Home > Current Affairs, Human Rights, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL Herman O'HERMITAGE > EYE-BALL’s Herman on – An Example of bureaucracy gone mad –

EYE-BALL’s Herman on – An Example of bureaucracy gone mad –

March 24, 2013
Links to Previous ‘Herman’ Posts:

– 10th Mar = The Carbon Tax – Post Election …

– 7th Mar – Wayne Swan – Please Stop

28th Feb – The Australian Labor Party View

– 6th Feb – Corruption

– 25th Jan – Anti Discrimination

– 17th Jan 2013 – Atheism

– 12th Nov – Hegemony

– 2nd Nov – A March early Federal election

To see more EYE-BALL ‘Herman’ posts:

click here …

– An Example of bureaucracy gone mad –
| Author: EYE-BALL’s Herman O’Hermitage | 24th Mar 2013 |
The following is an example of the due process involved when dealing with Public Service bureaucracy when a long-term unemployed and mature aged person applies for employment within the public service.

The ease at which rejection is decided upon by the HR Departments within the Public Service ranks leaves applicants with only a single course of action – that is to pursue discrimination options to force the HR personnel into a contest to justify their selection criteria and attitudes, and how the system protects from within.

What follows is a presentation of the documentary evidence needed to pursue such an anti-discrimination application.

Form 59: Rule 29.02(1)

Affidavit: No.  xxx of 2013

Federal Court of Australia

District Registry: New South Wales

Division: Human Rights

Name of Applicant: [John Citizen]

Name of Respondent: [Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Immigration and Citizenship]

Affidavit of:  John Citizen

Address:  14 Smith Street, Smithsville, New South Wales, 2999

Occupation:  Accountant

Date:  March 22nd, 2013.


I, John Citizen of 14 Smith Street, Smithsville in the State of New South Wales say on oath;

  1. I am the Applicant, in this Application before the Court; I am 55 years old born on before 1960.
  1. Oath relating to source of Evidence
  • The following I know to be true by virtue of attached documents, private records and other personal attribute(s) which may include recall of conversations, documents supplied to AHRC under discovery or prior knowledge and experience. Often emails are cut and pasted into this deposition rather than attached for reasons of flow, simplicity and efficaciousness. [Where this occurs, there is an alternation in text and colour].
  1. Background
  • I have not been in regular employment since September 1998, when I was employed as an executive manager as part of the ABC Banking Group. I have been actively seeking wholesome and fulsome employment since March 2002. Since January 2010 I have been intensively seeking regular employment in white collar work and applied for about 400 jobs. In the 3 years since January 2010 I have been employed sporadically for about 20 weeks essentially working on the Federal, State and Local elections.
  • In February 2008 my doctor ordered I stop doing manual labouring due to soft tissue degeneration in both wrists and elbows.
  • In September 2011 I graduated in a Master of Applied Finance, including the honour “with Distinction”. Attached by way of annexure is a resume marked Annexure “JC1” and an academic testamur marked Annexure “JC2”.
  1. Public Service Employment Applications
  • Above I mention approx 400 jobs applications (at lines 14 to 16) and of those approximately one third were in civil service, the other two thirds in private sector. In all I have been interviewed 5 times, twice in public sector, and 3 times in private sector.
  • In April 2010 I applied for 29 positions with the Department of Finance and Deregulation, often where several recruits were required. On March 31st 2010 I drove to Canberra from Sydney and back to attend an information briefing session. Of the positions applied for they ranged from clerical level APS2 to EL2. (see below for further definition of those acronyms, APS 2 extremely junior, EL2 executive). In total I have made 48 applications to Department of Finance and Deregulation.
  • Relating to those 29 applications made between the 5th to 8th of April 2010 on 27 occasions I received a standard email rejection which read; (see letter below cut and pasted from an email)

Dear John,

I refer to your application for the above position.

On behalf of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, I regret to advise that on this occasion your application has been unsuccessful.

Thank you for your interest in this position and the time spent in applying.

