ࡱ> Y BbjbjWW %==( ]8l@7&7777777$f8Z:R+7+7D D D D 77D D  ^i2474p6hAppendix C Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Notice under section 35 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Concerning Equal Opportunity in Employment Complainant: Mr E W Petersen Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Defence Force) 1. The Commissions jurisdiction This is a complaint under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act) of discrimination in employment on the ground of age. The jurisdiction of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission) in relation to complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation was described in my first report to Parliament on complaints in this area. That description is set out in Appendix 1 of this notice. In 1989 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Regulations declared a number of additional grounds of discrimination for the purposes of the Act with effect from 1 January 1990. The subject of this notice, age discrimination, is one of those grounds. 2. The complaint On 4 July 1996 and 5 February 1997 Mr Petersen lodged complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of his age. The complainant initially complained generally about the practice of the ADF in requiring entrants to be within a 17 to 35 age range. He then made further complaint concerning a conversation he had with a Sergeant Hubbard on 29 January 1997. Sergeant Hubbard allegedly stated that Mr Petersen would be wasting his time submitting his curriculum vitae because it was not army policy to employ persons older then 35 years of age. Mr Petersen said that he did submit his CV to the respondent as he verbally recited his qualifications and experience to ADF representatives. Mr Petersen then spoke to Captain Elliott in public relations who advised that the age limit might be stretched to 40 years but no further. At the time of these conversations, Mr Petersen was 43 years of age. Mr Petersen did not indicate to the Commission that he wished to apply for any particular job. However, he advised the Commission that he wishes to apply for various administrative positions which might have been vacant acquiring (sic) a job specification with a background in Logistics Management, Human Resources Management, Operations Management, Project Management, Inventory or Warehousing Management, Financial Management or Information Systems. The complainant described himself as a graduate with 23 years experience gained in an overseas armed service. I held various equivalent military officer positions and references from my overseas Air Logistics Command can be furnished to the ADF in support of my application, regarding my ability and character. Mr Petersen alleged that he had suffered lesser opportunity than others, with less experience, to join the ADF. He requested a change in policy and an opportunity to apply for a position on his merits. He indicated that detriment was suffered not only by him but by all Australians of his age or older who wished to join the ADF. 3. Progress of the inquiry 3.1 Course of the inquiry On 21 May 1997 I wrote to the respondent and advised that I made a preliminary finding that the practice complained of by Mr Petersen constituted discrimination on the basis of age. This practice was the practice of the ADF of employing persons between the age of 17 and 35 years only. Following this preliminary finding I made directions for the provision of contentions and further submissions by the parties. Pursuant to sections 33 and 27 of the Act I invited the parties to make submissions orally or in writing or both. The respondent elected to make oral submissions. On 17 and 18 December 1998 I convened the inquiry in Sydney to take oral submissions from the respondent. The complainant was provided with an opportunity to attend but preferred to make written submissions on the basis of a transcript of the proceedings. At the conclusion of the oral submissions, I directed that each party provide me with further written submissions. Both parties have provided written submissions to me and these submissions are summarised in Section 5 below. 3.2 Written submissions of the complainant On 21 September 1997 Mr Petersen provided written submissions to the following effect: The ADFs restricted hiring policy adversely impacts on a group of Australians. The policy is unfair because age is not a predictor of job performance. The ADF must show this policy is justified as business necessity in each job category. If it is justified, all employees over 35 should be made redundant. Qualifications and experience are more valuable key performance criteria to consider. How can one justify a policy that would mean that the present Commissioner of Police would be rejected from entrance? His own experience includes 20 years experience in an overseas air force as a systems manager. He is a business graduate having obtained honorary status within a unit, is accustomed to military protocol and real war time experience and has vast experience in logistics management of aircraft systems. This complaint looks to the removal of the hiring policy for the benefit of all Australians. 