinancialservicesonAMPFP’sbehalfundertheCorporations Act 2001(Cth)(CorporationsAct).Hadhebeensoauthorised,PJwishedtopurchaseafinancialplanningbusinessandtoworkin itasafinancialplannerundertheaegisofAMPFP.

7. PJclaimsthaton5June2012hewascontactedbyMrDavidDunniclifffromAMPFPwhoadvisedthatAMPFPwouldnotappointPJasanAuthorisedRepresentativebecauseofPJ’scriminalrecord.PJfurtherstatesthat:

AMPdidapolicecheckwhichIauthorisedandfromthatIhave6drinkdrivingoffences,onefordrivingundertheinfluenceand5forexceedingthestatutorylimit.

8. PJstates:

Ihavebeenanaccountant(MemberofCPAAustralia),registeredtaxagentandfinancialplanner(Memberofthevariousbodies)since1981.Ihaveneverhadaprofessionalcomplaintagainstme.Mydrinkdrivingoffencesinnowayaffectmyabilitytoperformtheinherentrequirementsofafinancialplanner.

4

9. PJhasbeenconvictedofsevenoffences,includingdrivingwithexcessbloodalcoholanddrivingwhilstdisqualified,spanningatimeframefrom1975to2007.Theoffencesarelistedbelow:

Date Offence Convictions

13March2007 DriveUndertheInfluenceFailtodrivewithinmarkedlaneonmulti-laneroad

Fined$700Licencedisqualifiedfor12months

13May2004 DriveWhilstDisqualified Fined$400

6February2002 DrivewithExcessBloodAlcohol

Fined$1,200Licencedisqualifiedfor3years

25August1999 DrivewithExcessBloodAlcohol

Fined$575Licencedisqualifiedfor6months

13April1992 DrivewithExcessBloodAlcoholFailtosignal

Fined$700and$50Licencedisqualifiedfor12months

13July1984 FailtoexhaleintobreathanalysisapparatusCrossbarrierlines

Fined$450and$60Licencedisqualifiedfor12months

11February1975 Drivewithexcessbloodalcohol

Fined$50Licencedisqualifiedfor3months

10. Inrelationtothedrivewhilstdisqualifiedoffence,PJstatesthat:

ThedrivingwhiledisqualifiedrelatestomedrivinginSouthAustraliawhenIhadbeendisqualifiedfromdrivingBUTheldaNorthernTerritorydriverslicence…IwasadvisedbyasolicitorintheNTatthetimethatifIheldanNTlicenceIcouldstilldriveupthereandinfactanywhereinAustraliaincludingSA.

2 Background to complaint

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 5

11. Inrelationtotheotheroffences,PJstatesthat:

InregardstotherepeatoffencesthreeareforexceedingtheprescribedlimitwhichIwouldargueareerrorsofjudgementonmybehalf.Inowcarryabreathalyserinmycartoavoidthisissue.ThefailingtosubmitwasbecauseIcouldnotblowhardenoughintothemachineandaftertwoattemptswascharged.Ihavehadrespiratoryproblemsinthepastandcouldonlyputitdowntothis.ThedrivingundertheinfluenceissomethingIamnotproudofandthereis nodefenceforthis.

12. PJcontendsthatheadvisedrepresentativesofAMPFPofhiscriminalrecordon30March2012.PJ statesthat:

InmymeetingwithEddieBellandDavidDunnicliffon30MarchIspecificallytoldthemthatI hadsevendrinkdrivingcharges…IsaidatthetimethatIknewtherewouldbeapolicecheckandthatIdidnotwanttheretobeanysurprisesasfarasAMPFPwasconcerned,Ididnotwanttowastetheirtimeormineifitwasgoingtobeanissue.

13. PJsubmitsthathiscriminalrecordisirrelevanttothepositioninthefollowingterms:

Icontendthatmycriminalhistoryisnotrelevanttothejobanddoesnotaffectmecarryingouttheinherentrequirementsofafinancialplanner.Ihavebeenintheaccounting/financialplanningindustrysince1981.Ihaveneverhadacomplaintagainstme.

2.2 Submissions by AMPFP14. AMPFPsubmitsthatithasobligationsunderthefinancialserviceslegislationcontainedinthe

CorporationsAct andsubordinatelegislation.AMPFPsubmitsthatunderthisregulatoryframework,aninherentrequirementoftheroleofafinancialplannerisanawarenessof,andarespectfor,lawandregulation.AMPFP’slettertotheCommissionof4 September2012states:

AMPFPneedstobeabletotrustinherentlythatallofitsauthorisedrepresentativeswillexerciseappropriateprofessionaljudgementinprovidingfinancialadvice,astheadvicegivenwillimpactsignificantlyon:

(i) itsclients’livelihoods;and

(ii) whetherAMPFPcanbesaidtohavemetitslegalobligationsasanAFSlicenseeunderthe[CorporationsAct].MeetingtheseobligationsiskeytoAMPFPbeingabletocontinueprovidingafinancialservicesbusinessinAustralia.1