Yours sincerely

HR Operations (Recruitment), HR Services Branch – Department of Finance and Deregulation

  • The rejection letters were received from 2 weeks to 4 months after my application and in respect of the residual 2, no further correspondence was received. Of the other 19 applications one was as a casual driver for Comcar based out of Sydney, and that application too was routinely rejected.
  • There have been several employment applications to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and several to Defence Materiel Organisation.
  • The only other interview in public sector arose in May 2012 recruiting for an APS 6 Accountant, with the Air Lift Systems Programme Office at the RAAF base at Richmond. That position was never recruited due to Federal Government budget cuts, last May.
  • To give meaning to the APS clerical levels (line 30 above) I have copied and pasted from the Australian Public Service Commission website a definition of employment band categories here from Fact Sheet 3. They are;
  1. ‘The level of APS jobs is based on the duties that are required to be performed. Jobs are classified and paid at different levels according to the complexity, responsibility and skills involved. The most common classifications used are as follows:
    1. APS 1 and 2—general administrative and service positions, cadetships and trainees
    2. APS 3 and 4—general entry level positions and general administrative, technical, project and service positions, and graduate positions
    3. APS 5 and 6—senior administrative, technical, project and service positions, which may have supervisory roles
    4. Executive Level 1 and 2—middle management positions
    5. Senior Executive Service Band 1, 2 and 3—senior leadership and management positions. More information is available at our SES page.
  2. Classifications grouped together, such as APS 1 to APS 3, are called broadbands.’
  • Each Australian Public Service Commission fact sheet has footnotes of which one can be perceived as direct age discrimination (maybe reverse discrimination). Directly quoted (cut and pasted on February 6th 2013) from Fact Sheet 1 titled “The Big Picture”
  • “Myth vs reality: APS managers are mostly men in grey cardigans.
  • Promotion to management positions is based on your skills and abilities, not your age, gender or how long you’ve worked in the APS. Forty-two percent of APS managers are women, and 35% of senior executives are women. Just over half of our managers are aged under 45
  • That is a culture of discriminating against mature aged men, and it has become a society acceptance, the concept of ageism, stereo typing age groups and therefore discriminating according to perceptive traits, rather than treating each case on its’ merits as required under APS merit considerations and Equal Employment Opportunity. Section 14 (b) (iii) of the Age Discrimination Act, 2004.
  1. The Non Ongoing Temporary Employment Register application made by deponent to respondent and basic timeline.
  • January 23, 2012 – My application was registered. It is attached and marked as Annexure “JC3”.  It is very scant, asking for contact details, employment history, education and name of referees. Please note well here the statement at question 1.8 on page 2 (cut and pasted, therefore directly quoted);
  • Please provide details of your previous employment for the last five years. As this is a separately assessable requirement, please do not refer to your resume details in completing this information.
  • A Resume is normally electronically attached to each Employment Application. That is already attached herein, the Annexure ‘JC1’. That resume was uploaded on the respondent application system on October 18, 2012 replacing an earlier version.
  • October 18, 2012 – At midday I was prevented from completing a different application due to time expiration at midday and requested that I be considered. As a consequence I was phoned by Ms Lily Chan. [The respondent website consistently calls noon 12pm which can widely be interpreted as midnight, noon is technically neither ante meridiem nor post meridiem].
  • October 19, 2012 – at about 3pm I was called by NSW HR Manager Mr Les Sweatman. Mr Sweatman conducted an initial phone interview in respect of the Non Ongoing Temporary Employment Registration. At one stage Mr Sweatman asked “Do you know what we do?” There were other totally contemptible questions,that made me feel like I was treated as an imbecile. I was asked when could I start and did I have any leave planned. An interview was arranged for the following Friday. The fact that I was granted an interview made me overlook all of the negative attributes.
  • October 26th 2012 – starting at 9.45am the interview was conducted by a selection panel made up of Ms Tina Oommen and Ms Julienne Jong Wah. I was met by Ms Lily Chan and shown to a room where I was told to prepare answers to selection criteria. As set out in the main court application (I was told to only use examples from the last 1 to 3 years despite that being discrimination under Section 15 of the Age Discrimination Act 2004) and Ms Chan took my driver’s licence and passport for photocopying to start the security vetting process. (This was despite me consistently saying I had already been granted security clearance by the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency on July 21, 2012). The interview proceeded particularly smoothly, where towards the conclusion I was asked if my referees were still current. I left just after 11am. I was very excited.
  • October 29th 2012 – On the following Monday, my wife asked if I had heard anything from the respondent. I had told her I had been asked when I could start and did I have leave planned. (Phone call at lines 101 – 107 above).
  • October 31st 2012 – When nothing had occurred by Wednesday I emailed Ms Chan asking when a decision might be expected. I was told in a fortnight. That worried me.
  • On November 13th 2012 I received by email’

Good afternoon,
I am writing to you regarding your application for a position with DIAC through our Non-ongoing Register.