3.3 Statement of issues At my direction during the course of the inquiry, the respondent provided a statement of the issues in contention as follows: whether, having made no formal application to join the ADF, the respondent can be said to have engaged in an act of discrimination against the complainant if yes, whether the respondent engaged in any distinction, exclusion or preference on the ground of age which nullified or impaired the complainants equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation If yes, whether the distinction, exclusion or preference was based on the inherent requirements of the job whether, by enforcing a policy of maximum age of entry to the ADF, the respondent has engaged in a practice which is discriminatory on the ground of age if yes, whether the policy was based on a distinction, exclusion or preference on the ground of age which nullified or impaired the complainants equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation if yes, whether the distinction, exclusion or preference contained in the policy was based on the inherent requirements of the job. I received no objection from the complainant concerning these issues. However, my preliminary finding of discrimination was based on the existence of a discriminatory practice only. I therefore accept items 4, 5 and 6 above as an accurate statement of the matters in issue in these proceedings. I do not regard items 1, 2 and 3 above as being in issue here. 4. Oral evidence for the respondent The respondent called the following witnesses relevant to Mr Petersens complaint: Colonel Warfe, Colonel Dittmar, Air Commodore Byrne and Wing Commander Johnston. I have summarised below the major points arising from their evidence. 4.1 Fitness standards in the ADF Colonel Warfe gave evidence that there are two fitness standards in the ADF; a medical fitness standard and a physical fitness standard. There is regular testing to these standards and everybody in the ADF, regardless of rank, is required to undertake the tests. In essence, the standards require freedom from any medical conditions which would hamper a persons ability to operate on a battlefield. There is a requirement for everybody to be medically and physically fit to be deployable on military operations. There was evidence from Colonel Warfe and Colonel Dittmar as to the range of climatic conditions a member of the ADF would need to withstand and the loads required to be carried in combat-related tasks. Colonel Warfe gave evidence that it is necessary to ensure that people are physically mature and medically fit. They must be able to cope with the privations of a battlefield. The scientific literature indicates that physical training is best conducted in the 17 to 30 year age group. From the age of 25, strength reduces with age. Preventable injuries increase at around 30 years of age. Colonel Warfe made reference to three scientific studies tendered to the Commission to the effect that injury rates and medical discharge were more frequent for older persons. The types of injuries which occur during military training (lower limb injuries, lower back, hip, knee and ankle injuries) render persons unsuitable for the military because rehabilitation takes a great deal of time and because they are at risk of future injury. Colonel Dittmar gave evidence of training requirements and injury rates. He indicated that infantry training was essentially designed around the development of taking young men and building up their physical capacity to be able to meet the operational requirement. He told the Commission that there would be a significant difference in physical capacity between an individual who was 31 years of age and someone who was 35. In relation to his own experience, he told the Commission that increasing age meant a diminution in the ability to recuperate quickly, the tendency to fatigue more easily and increased difficulty with personal hygiene, along with increased back and knee problems. Wing Commander Johnston gave evidence as to the fitness test. He said it was graded according to age and he referred to the increased risk of injury with age. 4.2 Restructuring of the ADF Colonel Warfe gave evidence that the size of the ADF has been significantly reduced in recent years. He said that it was therefore important that everyone be deployable on military operations. Colonel Dittmar gave evidence as to the structure of the ADF. He told the Commission that the size of the army was reducing and would be reduced to 23,000 persons in the next two years. Of this number, 15,000 would be in the combat force and 8,000 persons would be in training command. He described the process by which the core business of the ADF was separated from non-core business with the latter being contracted to civilians. Many jobs traditionally done by soldiers are now contracted out. Air Commodore Byrne gave evidence as to the restructuring of the RAAF