15. AMPFPsubmitsthatithascomprehensivepoliciesandproceduresthataresystematicallyappliedintheapplicationprocess,whichincludeASIC’sHandbookonReferenceChecking.AMPFPstatedinitslettertotheCommissionof4September2012:

TheAustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentCommission(ASIC),whichadministersthe[CorporationsAct],expectsAFSlicenseestoconductthoroughbackgroundchecksonprospectiveauthorisedrepresentatives.ThisreflectsthatakeypolicyobjectoftheAFSlicensingregimeisconsumerprotection.WebelieveourdecisionnottoenterintoanAuthorisedRepresentativeagreementwith[PJ]giveseffecttothepolicyoftheAct.2

6

16. AMPFPsubmitsthatPJ’scriminalhistoryofrepeatoffendingsuggestedthatheisunlikelytobeabletofulfiltheinherentrequirementsoftheroleofafinancialplanner(andhenceofanAuthorisedRepresentativeofAMPFP).Theparticularoffencesrecordedincludeddrivingwhilstdisqualified,whichintheviewofAMPFPmayindicatealackofregardforlicensingsystemsthatapplyaslaw.AMPFPconsidersthatPJ’scriminalhistoryisindicativeofariskthathewillnotconducthimselfinamannerthatpromotesongoingcompliancewiththecomplexrequirementsthatapplytotheworkoffinancialplanners.3

17. AMPFPsubmitsthatapplicantsforAFSlicencesaresubjecttoatestof‘goodfameandcharacter’undertheschemeoffinancialregulationadministeredbyASIC.4UndertheCorporations Regulations 2001(Cth),toapplyforregistration,AFSLicenseesmustmakeastatementtoASICthattheyareofgoodfameandcharacter.5Inconsideringwhatconstitutes‘goodfameandcharacter’,ASICmusthaveregardto:

(a) anyconvictionoftheperson,within10yearsbeforetheapplicationwasmade,foranoffencethatinvolvesdishonestyandispunishablebyimprisonmentforatleast3months;

(b) whetherthepersonhasheldanAustralianfinancialserviceslicencethatwassuspendedorcancelled;

(c) whetherabanningorderordisqualificationhaspreviouslybeenmadeagainsttheperson;and

(d) anyothermatterASICconsidersrelevant.6

AMPFPsubmitsthatthisrequirementisindicativeofthehighstandardofconductrequiredofparticipantsinthefinancialservicesindustry.7

18. AMPFPsubmitsthatPJ’scriminalhistorywasnottheonlyfactortakenintoaccountinthedecisionmakingprocessandthatpriortodiscoveringthefullcriminalhistoryofPJ,AMPFPalreadyhadreservationsabouthisapplicationbecause:

• ThesaleofanexistingAMPFPfinancialplanningpractice,whichPJwasintendingtopurchase,fellthroughaftertheexistingownerdecidedtodelaysellingthebusiness

• PJwasunabletoidentifyasuitableexternalclientbasetopurchaseandtransfertotheAMPFPbrandasanalternativetopurchasinganexistingAMPFPbrandedbusiness

• AMPFPconsideredthatPJhadbeenuncooperativeindiscussionswithAMPFPabouthelpingtoidentifyanexternalclientbase.

19. AMPFPalsoassertsthathadPJbeenappointedasanAuthorisedRepresentative,thenatureofitsrelationshipwithhimwouldnothavebeenthatofemployerandemployee.PJwouldhavebeenauthorisedunderanagreementwithAMPFPtoprovidecertainfinancialservicesonitsbehalf:

[W]ewishtohighlightthatPJdidnotapplyforemploymentwithAMPFPbutratherappointmentasanAuthorisedRepresentativeoperatingunderAMPFP’slicence.Ifsuccessfulinhisapplication,hewouldhavebeenanindependentcontractorsubjecttothetermsofanAuthorisedRepresentativeagreement.8

2 Background to complaint

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 7

20. AMPFPlatercharacterisedthehypotheticalrelationshipasoneof‘twobusinessesworkingwitheach otherthroughacommercialcontractualrelationship.’9

21. AMPFPfurthersubmitsthatitsdecisionnottoappointPJasanAuthorisedRepresentativedidnotconstituteadecisioninrelationto‘occupation’,andtherefore‘thereisnogroundforittobeconsideredfurtherunderthe[AHRCAct]’.

22. ItakethepurportofthesesubmissionstobethatAMPFP’sdealingswithPJdidnotrelateto‘employmentoroccupation’,andthereforecouldnotconstitutediscriminationwithinthemeaning ofsection3(1)AHRCAct.

2.3 Conciliation23. PJandAMPFPparticipatedinaconciliationconferencefacilitatedbytheCommissionon

25 September2012,butthematterwasultimatelyunabletobesettledbyconciliation.

3 Relevant legal framework24. PartII,Division4oftheAHRCAct,whichcontainssections30-35,isconcernedwiththe

Commission’sfunctionsrelatingtoequalopportunityinemployment.