Your claims to these APS 3 positions have been considered and unfortunately on this occasion your application has been unsuccessful.

Thank you once again for taking the time and making the effort to register your interest with our department.

In general applicants who were unsuccessful in this recruitment exercise were unable to provide sufficient evidence that they were able to fulfil the capability requirements expected at the APS 3 level at interview. Information related to these capabilities can be obtained on the Department’s website at http://www.immi.gov.au/about/careers/

If you intend to apply for future positions with the Department, I would recommend that you also read the document titled “Cracking the Code – How to apply for jobs in the Australian Public Service”. This publication can be found online at http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/crackingthecode.htm

Kind Regards
HR Services Section NSW
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

  • November 14, 2012 – I asked for specific feedback in writing, and filed a complaint in the Australian Human Rights Commission under Australian Human Rights & Equal Employment Opportunity Act 1984 and Age Discrimination Act, 2004.
  • November 20, 2012 – An alleged e mail transmission from HR Service Manager Recruitment, People Services Network NSW (Mr Les Sweatman) that is not contained in my records whatsoever, that defines the merit principle. It is attached and now termed Annexure “JC4”. Discussed further at lines 301 – 302 & 359 – 367. On that same day Acting Director, People Services Network (Ms Patricia Torrens) contacted me to start an attempt at private conciliation.
  • December 11, 2012 – I received an email from the Acting Director, People Services Network on behalf of the respondent, that includes the sentence “As advised, it is the department’s policy to provide verbal feedback to applicants on the outcome of a recruitment/selection exercise and I advised that I was more than willing to set this up for you with the selection panel.” I maintained my stance I wanted the evidence set out in writing, due to the fact that over time too often the feedback is shown to be nothing but contempt.
  1. Subsequent Applications for Employment.
  • On December 4th and December 5th I made 2 further employment applications for work with the respondent.
  • Annexure “JC5” is a job description for recruitment (Respondent reference 60017949) titled APS Level 6 several positions, applied for on December 4th, 2012
  • Annexure “JC6” is a copy of my application. Again please note at Question 3.2 on page 3 the statement (identical to lines 90 to 92 above);

Please provide details of your previous employment for the last five years. As this is a separately assessable requirement, please do not refer to your resume details in completing this information.

Only your last 5 years of employment is relevant to their employment assessment.

In response on December 24th, 2012 I was informed by email,

Dear John,
I refer to your application for the above position. Your claims to the position have been considered in relation to the behavioural based questions against which all applicants were assessed.

I wish to advise that on this occasion, your application has been unsuccessful. If you wish to receive feedback on your assessment please contact me at Sofia.Basic@immi.gov.au and I will provide this feedback from 2 – 4 January 2013.

Thank you for your interest in this position and the time spent in applying.

Sofia Basic

  • Further feedback as requested was received in writing by email on December 28th, 2012 and read;

Dear John,

Thank you for your application for the above position.

The panel received over 100 applications many of which were of a very high standard.

The panel has agreed that more succinct answers would strengthen your responses, and that you should attempt to answer the points provided in order to fully address the required selection criteria in future applications.

I wish you the best in your future career.