and the requirement by mid 2001 for 65% of the force to be in combat related positions and the other 35% to have specialist military skills which would allow them to move into combat related areas. He said that every member of the RAAF has a requirement to be a deployable combatant. Every person in uniform must be capable of carrying out ground combat operations defending a bare base in the north of Australia. Evidence was given concerning the conditions at a bare base. 4.3 Recruitment practices Colonel Dittmar gave evidence that the vast majority of applicants to the ADF are school leavers -generally between 17 and 19 years of age. He said that only a handful of persons approaching the age of 35 or over applied to join. He said there was a particular need in the ADF for youthful applicants because of the need for acculturation within the ADFs particular culture and because it was necessary for the ADF to grow its own skill sets in circumstances where lateral recruitment was not possible. He said that a 40 year old applicant with private sector experience would have difficulty in reaching any level of reasonable seniority in rank or remuneration. Other persons in their 40s would be of a higher rank and would have considerable experience. Individuals joining at a later age would find their peers senior to themselves. The average period of service of a general service officer is 12 years and many leave the service around their late 20s. Colonel Dittmar said that most people do not regard the ADF as a lifelong career and this is why most applicants are school leavers. Colonel Dittmar gave evidence that there was some degree of flexibility in relation to the recruitment of specialist service officers, particularly medical practitioners, because they are in critical supply. This category also includes lawyers, dentists, psychologists, padres and civil engineers. Specialist service officers are in a different category to general service officers. Administrative Officers in the RAAF fall into the latter category. Air Commodore Byrne said that the rationale for the age maximum was to enable the RAAF to become a youthful combat force capable of undertaking ground combat operations in the north of Australia. This was aligned to the practice in the army. He said that the ADF tended to attract school leavers due to its heroic, adventurous image. The Air Commodore said that lateral recruitment was not possible and that the only way to get people with the right skill sets was to train them. He said that human resources managers could be laterally recruited but that this was only possible up until age 35 because of the requirement for them also to be capable of ground combat operations in a bare base which, in fact, is their primary role. 4.4 Requirements of job of Administrative Officer and other administrative jobs Air Commodore Byrne gave evidence that Administrative Officers in the RAAF are mainly human resource managers and administrators. They are also required to have specialist military skills and perform command and management responsibilities on bare bases. In recognition of the actual role, the Air Commodore stated that there was a proposal to change the title of the position to Operations Support Officer. The Air Commodore described the competencies of the Administrative Officer as including the requirement to fight a bare base; that is, to be responsible for the internal security of bare bases and have the skills to deploy forces within the base and maintain a secure environment. Evidence was given as to the meaning of a bare base and the conditions found there. Wing Commander Johnston referred to his personal experience with Administrative Officers in the RAAF. He described their role as resource management both human and financial. At Fairbairn, the role of the deputy base commander, an Administrative Officer, is to run the base on a day-to-day basis. The internal security of a base is a matter for Administrative Officers and such an officer would be likely to command base combat personnel. The Wing Commander gave evidence that lateral recruitment of Administrative Officers to the RAAF was possible and that private sector experience was relevant and applicable. It would be necessary to look at the individual case to see if the non-military skills were applicable to military uses, including combat-related roles. Colonel Warfe said that Administrative Officers in all three services had to be deployable on military operations. They would be expected to be able to look after themselves, not be a threat to anyone else and do their jobs in a hostile physical environment, including on a ship at sea. In Colonel Warfes opinion, persons over 35 could carry on the task of Administrative Officer but only if they were recruited and trained at a much younger age. The Colonel indicated that a person who would be in charge of a stores area in a base would need to be fit to deploy to an operation environment and look after the stores in that context. This person must look after himself and others and not be a threat