25. Section31(b)confersontheCommissionafunctionofinquiringintoanyactorpracticethatmayconstitutediscrimination.Section32(1)(b)requirestheCommissiontoexercisethisfunctionwhenacomplaintismadetoitinwritingallegingthatanactorpracticeconstitutesdiscrimination.Section 8(6)oftheAHRCActrequiresthatthefunctionoftheCommissionundersection31(b)beperformedbythePresident.

26. Section3(1)oftheAHRCActdefinesdiscriminationforthepurposesofsection31(b)as:

(a) anydistinction,exclusionorpreferencemadeonthebasisofrace,colour,sex,religion,politicalopinion,nationalextractionorsocialoriginthathastheeffectofnullifyingorimpairingequalityofopportunityortreatmentinemploymentoroccupation;and

(b) anyotherdistinction,exclusionorpreferencethat:

(i) hastheeffectofnullifyingorimpairingequalityofopportunityortreatmentinemploymentoroccupation;and

(ii) hasbeendeclaredbytheregulationstoconstitutediscriminationforthepurposesofthisAct;

butdoesnotincludeanydistinction,exclusionorpreference:

(c) inrespectofaparticularjobbasedontheinherentrequirementsofthejob;or

(d) inconnectionwithemploymentasamemberofthestaffofaninstitutionthatisconductedinaccordancewiththedoctrines,tenets,beliefsorteachingsofaparticularreligionorcreed,beingadistinction,exclusionorpreferencemadeingoodfaithinordertoavoidinjurytothereligioussusceptibilitiesofadherentsofthatreligionorthatcreed.

8

27. AustraliahasdeclaredcriminalrecordasagroundofdiscriminationforthepurposesoftheAHRCAct.10

28. Indecidingwhethertherehasbeendiscriminationwithinthetermsofsection31(b)oftheAHRCAct,I amrequiredtoconsiderthefollowingquestions:

• whethertherewasanactorpracticewithinthemeaningofsection30(1)oftheAHRCAct;

• whetherthatactorpracticeinvolvedadistinction,exclusionorpreferencethatwasmadeon thebasisofthecomplainant’scriminalrecord;

• whetherthatdistinction,exclusionorpreferencehadtheeffectofnullifyingorimpairingequalityofopportunityortreatmentinemploymentoroccupation;and

• whetherthatdistinction,exclusion,orpreferencewasbasedontheinherentrequirementsof thejob.

4 Consideration4.1 Is there an act or practice?29. ‘Act’and‘practice’aredefinedatsection30(1)oftheAHRCAct.‘Act’and‘practice’havetheir

ordinarymeanings.Anactisathingdoneandapracticeisacourseofrepeatedconduct.

30. On5June2012,AMPFPrejectedPJ’sapplicationtobeanAuthorisedRepresentativeunderAMPFP’sAFSLicence.Iamsatisfiedthatthisisan‘act’withinthemeaningofsection30(1)oftheAHRCAct.

4.2 Does the act or practice involve a distinction, exclusion or preference on the basis of criminal record?

31. TherejectionofPJ’sapplicationtobeappointedasanAuthorisedRepresentativeisan‘exclusion’withinthescopeofthedefinitionof‘discrimination’.PJcontendsthatthereasonfortherejectionofhisapplicationwashiscriminalrecord.

32. ForacaseofdiscriminationtobefoundregardingtherejectionofPJ’sapplicationtobeanAuthorisedRepresentative,itwouldneedtobeshownthattherelevantexclusionwasmade ‘onthebasis’ofhiscriminalrecord.Inconsideringtheexpression‘basedon’,inasimilardefinitionofdiscriminationundersection9(1)oftheRacial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth),theFederalCourtheldthatthewordsweretobeequatedwiththephrase‘byreferenceto’,ratherthanthemorelimited‘by reasonof’or‘onthegroundof’whichhavebeeninterpretedelsewheretorequiresomesortofcausalconnection.11Itdoesnotneedtobethesolereason.

3 Relevant legal framework

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 9

33. AMPFPadmitsthatPJ’scriminalrecordwasafactortakenintoaccountwhenassessinghisapplicationtobemadeanAuthorisedRepresentative.However,AMPFPcontendsthattherejectionofPJ’sapplicationwasnotentirelybasedonhiscriminalrecordandpastcriminalbehaviour,butalsoattributedtoanumberofotherfactors.

34. ItappearsfromthesubmissionsofAMPFPthatithadinitialreservationsaboutPJ’sapplicationforthereasonssetoutin[18]above.OnceitdiscoveredPJ’sfullcriminalrecorditdecidednottoproceedwithhisapplicationtobeanAuthorisedRepresentative.

35. Interpretingthephrase‘onthebasisof’morewidelytomean‘byreferenceto’,IamsatisfiedthatthedecisiontorejectPJ’sapplicationtobeanAuthorisedRepresentativeinvolvedanexclusiononthebasisofhiscriminalrecord.