Sofia Basic
Chair Panel Member

  • That feedback fails to mention how many potential recruits were interviewed or how many were indeed hired. The reference “The panel has agreed that more succinct answers would strengthen your responses” is a euphemism saying get someone else (an expert) to write your (or critique your) selection criteria responses for you. Once more it goes to the heart of Section 15 of the Age Discrimination Act 2004. Due to the fact that I have not previously worked in the public sector, I am often advised to pay a selection panel expert to write my selection criteria responses for me. On Annexure “JC6” at page 3 under Question 3.1 General Information or at page 9 Question 7.1 declaration, there is no mention of stating on oath the application is all of your own work. That is; not prepared by someone else in the shadows. In the above email it states “many of which were of a very high standard” and does that mean they are coached, insiders or indeed experienced at the process? I have consistently asked, and been constantly denied an answer, is there a system to check for plagiarised or near identical responses?
  • Annexure marked “JC7” is a second job description for several positions titled APS Level 6 (Ongoing and Non Ongoing). At that time the respondent reference used was 60029214. [A similar position is now being recruited respondent reference 60022771 applications closing on March 20, 2013, where that position location is limited to Belconnen ACT].
  • Annexure “JC8” is a copy of my application, relating to Annexure ‘JC7’. Once more; note well the statement at question 3.2 on page 3; (Previously highlighted above at lines 90 – 92 and 167 – 169)

Please provide details of your previous employment for the last five years. As this is a separately assessable requirement, please do not refer to your resume details in completing this information.

  • That discrimination is consistent. Verbally I am informed your resume is only considered or relevant when you are shortlisted.
  • Once more a standard rejection was received on December 13, 2012 and on January 4th, 2013 the following was received;

Hi John

Thanks for seeking feedback on your application. It was a very competitive selection process as we received 154 applications in total of which only 11 were shortlisted for interview.

The scores for your written application are below.

  1. Contributes to Strategic Thinking – Unsuitable
  2. Achieves Results- Unsuitable
  3. Supports Productive Working Relationships – Unsuitable
  4. Displays Personal Drive & Integrity – Unsuitable
  5. Communicates with influence – Requires Development
  6. Demonstrates Professional / Technical Proficiency – Requires Development

The Selection Committee felt that your examples were too basic and did not demonstrate your ability to perform at the APS6 classification. It would probably benefit you to review the Work Level Standards and Capability Development Framework to ensure the examples you are using are in line with the APS6 classification. Higher scores also would have been applied if your examples were more relevant to the advertised role (i.e. workforce planning or another HR field).

Your example for the ‘Supports Productive Working Relationships/Displays Personal Drive and Integrity’ criteria did not address the question asked. The Selection Committee also felt it was inappropriate for you to name departmental employees in your criteria response.

I hope this feedback is helpful to you.

Shannon Yates
Assistant Director
Workforce Planning & Org Management Section People Strategy & Planning Branch