to anyone else. The requirements on a quartermaster appear to be exactly the same as many combat-involved troops. Colonel Dittmar said that the vast majority of storemen and clerks in the army will live within the combat force. As such, they are soldiers first and specialists second. They are required to live in the field, undertake the protective tasks required of an infantry soldier, including patrolling and ambushing, and must be able to conduct counter-ambush drills. The clerical function includes matters such as grades registration, notification of casualties, evacuation of casualties and a range of other military specific tasks. Stores personnel must be able to operate in a potentially hostile environment and require navigation and protection skills. Colonel Dittmar also indicated that there were no longer any specific Administrative Officer positions within the army. These jobs were now performed by civilians. Wing Commander Johnston gave evidence of the work of engineering officers and supply officers in the RAAF which positions may match the skill set described by Mr Petersen. These persons are subject to the same requirements for combat fitness as any other officer. They work close to the aircraft systems as part of their role. All witnesses gave evidence about the rotational policy of the ADF. Wing Commander Johnston said that Administrative Officers in the RAAF were required to undertake postings in the north of Australia. 5. Written submissions of the parties 5.1 Submissions of the complainant By letter dated 8 February 1999, the complainant made the following submissions: The job specifications he mentioned are not vague and refer to universal functions carried out by Human Resources Managers, Financial Managers and so on. He did not wish to be appointed as an artisan, technician or pilot. The witnesses are all over 35 and are fit to be deployed. Why does this not apply to people not currently in the military? Colonel Dittmars comment about difficulty in reaching a level of seniority is irrelevant because people have different aspirations. It is discriminatory for persons over 35 to remain in the military when persons over 35 are not able to join. 5.2 Submissions of the respondent In its written submissions of 10 March 1999, the respondent contended as follows: The complainant has not given oral evidence and no opportunity has been given for cross-examination. The lack of clarity in regard to the positions sought has hampered the respondent in the preparation of its case. It is assumed from the complainants material that the complainant wished to join the RAAF as an officer other than a pilot. The complainant could perform the work he desires without joining the ADF. He may be able to compete for civilian vacancies within the Department of Defence. The ADF is reducing in size. There are no longer Administrative Officers in the army. In the RAAF, the mid 2001 force structure as described by Air Commodore Byrne requires combat fitness. Officer career involves duties outside specialisation with a view to eventual promotion to command. Commanders cannot be laterally recruited. An officer career requires regular rotation and the officer must be able to withstand extremes of climate. A distinction, exclusion or preference on the ground of age will not amount to discrimination if it is based on the inherent requirements of a particular job. This does not mean that the Commission must determine whether age is an inherent requirement of the job. The approach to the meaning of based on is that set out in AMC v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR 46 and Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Do (1997) 150 ALR 127, that is, the act must have occurred by reason of or by reference to the distinction or the distinction must be a material factor or the true basis for the act. The criterion must not be a subterfuge or a specious foundation. The Commissions task is to determine whether the exclusion of persons over the age of 35 from the job of Administrative Officer is based on the inherent requirements of the job or whether the inherent requirements are a subterfuge or a specious foundation for that requirement. The evidence reveals that most applicants present themselves for enlistment at the lower end of the age range and that many leave after some years of service. General Service Officers serve an average of 12 years. The ADF has a preponderance of youthful members. Some members of the ADF are older but evidence was given as to the decline with age in physical capacity. Evidence indicates that the 35 year limit is grounded in the inherent requirements of the job and, in particular, the physical rigours of the position. The respondent has determined that 35 years is the upper limit at which applicants can be expected to embark on training for ground combat operations at a bare base and embark on a career to maintain this level of fitness. The respondent has so determined based on its experience of training. The exclusion is based squarely on the inherent requirements of the job and does not constitute discrimination. 