4.3 Does the distinction, exclusion or preference have the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation?

36. TheAHRCActwasintroducedtobethevehiclebywhichAustralia’sobligationsundertheDiscrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 195812(ILO111Convention)wereimplemented.13Forthisreason,itisappropriatetoconstruethedefinitionof‘discrimination’insection3(1)oftheAHRCActinaccordancewiththeconstructiongivenininternationallawtoArticle 1oftheILO 111Convention.14

37. Article1(3)oftheILO111Conventiondefines‘employment’and‘occupation’asincludingaccesstoemploymentandtoparticularoccupations,andtermsandconditionsofemployment.Further,thebackgroundmaterialstotheILO111ConventionrevealthattheConventionwasintendedtoprotectallworkers,inallfields,includingself-employedworkersinboththepublicandprivatesectors.15

38. Asnotedabove,AMPFPsubmitsthatPJdidnotapplyforemployment;thatifappointedanAuthorisedRepresentative,PJwouldnothavebecomeinformorsubstancean‘employee’ofAMPFP;andthatthedecisionnottoappointPJasanauthorisedrepresentativewasnotadecisionmadeinrelationto‘occupation’.AMPFPstatesthathadPJbeenappointedasanAuthorisedRepresentative,hewouldhavebecomeauthorisedunderanagreementwithAMPFPtoprovidefinancialservicesonAMPFP’sbehalfunderitsAFSLicence.Insodoing,hewouldhavebeenan‘independentcontractor,’16orthattherelationshipwouldhavebeen‘thatoftwobusinessesworkingwitheachotherthroughacommercialcontractualrelationship.’17

39. Iamsatisfiedthatthereferencetoemploymentandoccupationinsection3(1)oftheAHRCActisnotlimitedtothetraditionalemploymentrelationshipofemployerandemployee.IamsatisfiedthattheILO111Conventionandsection3(1)oftheAHRCActwasintendedtoprotectallworkersincludingindependentcontractorsandself-employedworkers.

40. HadPJbeenappointedasanAuthorisedRepresentativebyAMPFP,hewouldhavebeenabletoprovidefinancialservicesonAMPFP’sbehalf.Hewouldhavebeenlegallyentitledundertherelevantregulatoryregimetoworkasafinancialplanner.Hewouldhavebeenabletoseektoearnanincomeindoingso.Hewasnotgiventhatopportunityonthebasisofhiscriminalrecord.Inthecircumstances,IfindthattherejectionofPJ’sapplicationhadtheeffectofnullifyingorimpairinghisequalityofopportunityortreatmentinemploymentoroccupationwithinthemeaningofsection3(1)oftheAHRCAct.

10

4.4 Was the exclusion based on the inherent requirements of the job?

(a) Identifying ‘inherent requirements’

41. In Qantas Airways v Christie18,theHighCourtconsideredthemeaningoftheterm‘inherentrequirementsoftheparticularposition’insection170DF(2)oftheIndustrial Relations Act 1988(Cth).BrennanCJstated:

Thequestionwhetherarequirementisinherentinapositionmustbeansweredbyreferencenotonlytothetermsoftheemploymentcontractbutalsobyreferencetothefunctionwhichtheemployeeperformsaspartoftheemployer’sundertakingand,exceptwheretheemployer’sundertakingisorganisedonabasiswhichimpermissiblydiscriminatesagainstthe employee,byreferencetothatorganisation.19

42. Inaddition,GaudronJstated:

Itiscorrecttosay,asdidGrayJintheFullCourt,thataninherentrequirementissomethingthatisessentialtotheposition.Andcertainly,anemployercannotcreateaninherentrequirementforthepurposesofs170DF(2)bystipulatingforsomethingthatisnotessentialor,even,bystipulatingforqualificationsorskillswhicharedisproportionatelyhighwhenrelatedtotheworktobedone.20

43. JusticeGummownotedthattheterm‘inherent’suggests‘anessentialelementofthatspokenofratherthansomethingincidentaloraccidental’.21

44. Similarly,inX v The Commonwealth,22GummowandHayneJJstatedthattheinherentrequirementsofemploymentarethosewhichare‘characteristicoressentialrequirementsoftheemploymentasopposedtothoserequirementsthatmightbedescribedasperipheral’.23

(b) ‘Based on’

45. In Commonwealth v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Others,24WilcoxJinterpretedthephrase‘basedon’asfollows:

Inthepresentcase,therearepolicyreasonsforrequiringatightcorrelationbetweentheinherentrequirementsofthejobandtherelevant‘distinction’,‘exclusion’or‘preference’.Otherwise,asMrO’Gormanpointedout,theobjectofthelegislationwouldreadilybedefeated.Amajorobjectiveofanti-discriminationlegislationistopreventpeoplebeingstereotyped;thatis,judgednotaccordingtotheirindividualmeritsbutbyreferencetoageneralorcommoncharacteristicofpeopleoftheirrace,gender,ageetc,asthecasemaybe.Ifthewords‘basedon’aresointerpretedthatitissufficienttofindalinkbetweentherestrictionandthestereotype,asdistinctfromtheindividual,thelegislationwillhavetheeffect ofperpetuatingtheveryprocessitwasdesignedtobringtoanend.25

