What is conciliation?

Conciliation is a process whereby people in dispute are brought together to discuss the issue, with the aim of reaching an outcome that is satisfactory to all.

A substantial number of complaints under federal/state and territory equal opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation are resolved by parties deciding to settle the matter by conciliation, with the assistance of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (or state/territory Commissions or Boards) having to formally decide that unlawful discrimination has occurred or what the remedy should be.

A conciliation conference is a meeting between a person making a complaint ( the complainant) and the person (or representative from an organization)being complained about (the respondent).

The meeting is run by the conciliator, a neutral person who helps people directly involved in the complaint to talk about the matter and find ways to resolve it.

Conciliation encourages free and open discussion. Nothing said or done at a conference can be used later in court.

Any agreement reached between the parties is confidential, unless otherwise agreed. The published summaries avoid identifying private persons and organisations as parties to complaints or inappropriately disclosing details of information provided in the conciliation process, while making outcome information available as far as possible.

Further summaries are added regularly.

Examples of conciliated race complaints

Racial vilification in darts (HREOC)

Complainant was involved in an altercation with other members of respondent darts club.  Complainant says members abused her children and when she went to defend them she was slapped in the face and called a "black c***" and "black b***ard".  Complainant says she slapped one of respondents back.  It appears complainant was charged with assault and respondent club has banned her for two years.  Complainant says other members involved in altercation have not been banned. Complainants are Indigenous.

 Racial vilification in Junior soccer (HREOC)

Complainant claims that the coach of his daughter's under 10's soccer team discriminated against him on the basis of his race by saying to complainant "why don't you go back to the little village you came from" when complainant was questioning the coach about the number of times his daughter had been substituted.  Complainant is of Ukranian background.  Complainant says he was humiliated in front of his daughter. Complainant lodged a complaint against the coach and association for not taking his claims seriously.

Racial vilification in hockey (HREOC)

Complainant claims he was racially vilified by a committee member of a hockey sporting association. Complainant claims that during a heated discussion about a sports team the individual respondent said "hit me you f**king wog". Complainant lodged a complaint against the association for not dealing with his complaint against the committee member.

Racial vilification in rugby (HREOC)

Complainant claims he was racially vilified during a under 17's rugby game by other players who said such things as "black c***", "black boy" and "black sh**". Complainant claims his team members heard the abuse. Complainant complained to referee who ignored him. Complainant claims his brother then walked onto the field and stopped play. Complainant claims that association failed to deal with the complaint internally

Examples of conciliated disability complaints

Golfers with disabilities (HREOC)

A woman who had a leg amputation complained that she had been discriminated against when the board of her golf club decided she could not use the club's motorised cart during play. The complaint was resolved when the club decided to permit her to use a cart. (2002)

In another similar case a man who has an above knee amputation complained that a requirement that he walk in 36 hole golf competitions was discriminatory. The complaint was settled when the club waived this requirement. (2002)

Access to mainstream competition (HREOC)

A Paralympian powerlifter complained that he had been denied access to mainstream competition. The complaint was withdrawn when the Australian federation undertook to raise the issue of eligibility rules with the international body which controls the rules of the sport (2002).

Bowling alley access (HREOC)

A woman with epilepsy complained that she had been told not to come back to a bowling alley after she bowled a ball hastily so she could sit down when she had felt a seizure approaching. At a conciliation conference the bowling centre agreed that the complainant was welcome to return, and paid her $1500 to compensate for the incident. (2001)

Access to soccer skills program (HREOC)

A mother complained on behalf of her son with cerebral palsy. He is a keen soccer fan and has had his wheelchair modified to enable him to play soccer at school. The respondent runs soccer skills programmes for young children but refused an application from the boy, on the basis that his disability would prevent him participating. At a conciliation conference the respondent apologised to the child, agreed to enrol him in one of its soccer programmes for a year free of charge, and to modify its enrolment practices. (2001)

Darts player scores rules change (HREOC)

A woman with a back injury complained that she was discriminated against by a requirement of the rules of her sporting association that players travel together to competition events, since her condition meant she was unable to take long journeys by bus. The matter was settled when the association advised that it had changed its rules to permit exceptions where required by a medical condition (1997).

Motor racing licence for diabetic man (HREOC)

A man who has insulin controlled diabetes complained that he had been discriminated against when his motor racing licence had been restricted by the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) to races not exceeding 20 minutes duration. It was agreed that the complainant had been racing without incident for seven years and had been responsible in managing his condition including being prepared to install a glucose delivery system in his car. The matter was settled when CAMS advised that although it had based its original decision on genuine safety issues, it had reviewed their decision on further medical consideration and in the light of revised regulations from international motor racing authorities, and would remove the restriction on the complainant's licence on condition that he provided regular specialist reports on his condition (1994).

Access to a swimming pool (HREOC)

Complainant has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair. Complainant claims respondent pool centre does not have a lift to assist people with mobility disabilities enter the pool.

Nature of origin & access (HREOC)

Complainant who is of Polish background claims that he and a friend whilst playing a game of Bridge at the respondent Club were asked by the Director of Bridge not to speak Polish. Complainant claims that he and his friend spoke in Polish again and were humiliated by the Director in that he banned them from the next Bridge session.