5.3 Submissions of the complainant in reply The complainant elected not to make any submissions in reply. 6. Findings 6.1 Elements of discrimination One of the functions conferred on me by the Act is to inquire into any practice that may constitute discrimination (section 31(b) of the Act). Discrimination is defined in section 3 of the Act as follows: discrimination means: any distinction, exclusion, or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and any other distinction, exclusion or preference that: has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and has been declared by the regulations to constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act, but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference: in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job; or in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, being a distinction, exclusion or preference made in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed. As previously noted, regulation 4(a) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Regulations declares any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the ground of age constitutes discrimination for the purposes of the Act. In deciding whether the matters complained of constitute discrimination within the terms of the Act I must therefore consider five main issues: whether there is a practice under the Act whether the practice arises in employment or occupation whether there was a distinction, exclusion or preference based on age whether the distinction, exclusion or preference nullified or impaired equality of opportunity or treatment whether the distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of the particular job was based on the inherent requirements of the job. 6.2 Whether there is a practice While the respondent initially indicated that the existence of an act was in issue in proceedings (see Statement of Issues, 15 May 1998), my preliminary findings were limited to the practice of excluding persons over the age of 35 years from entrance into the ADF. The existence of this practice is not disputed. 6.3 Whether the practice arises in employment or occupation There is no issue raised as to whether the practice complained of arose in employment or occupation and I am satisfied that the practice complained of arises in employment or occupation. 6.4 Whether there was a distinction, exclusion or preference made on the ground of age The respondent has not argued that there is no distinction, exclusion or preference made on the ground of age in respect of this practice. 6.5 Whether the distinction nullified or impaired equality of opportunity For a practice to be discriminatory, the Act requires the complainant to show that the distinction, exclusion or preference has had the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment. It is not disputed that Mr Petersen was 43 years of age at the time that he wished to apply for positions in the ADF and it is not disputed that he did wish to apply for those positions. I find, therefore, that the distinction nullified or impaired Mr Petersens equality of opportunity or treatment. 6.6 Whether the distinction, exclusion or preference was based on the inherent requirements of the job Not all distinctions, exclusions or preferences are discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. An employer may make a distinction, exclusion or preference on the basis of age where this distinction, exclusion or preference is based on the inherent requirements of the job. The respondent relies on this aspect of the definition of discrimination to argue that it has not discriminated against Mr Petersen. I must therefore consider whether the distinction, exclusion or preference on the basis of age contained in the maximum age of 35 years in respect of the positions referred to by Mr Petersen are based on the inherent requirements of the job. I have considered the evidence given in these proceedings and the argument of counsel for the respondent as to the inherent requirements. I do not take issue with the manner in which counsel has formulated the test concerning inherent requirements. That is, I agree that I cannot make a finding of discrimination in respect of a distinction, exclusion or preference (on the ground of age) which is based on the inherent requirements of the job. The respondent will succeed if the distinction based on age is in fact based on the inherent requirements of the relevant jobs. I appreciate the respondents difficulty in formulating its argument in respect of this aspect of the claim because the actual jobs which Mr Petersen wished to apply for have not been clearly defined. However, the respondent called evidence in relation to a range of administrative positions, including Administrative Officers in the RAAF and positions involving human resources management, financial management and stores positions in so far as they exist elsewhere in the ADF. For the purpose of this decision, I have considered