4 Consideration

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 11

46. TheFullCourtaffirmedthatapproachinCommonwealth v Bradley.26Inparticular,BlackCJdiscussedthephrase‘basedon’asfollows:

Respectforhumanrightsandtheidealofequality–includingequalityofopportunityinemployment–requiresthateverypersonbetreatedaccordingtohisorherindividualmeritandnotbyreferencetostereotypesascribedbyvirtueofmembershipofaparticulargroup,whetherthatgroupbeoneofgender,race,nationalityorage.Theseconsiderationsmustbereflectedinanyconstructionofthedefinitionof‘discrimination’presentlyunderconsiderationbecause,iftheyarenot,andaconstructionisadoptedthatenablestheascriptionofnegativestereotypesortheavoidanceofindividualassessment,theessentialobjectoftheActtopromoteequalityofopportunityinemploymentwillbefrustrated.27

47. TheChiefJusticethenheldthattheremustbemorethana‘logical’linkbetweentheinherentrequirementsofthepositionandtheexclusionoftheapplicant.Rather,hisHonourheldthattheremustbea‘tight’or‘close’connection.

(c) Good character requirements

48. Wherethereare‘goodcharacter’requirements,thecaselawstatesthatthemerefactofacriminalrecorddoesnotdetermineaperson’scharacterandthatthepassageoftimecanhealpastwrongdoing.28AsColdreyJstatedinAavelaid v Dental Board of Victoria:

Insummary,eachcasewillnecessarilyturnonitsownfacts.Thenatureoftheinitialmisconduct,thesubsequentattitudeofthepersondisqualifiedtowardsit,thatperson’sbehaviourduringtheperiodofdisqualification,andthepassageoftimeitself,areallfactorswhichwillberelevantindeterminingwhetherapersonhasdemonstratedthattheyarecurrentlyofgoodcharacter.29

5 Conclusion49. AMPFPsubmitsthata‘respectforthelaw’isaninherentrequirementofthepositionofanAuthorised

Representative.AMPFPhasalsopointedtotheexistenceofarequirementthatpersonsarerequiredtobeof‘goodfameandcharacter’toholdanAFSlicence.Itsubmitsthatthisfactillustrates‘thehighlyregulatednatureofthefinancialservicesindustry,andthehighstandardofconductexpectedfromparticipants.’30

50. Iacceptthatanawarenessof,andrespectfor,thelawisaninherentrequirementofthepositionofanAuthorisedRepresentativeofanAFSlicenceholder.Ihavealsoacceptedforthepurposesofthisinquirythatthe‘goodfameandcharacter’testforAFSlicenceholders,whilenotapplyingdirectlytoAuthorisedRepresentatives,hassomerelevanceindeterminingtheinherentrequirementsofthatrole.

51. ThereisnodoubtthatPJhasalengthycriminalhistoryspanningsome30years.ThemostrecentconvictionwasfiveyearsbeforePJ’sapplicationtoAMPFP.ThispassageoftimeisnotparticularlysignificantinlightoftheextendedperiodofPJ’soffending.

12

52. However,theconvictionsarealmostallconnectedwithdrivingwithexcessbloodalcohol.Noneoftheoffencesinvolveddishonesty.TheCourtsresponsibleforsentencingPJatnotimeconsideredthatacustodialsentencewasappropriate.Thepenaltyoneachoccasionwasafineand/ordisqualificationofhisdriver’slicence.

53. Inotethatonlyoffencesinvolvingdishonestyareexpresslystatedtoberelevantindeterminingwhetherapersonisof‘goodfameandcharacter’forthepurposesofholdinganAFSlicence.31WhilstASICmayhaveregardtoanyothermatteritconsidersrelevant,thefactorssetoutinthelegislationsuggestthatrelevantmattersincludethosethathaveatightorcloseconnectiontotheinherentrequirementsoftherole.IamnotpersuadedthatacriminalrecordcontainingconvictionsfordrivingwithexcessbloodalcoholwouldnecessarilypreventASICfindinggoodfameandcharacterinthecontextofanapplicationforregistrationasanAFSLicensee.AMPFPhasmadenosubmissiontotheeffectthatahigherstandardshouldapplywhenassessingtheinherentrequirementsoftheroleofanAuthorisedRepresentativeofanAFSLicensee.

54. PJhasbeenanaccountantandfinancialplannerforabout30years.Hestatesthathehasneverhadaprofessionalmisconductcomplaintmadeagainsthim.AMPFPsubmittedthatithadnowayofverifyingthisclaim.ItfurthersubmittedthatPJmightwellbeunawareofcomplaintsmadeagainsthim,asthesemighthavebeenresolved(presumablyfavourably)withouthimbeinginformed.However,AMPFPdidnotassertthatPJ’sclaimswerefalse(andonthebasisofitsownsubmission,itlacksanyevidencetomaintainsuchaclaim).Takenatitshighest,then,themostIcantakefromAMPFP’ssubmissionsonthistopicisthatifanycomplaintsofprofessionalmisconducthadbeenmadeagainstPJ,theywere‘finalisedwithoutfurtheraction’byASIC.Iconsiderthistobenomorethanahypotheticalpossibility.