this range of jobs to be the positions in issue and I have referred to them compendiously as Administrative Officers. The respondent has not clearly indicated which requirements of these types of job it submits are inherent and which are not. It is clearly not every selection criterion or every element of a persons job which can constitute an inherent requirement for the purpose of the Act. In its submissions, the respondent has variously indicated that the inherent requirements involve the physical rigours of the position, the need to embark on initial training that would render [an applicant] fit for ground combat operations at a bare base and the need to embark on a career in which [the applicant] will be required to maintain that level of fitness. Despite the level of difficulty involved in ascertaining what may constitute an inherent requirement (see Qantas v Christie (1998) 152 ALR 365; Commonwealth of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1998) 152 ALR 182) and the lack of precision in the respondents formulation, I am prepared to accept that it is an inherent requirement of the job of Administrative Officer to possess a level of combat fitness sufficient for ground combat operations to defend a bare base in the north of Australia. In making this finding, I have accepted the respondents evidence that it is an essential part of the job of Administrative Officer that the holder of the job be deployable in ground combat operations. This evidence was given in the context of the requirement for all members of the ADF to be deployable in this way and in the context of the shrinking size of the ADF, in particular, the RAAF. I have taken these structural and operational factors into account in determining that the level of combat fitness described above is an inherent requirement of the job. The question then becomes: can the distinction based on age be said to be based on these inherent requirements? I would answer this question in the negative. In my view, the critical matter is the possession by a person of a certain level of physical and medical fitness. This level is appropriately set in accordance with the requirement for deployment in combat. The ADF has medical and fitness tests which are designed and intended to be an adequate determinant of whether a person has the requisite level of fitness. Both Colonel Warfe and Wing Commander Johnston gave evidence as to the nature of the relevant tests. There was no suggestion in the evidence that the tests are incapable of detecting physical deterioration or medical problems. The medical and fitness standards are clearly based on the inherent requirement of the requisite level of combat fitness. The age exclusion, on the other hand, is not so based. It operates instead as a proxy for the possession of the required medical and fitness characteristics. In evidence, the respondent tendered studies to show the increased rate of injury and medical discharge for older persons in the defence forces. These studies indicate that on average older persons have higher rates of injury and medical discharge. In Bradley, Wilcox J drew specific attention to evidence which pointed to the difference between an average rate of performance and the performance of individuals. The only evidence that I have been presented with in this matter is evidence as to average performances. Indeed, I heard anecdotal evidence from a number of the respondents witnesses about persons who were over the age of 35 who were performing the relevant jobs and doing so to the required standard. In my view, I should apply the approach adopted by Wilcox J in Bradley. In that case, his Honour said: The term based on requires more than a logical link. The Macquarie Concise Dictionary gives, as the meaning of the verb base when followed by on or upon, to establish, as a fact or conclusion. So the distinction, exclusion or preference must be established upon the inherent requirements of the particular job. The correlation must be, at least, close. His Honour considered the analysis of Sackville J in AMC v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR 46 as to the meaning of based on. However, cases which have considered the meaning of the term based on in the context of establishing whether discriminatory conduct has occurred provide limited assistance in this case. With respect to beneficial legislation the meaning to be given to the phrase in the context of a defence is not necessarily the same as it would be in the context of establishing an element of discrimination. To the extent that the respondent relies on AMC v Wilson and Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Do (1997) 150 ALR 127 for the proposition that an exclusion will be based on the inherent requirements of the job except where the inherent requirements are merely a subterfuge or a specious foundation, I do not accept this submission. In any event, Wilcox J has addressed this very issue. His Honour required a tight correlation between the inherent requirements of the job and the relevant distinction, exclusion or preference. His Honour made reference to the policy behind the legislative scheme and continued: If the words based on are so interpreted that it is sufficient to find a link between the restriction and the stereotype, as distinct from the individual, the legislation will have the effect of perpetuating the very process it was designed to bring to an end. So it is not appropriate to reason that because extreme fitness is an inherent requirement of a job of an SSO pilot and younger pilots tend to be more fit than older pilots, therefore the requirement for SSO pilots to be under 28 years of age on appointment is based on the requirement of fitness. Unless there is an extremely close correlation between the selected age and fitness requirement so that age may logically be treated as a proxy for the fitness requirement, the legislation will have the effect of damning individuals over the age of 28 years by reference to a stereo-typical characteristic (less physical fitness) of their age group. The respondents submissions rely on the inappropriate reasoning described by Wilcox J and, for the reasons he gave, I am unable to accept them. In so far as this argument is made, I do not accept that the maintenance of a level of combat fitness can be construed as a separate inherent requirement. At any point in time, the inherent requirement of the job is to have a particular level of fitness. It is up to the ADF to design a test, at sufficiently frequent intervals, to assess the maintenance of this fitness. I consider that maintenance of combat fitness is too vague and ill defined to constitute a requirement. Further, no one can be subject to a present requirement to do something which depends upon foreseeable or unforeseeable future contingencies. In any event, even if I were to accept that the maintenance of the fitness level could be an inherent requirement, for the reasons given above I would be of view that the age exclusion is not based upon it. The only other requirement which has any connection with the age exclusion is the criterion of adjustment to military life. This was not specifically raised by the respondent in submissions as constituting an inherent requirement but evidence was put before me of the age differentials within a peer group or rank and the need for acculturation into the defence forces. Even if I accept that this could constitute an inherent requirement of the job, for the reasons already given I do not think the age exclusion can be said to be based on this requirement. There are, for example, selection criteria for Administrative Officers in the RAAF which refer to adjustment to military life. As a matter of logic, the ADF must have a method for assessing candidates against this criterion. The use of age as a proxy for the suitability for military life requirement has the same damning effect referred to by Wilcox J. The age distinction is not, therefore, based on the requirement for adjustment to military life. In summary, it may be that more persons over the age of 35 than below it fail to meet the admission standards into the ADF. However, these applicants are entitled to be assessed on their individual merits and, if they fail, to fail on the basis of their individual failure to meet specific medical or fitness or suitability standards that apply to all applicants and not because they fall within a stipulated age bracket, regardless of their ability to meet the other criteria. Applicants outside the stipulated age bracket who can meet the other selection criteria ought to be admitted for training and not excluded on the basis of an age distinction. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the exclusion all persons above the age of 35 years from employment as an Administrative Officer (as defined above) is based on the inherent requirements of the relevant jobs. Accordingly, I find that the practice complained of by the complainant constitutes discrimination in employment on the grounds of age. 7. Recommendations Having found the practice of a maximum age of 35 for entry discriminatory under the Act, I am required to consider what recommendations I should make. The Act does not make it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of age. However, the Division of the Act under which I am conducting this inquiry is directed to the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. Section 35(2) expressly provides that, where an act or practice is found to constitute discrimination, the Commission may make such recommendations, including compensation, as it considers appropriate in relation to a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result. 7.1 Recommendation of compensation Mr Petersen has not asked for financial compensation. Since he did not apply for any particular position I do not consider it appropriate to make a recommendation for compensation. 7.2 Other recommendations I recommend that the upper age limit in the ADF for admission to Administrative Officer positions as defined above or equivalent positions however titled be removed. 