55. Insummary,IhavenoreasontodoubtPJ’sclaimthathehasneverhadaprofessionalmisconductclaimmadeagainsthim.Thissuggeststhathehasanawarenessof,andarespectfor,thelawsrelevanttothisareaofpractice.IalsonotethatheisnotrequiredtodriveaspartoftheroleofAuthorisedRepresentative.

56. Onbalance,IamnotpersuadedthatthereisasufficientlytightorcloseconnectionbetweentheinherentrequirementsoftheroleandPJ’scriminalrecord.IamnotpersuadedthatPJwouldbeunabletoperformtheinherentrequirementsoftheroleofanAuthorisedRepresentative.

57. Forthesereasons,IfindthattheexclusionofPJwasnotbasedontheinherentrequirementsofthejob.

5 Conclusion

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 13

6 Findings and recommendations6.1 Power to make recommendations58. Where,afterconductinganinquiry,theCommissionfindsthatanactorpracticeengagedinbya

respondentconstitutesdiscrimination,theCommissionisrequiredtoservenoticeontherespondentsettingoutitsfindingsandreasonsforthosefindings.32TheCommissionmayincludeinthenoticeanyrecommendationforpreventingarepetitionoftheactoracontinuationofthepractice.33

59. TheCommissionmayalsorecommend:

• thepaymentofcompensationto,orinrespectof,apersonwhohassufferedlossordamage;and

• thetakingofotheractiontoremedyorreducethelossordamagesufferedbyaperson.34

6.2 Consideration of compensation60. IamsatisfiedthatPJsufferedlossanddamageandshouldbecompensated.Iconsiderthat

compensationinthesumof$5,000isappropriatetocompensatePJforhishurt,humiliation,anddistress.Iamnotsatisfiedthatitisappropriatetomakearecommendationthatcompensationbepaidforeconomicloss,inallthecircumstancesofthiscase.

61. Inassessingtherecommendedsum,Ihavetakenintoaccountthemattersdiscussedbelow.

62. Inconsideringtheassessmentofarecommendationforcompensationincasesofthistype,theFederalCourthasindicatedthattortprinciplesfortheassessmentofdamagesshouldbeapplied.35 I amoftheviewthatthisistheappropriateapproachtotaketothepresentmatter.Forthisreason,so farasispossibleinthecaseofarecommendationforcompensation,theobjectshouldbetoplacetheinjuredpartyinthesamepositionasifthewronghadnotoccurred.36

(a) Economic loss

63. BothpartiesmademultiplesubmissionsaboutwhetherornotPJhadsufferedanyeconomicloss,and,ifso,howmuch.Theparties’positionsdifferedwithrespecttoanumberoffactualissues.

64. PJsubmitsthathesufferedeconomiclossasaresultofAMPFP’sdiscriminatoryconduct.HerequestedthattheCommissionmakearecommendationthatAMPFPpayhimfinancialcompensation.

65. PJdidnotspecifythequantumofhisclaimedeconomicloss,despiterequeststhathedoso.Rather,hemadegeneralsubmissionsaboutwhathisearningcapacitymighthavebeenhadhebeenappointedanAuthorisedRepresentative.

66. Itisclearfromthesubmissionsofbothpartiesthat,aswellasconsideringappointingPJasitsAuthorisedRepresentative,AMPFPwasinvolvedintheprocessofidentifyingestablishedfinancialplanningbusinessesthatPJmightpurchaseoncesoappointed.(Onthematerialbeforeme,itseemsthatitwasalsopossiblethatPJcould,hadhewished,haveindependentlyidentifiedopportunitiestopurchaseorestablishabusiness).

14

67. PJsubmitsthattheprocessofidentifyingasuitablepracticeforhimtopurchasewaswelladvanced.InparticularhesubmitsthatdiscussionshadbeenheldaboutthepossibilityofhimpurchasinganidentifiedfinancialplanningpracticeatMurrayBridge.HeclaimsthatAMPFPhadobtainedfinancialstatementsandpreparedfinancialprojectionsshowingthathadPJpurchasedthebusiness,hewouldhavemadeacombinedpre-taxsalaryandprofitofabout$245,000peryear.HeclaimsthatAMPFP,orarelatedentity,wasintheprocessofarrangingfinancetoallowPJtopurchasethispractice.

68. AMPFPdeniesthattheprocessofidentifyingasuitablepracticeforPJtopurchasewaswelladvanced.ItdeniespreparinganyfinancialprojectionsforPJ.ItstatesthatithaddonenomorethatpreparesomedocumentsbywayofexampletoassistPJwithpreparinghisownbusinessplan.AMPFPalsodeniesthat,hadPJpurchasedtheMurrayBridgepractice,hewouldhaveearned$245,000peryear.AMPFPstatesthatthepracticetheownerwascontemplatingsellingwouldhaveproducedalowerprofit.ItalsopointstocertaindiscrepanciesinthefiguresinthefinancialdocumentsprovidedbyPJ.WhileIdonotacceptallofAMPFP’ssubmissionsinthatregard,severalofthediscrepanciespointedtodosuggestthatthefigureof$245,000wasnotaguaranteedorfinalone.

69. BothpartiesagreethatatleastsomediscussionshadbeenheldaboutthepurchaseoftheMurrayBridgepractice.ItappearsfromthesubmissionsofbothpartiesthatatthetimeofAMPFP’sdiscriminatoryconduct,theownerofthepracticehaddecidedtodefermakinganydecisionaboutitssaleforaperiodofsixmonths.BothpartiesagreethatPJwasunhappywiththis.Fromthesubmissionsofbothparties,IcanonlyconcludethatnoagreementhadbeenreachedthatPJwouldpurchasetheMurrayBridgepractice.Wereanysuchsaletohaveproceeded,itwouldnothavedonesoforatleastsixmonthsafterthedateofAMPFP’sdiscriminatoryconduct.

70. PJclaimsthatithadbeenproposedbyanAMPFPemployeethatPJmightbeemployedintheMurrayBridgepracticependingthesale;howeverthereisnothingbeforemetosuggestthatthiswasmorethanapossibility.PJhasnotsubmittedthatthissuggestionwaseverputto,oracceptedby,theowneroftheMurrayBridgepractice.

71. PJclaimsthathadthesaleoftheMurrayBridgepracticenotproceeded,variousotherpracticeshadbeenidentifiedwhichhemightpotentiallybuy.However,hehasgiventhenameofonlyonesuchpractice,hasprovidednosubmissionsabouthowadvancedthediscussionswereaboutthepurchaseofanyofthesepractices,andmadenosubmissionsaboutwhathisearningsmighthavebeenhadhebeenappointedanAuthorisedRepresentativeandproceededtopurchaseoneofthesepractices.

72. PJsubmittedthatwhenhehadpreviouslybeenapart-timeemployeeinafinancialplanningbusiness,hehadbeenpaidasalaryequivalenttoafull-timesalaryof$150,000peryear.

73. PJdidnotsubmitthathehadgivenupanyemploymentorturneddownanyotheremploymentopportunitiesasaresultofhisexpectationsthathewouldbeappointedanAuthorisedRepresentativebyAMPFP.

74. FollowingAMPFP’sdecisionnottoappointhimasanAuthorisedRepresentative,PJdidnotpursueotheropportunitiestoworkinthefinancialplanningfield,eitherasanemployeeinanotherpractice,orinhisownbusiness.Hestatesthathemadesome‘inquiries’aboutbecominganAuthorisedRepresentativeforsomeotherappropriatelylicencedentity,butwastoldthathisconvictionswouldmakethatdifficult.PJhasnotinformedmeoftheformhisinquiriestookortowhomtheyweredirected.InanyeventitappearsthathedidnotmakeanyapplicationsforemploymentinthefieldaftertheconclusionofhisdealingswithAMPFP.

6 Findings and recommendations

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 15

75. Instead,PJcommencedworkselling‘solarsystems’.HecommenceddoingsowithinafewmonthsoflearningofAMPFP’sdecision.PJhassupplieddetailsofhisearningsfromthatwork.Itappearsthatittooksometimeforhimtobecomeestablished,andheinitiallyearnedlittle.HoweverthefiguresprovidedbyPJindicatethatfortheperiodofOctober–December2013,hemadeanetincome(beforetax)of$42,000.HeinformedtheCommissionorallythatthisamounthascontinuedtorise,andthatinoneparticularfinancialquarterhewasexpectingtoearnover$100,000.

76. Consideringalloftheabove,IamunabletoconcludethatPJinfactsufferedquantifiableeconomiclossasaresultofAMPFP’sconduct.Themostpromisingincome-earningopportunityhewasdeprivedofbyAMPFP’sconductwasthepurchaseoftheMurrayBridgepractice.Itwasnotcertainthatopportunitywouldeventuate,and,ifithad,itwouldnothavedonesoforsixmonths.PJcould,anddid,pursueotheremploymentopportunitiesinthattime.Iacknowledgethathehasnotobtainedemploymentasafinancialplanner.WhileIacknowledgethathewas,understandably,disheartenedbyAMPFP’sdiscriminatoryconduct,Idonotconsiderthathewasprecludedfrompursuingemploymentinthatfield.Iamnotsatisfiedthathecouldnothaveidentifiedotheremploymentopportunities,whetherinfinancialplanningorotherwise,aslucrativeasthosethatmighthavebeenavailablethroughAMPFP.InotethatPJ’scurrentemploymentnowappearstobebringinginasignificant,andgrowing,income.