8. Notice of findings of the Commission The Commission finds that the practice complained of by the complainant namely that the respondent enforced a maximum age of 35 for appointment as Administrative Officer in the ADF constitutes discrimination in employment based on age. 9. Reason for findings I find that by enforcing a policy of maximum age of entry for Administrative Officers in the ADF the respondent has engaged in a practice which is discriminatory on the ground of age. This policy is based on a distinction, exclusion or preference on the ground of age which nullified or impaired the complainants equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation. The distinction, exclusion or preference contained in the policy was not based on the inherent requirements of the job. 10. Recommendation I recommend that the upper age limit in the ADF for admission to Administrative Officer positions as defined above or equivalent positions however titled be removed. Dated at Sydney this 16th day of September 1999 _______________________________________ Chris Sidoti Human Rights Commissioner PAGE  Endnotes  Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report into complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation: compulsory age retirement, HRC Report No.1, 30 August 1996.  Notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 21 December 1989.   :?^r!ZL r *HnY\`i6662@E]H#M&MMMMMOOUnVoV>W?W/Y\YYZ^^^|__a,bd >*OJQJ B*OJQJ6 CJOJQJj0JOJQJU 6OJQJ 5OJQJCJKHOJQJ56CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ KHOJQJOJQJ CJOJQJ@  :;<=>?#xx 86n J $\8!n#% $ 86n J $\8!n#%$$xx 86n J $\8!n#%$  :;<=>?2T. i L r *HijKveޅ}.+   ~+   sn?{q/2T. i L r %57xx 56n J $\8!p##xx 86n J $\8!n#% *HijKvf% & F+xx 5n J $\8!n#%!xx 5n J $\8!n#%$d$#xx 86n J $\8!n#%$57xx 27n J $\8!p# eVVn^b5C- $dxx& & F-xx 86n J $\8!n#%$d$% & F+xx 5n J $\8!n#%eVVn^b5C-NV Q!"X% ((()+-ľ~ytoje_ZUP," t! !-  -  -  -  -   j-  R+  +  +  K+  +  +  -NV Q!"X% ((()+--123566$0#xx 5n J $\8!n#% $dxx$dxx  $dxx$--12356689;<>2@gCDwEEEFFFjGG]HHHI&JJKþ|ukaW  7         3       <q | 689;<>2@gCDwEEEFFFjGG& & Fxx 86n J $\8!n#%#xx 86n J $\8!n#%$$dxx $dxx 6G]HHHI&JJKKzLMMNPQQ!RSFSSS T$ & F dxx 6 $dxx$& & Fxx 86n J $\8!n#%KKzLMMNPQQ!RSFSSS T,TKTTU1U:VoVV?WWWĺ}ztqnke]WOLD0  M    0   0 R    ]  <    ?  F  a    D      C   T,TKTTU1U:VoVV?WWW0YZZ* & Fxx 86n J $\8!n#%& & F0xx 86n J $\8!n#%#xx 86n J $\8!n#%xx$W0YZZZ[U[[F\f\r]]]^^|__a,bBcdfilnOpps!wwx7|V}x8¿~{vspkheb_Mo<v?  [   ~ k      U    \0  %ZZ[U[[F\f\r]]]^^|__a,bBcdfi$;#xx 86n J $\8!n#%$( & Fxx 8n J $\8!n#%ddff}llllnOpppu uQuXu`wgwwx)y6y!{-{2{M{V}xEX 'ΐ()/01BCsӕ@AB6CJCJj0JCJH*U0J j0JUB*mH mH  6OJQJOJQJ6B*OJQJ B*OJQJ5B*OJQJ;ilnOpps!wwx7|V}x8E5X$ $dxx $dxx#xx 86n J $\8!n#%8E5X 'ΐvה '(12345678AB@AB m/  1/   /   fV#X 'ΐvה $dxx 6& & F/xx 86n J $\8!n#% $dxx$#2xx 56n J $\8!n# '(12345678ABr&nd 86n J $\8!n#%"d 86n J $\8!n#%$h2 $&`#$dh&`#$2 56n J $\8!n# B@AB2 56n J $\8!n#&d 86 J $\8!n#%# 0&P . A!"#$% [0@0NormalCJOJQJmH H@H Heading 1$xx@&5CJKHOJQJD@D Heading 2$$<@& 5OJQJ0@0 Heading 6$@&5<A@<Default Paragraph Font0+0 Endnote TextCJ22 Footnote TextCJ6*@6Endnote ReferenceH*B@" Body TextN$dhxx 86n J $\8!n#%OJQJhnH C@2Body Text IndentG$d 5n J $\8!n#%B*OJQJhnH R@BBody Text Indent 2N$6d 86n J $\8!n#%B*OJQJhnH P@R Body Text 2F$d 86n J $\8!n#%B*OJQJhnH T@b Block TextK$d 57n J $\8!n##B*CJOJQJhnH Q@r Body Text 3G$2d 56n J $\8!n#OJQJhnH &)@& Page NumberB @BFooter1$ 9r OJQJhmH nH B B dBL[ -6G TZiXBBMOPQSUVXZ\^_`e-KW8BNRTWY]!w~V[qv$)`!g!$#$$$%%))++-- .. 66669 9(:/::<A<>>v?~?A ArC{CII}hhenjn~nnQqXq`sgsu#u2w7w (078@Ch 8>KLSq K N u 57NVQ[279)**F*+++h,m,,1v222{;;;;2<<<<===E>>>>;?e?KCXCCD'G.GIJLLMMQ)Q@SCSSSWW[[a^o^``NfWffhhjalilmm~qqquuv6x]z{{|€/15IL&Ì{{ (078@CHREOC0\\HRD3\DATA\USERS\WILME\Documents\ADF part 4.docHREOC*C:\Websites\hreoc\word_docs\ADF_part_4.doc1#`4"S16g*6 *Y.inָh 8*B.y zWk7I `^ R{ C %p  \( 'r(Xq[T#)9*dT4 , b,pfn}0 L~66 aa6 3x7.iXU8nָU8 {'09t : ^<:s>;.,*o(.hh.hh.ppo(- ppOJQJo(- hhOJQJo(::>*o(.uuo(.vvo(..wwo(... xxo( .... yyo( ..... `o( ...... `o(....... o(........ hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo(::o(::o(.0o(..0o(... 88o( .... `o( ..... `o( ...... o(....... o(........0o(. hhOJQJo(hh. hhOJQJo(hh.::o(::o(.0o(..0o(... 88o( .... `o( ..... `o( ...... o(....... o(........hh.hh.::o(::o(.0o(..0o(... 88o( .... `o( ..... `o( ...... o(....... o(........hh. ppOJQJo(- hhOJQJo(0o(0o(.0o(..0o(... 88o( .... 88o( ..... `o( ...... `o(....... o(........hh. hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo(hho(. hhOJQJo(o(()0o(.0o(.0o(..0o(... 88o( .... 88o( ..... `o( ...... `o(....... o(........>0>o(()hh.hh>*o(..o(()::o(::o(.0o(..0o(... 88o( .... `o( ..... `o( ...... o(....... o(........2 :t2HzWk|1BDAC %lzLh3x7;Yb,0U8R{ L~66k\#`&Raa6hcR _Gs}F0T*|S1W\i \(^<:vFA>J;*Y'r(I I `9 [E4 ,[T#)*p{'09yT%giXU8, _PID_GUIDAN{D2372CED-2469-11D4-ACDE-0008C75A998D}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`acdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F01Tableb:WordDocument%SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool00  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q