77. Forthesereasons,Idonotconsideritappropriatetomakeanyrecommendationswithrespecttopaymentofcompensationforeconomiclossinthismatter.

(b) Hurt, humiliation and distress

78. CompensationforPJ’shurt,humiliationanddistresswould,intortlaw,becharacterisedas‘non-economicloss’.Thereisnoobviousmonetaryequivalentforsuchlossandcourtsthereforestrivetoachievefairratherthanfullorperfectcompensation.37

79. IamsatisfiedthatPJsufferedhurt,humiliationanddistressasaresultofbeingdiscriminatedagainstonthebasisofhiscriminalrecord.IacceptthatheconsideredthatworkingasanAuthorisedRepresentativeofAMPFPwasthe‘idealjob’forhim,butthatafterthatconducthewasdiscouragedaboutworkingintheindustryandnowworksinadifferentfield.IacceptthathefoundithumiliatingtoinformfriendsandfamilyaboutthereasonsthathisdiscussionswithAMPFPwerediscontinued.Inallthecircumstances,Iconsideranawardofmonetarycompensationforhurt,humiliationanddistressintheamountof$5,000isappropriate.IthereforerecommendthatAMPFPpayhimthatamount.

6.3 Apology80. IconsideritappropriatethatAMPFPprovideaformalwrittenapologytoPJ.Apologiesareimportant

remediesfordiscrimination.They,atleasttosomeextent,alleviatethesufferingofthosewhohavebeenwronged.38

16

7 AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited’s response to my findings and recommendations

81. On4August2014,IinvitedAMPFPtoinformmeofanyactionithadtaken,orproposedtotake,with respecttomyfindingsandrecommendations.

82. Byletterdated5September2014,AMPFPindicatedthatitwouldnotprovideanysubstantiveresponsetothisrequest.

83. IreportaccordinglytotheAttorney-General.

GillianTriggsPresidentAustralianHumanRightsCommission

October2014

PJ v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited • [2014] AusHRC 89 • 17

1 Paragraph1.2 Paragraph1.3 LetterfromAMPFPtotheCommissiondated4September2012,paragraph1.4 LetterfromAMPFPtotheCommissiondated13July2012,paragraph3.3.5 Corporations Regulations 2001(Cth),regs7.6.02AGA(5I)and(5J)(f).6 Corporations Act 2001(Cth),paras913B(4)(a)to(d).7 LetterfromAMPFPtotheCommissiondated13July2012,paragraph3.3;letterfromAMPFPtotheCommissiondated

10 September2013,p2.8 LetterfromAMPFPtotheCommissiondated4September2012,paragraph9.9 LetterfromAMPFPtotheCommissiondated10September2013,p1.10 Australian Human Rights Commission Regulations 1989 (Cth),reg4(a)(iii).11 Victoria v Macedonian Teachers’ Association of Victoria Inc(1999)91FCR47.12 DoneatGenevaon25June1958.13 Commonwealth v Bradley(1999)95FCR218,235(BlackCJ).14 Commonwealth v Hamilton (2000)108FCR378,385.15 InternationalLabourOrganisation,1988,General Survey: Discrimination in the field of employment and occupation,ILC,

(42nd Session,1988ReportIV(1)),[86].16 LetterfromAMPFPdated4September2012at[9].17 LetterfromAMPFPdated10September2013,p1.18 (1998)193CLR280.19 Aboveatpage284.20 Aboveatpage295.21 Aboveatpage316.22 (1999)200CLR177.23 Aboveatpage208.24 (1998)158ALR468.25 Aboveatpage482.26 (1999)95FCR218.27 Aboveatpage235-236.28 Z v Director General, Department of Transport[2002]NSWADT67at[30]-[32].29 Aavelaid v Dental Board of Victoria [1999]VSC255at[75](ColdreyJ).30 LetterfromAMPFPdated10September2013,p2.31 Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth),regs7.6.02AGA(5I)and(5J)(f).32 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth),s35(2)(a).33 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth),s35(2)(b).34 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth),s35(2)(c).35 Peacock v Commonwealth (2000)104FCR464,483(WilcoxJ).36 SeeHall v A & A Sheiban Pty Limited (1989)20FCR217,239(LockhartJ).37 Sharman v Evans (1977)138CLR563,589(GibbsandStephenJJ).38 DShelton,Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2000),151.

FurtherInformationAustralian Human Rights Commission

Level 3, 175 Pitt StreetSYDNEY NSW 2000

GPO Box 5218SYDNEY NSW 2001Telephone: (02) 9284 9600

Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711TTY: 1800 620 241Fax: (02) 9284 9611Website: www.humanrights.gov.au

For detailed and up to date information about the Australian Human Rights Commission visit our website at: www.humanrights.gov.au

To order more publications from the Australian Human Rights Commission download a Publication Order Form at: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html or call: (02) 9284 9600 fax: (02) 9284 9611 or email: publications@humanrights.gov.au

Australian Human Rights Commissionwww.humanrights.gov.au