  • In this instance Mr Yates has said 11 were selected for interview, but not how many were recruited. The fact that the position is now re-advertised is something more again. At the top of Annexure ‘JC8’ page 3, Question 2.12 there is a glaring hypocrisy where a similar function is now re advertised; “An order of merit may be created from this vacancy and used to fill similar positions in the future.”
  • The scoring of the responses at paragraph 2 (Lines 227 to 230 above) coupled with the lines 237 to 240 now reproduced ‘Your example for the ‘Supports Productive Working Relationships/Displays Personal Drive and Integrity’ criteria did not address the question asked.” Also goes to the heart of section 15 of the Age Discrimination Act 2004, a potential hire who has spent 3 years actively seeking work, and the respondent approach consistently fails under section 15 (2) of the Age Discrimination Act 2004. The selection panel’s authority is grandiloquent and acuminate. More broadly under the principles of Equal Employment Opportunity since September 2009 it is no longer a core virtue of Australian Public Service policy and therefore EEO is abused at will.
  1. Depression and Anxiety (Health Issues)
  • My regular doctor is Dr Q, of Practice (earlier mentioned at lines 18 to 19 herein). From winter 2003 to about 2008 Dr Q insisted I stop doing manual labouring. In February 2008 Dr Q referred me to a specialist unit of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital to conduct tests on soft tissue injury to wrists and elbows on both arms. The results were long term non reversible damage without pain relieving surgery. From that time I have done minimal manual labouring and the inflammation has subsided. I have never been personally involved in any worker’s compensation claim or issue. Pins and needles are still commonly endured.
  • My wife Ms Jane Citizen is a Registered Psychologist, who works at St Pius Hospice in the Anxiety and Depression unit. Most lately she is specialising in Post Traumatic Stress programs mainly for the NSW Government. She also has a small private practice, where she knows personally the psychologists working at the Practice, and has had patients referred to her by that medical practice.
  • Due to issues of ethical standards the deponent needed to source an alternate referring doctor to find an unrelated psychologist. On November 19th 2010 Dr O of the second Medical Practice referred me to a Registered Psychologist; Ms M under the Federal Government’s Mental Health Care Plan to address work related issues. The most relevant consideration is that I don’t need treatment or chemical dependency I need sustainable work.
  • The central issue here is; each November/December I develop the onset of anxiety and depression as the holiday season approaches, due to the recruitment process being deferred until the new year, and the process of reflection that also occurs during the new year celebrations. This matter now before the court has been central to my thoughts during December 2012 and January 2013. Each passing year is 1 less year of prospective employment, retirement savings and achievement within a lifetime. This past holiday season since this dispute was referred to the Australian Human Rights Commission, the issues include on Christmas day I had a throbbing in my right ear akin to blood pressure. By the second week of January I had a bleeding in my right ear which I put down to an ear infection. Since then I have developed a blurred vision in my right eye. I am now referred to an ophthalmic surgeon.
  • Each time I have work to look forward to my health issues clear up miraculously.
  • My underemployment clearly affects my domestic relationships. My wife never expected to marry a house husband and often tells me “get a job or get out”.
  1. Merit applied to Integrity and Communication
  • The respondent consistently refuses to acknowledge there is a problem within what they term “merit based selection”. Indeed it is not merit, but designed to discriminate. Employment applications who display merit are perfunctorily and routinely rejected.
  • Under the Australian Human Rights Commission investigation of the facts, on January 13th, 2013 I received an e mail with 2 attachments. The first was;
    • Their response to my application, while the other was
    • 40 pages of attached documents numbering 14 attachments
  • Only 3 of those documents are annexed herein. They are Annexure ‘JC4’ introduced at lines 147 to 152, and 2 others now attached and described as Annexure “JC9” and “JC10”. The rest are extremely repetitive and would disperse from the central facts if reproduced.
  • Annexure “JC” is undated and unsigned. I verily believe this appraisal was written in late December 2012 from verbal communications. It relates to the interview on October 26, 2012 (evidenced at lines 108 to 118 above). It is written to address my constant request for feedback from November 13, 2012 onwards. (evidenced at lines 144 to 159 above).
  • Annexure ‘JC9’ misquotes me and thereby vilifies me. Several aspects of paraphrasing me are factually wrong.
  • Annexure ‘JC9’ fails to include how the interview panel (Ms Oommen and Ms Jong Wah) diminished the recruitment opportunity in terming it basically a call centre style position. This attached synopsis ‘JC9’ fails to mention how the interviewers claimed 19 out of 20 of the positions filled will be terminated at the end of 6 months. The document fails to mention how I said words to the effect “that is a challenge I readily accept”. It fails to mention how the interviewers asked me to confirm the contact details of my referees. Indeed most of the information is designed to fit the facts, as an afterthought.
  • The annexure termed ‘JC9’ was the 14th of 14 documents supplied by the respondent to the Australian Human Rights Commission under their investigation process (hence marked attachment N at top right corner).
  • Annexure “JC10” only adds to intrigue, and lack of decency, accountability and transparency. That document displays how the apparent author Ms Tina Oommen (sender) has blind copied it to 4 non-government and unknown e mail addresses. That may well constitute misconduct by Ms Oommen. Could it constitute evidence of attempting to hire known personal associates or give them advanced knowledge of what was transpiring?
  • At line 142 above of what was sent to me the authorship is accredited to “HR Services Section NSW” rather than Ms Oommen, again totally lacking any integrity, transparency or accountability.
  • Moreover when that document is copied 7 times for no good reason into the Australian Human Rights Commission investigation of facts, it has the effect of diminishing and dispersing far more critical evidence.
  • Annexure “JC11” is the last written communication I received through the Australian Human Rights Commission investigation process on February 6, 2013. Once more that document is undated and unsigned. I received it by E mail attachment of a forwarded communication from AHRC. The document only enhances the belief that the story has been designed to fit the facts. An attempt to reinforce the respondent’s central tenet, I the deponent do not meet the APS merit principle in verbal interview, where I maintain, a wholly discriminating perspective of merit as evidenced throughout. Their use of APS Merit principle fails under Section 15 (2) of the Age Discrimination Act.
  • The Merit principle is summarised in annexure ‘JC4’. At lines 147 – 152 I state my records show that I did not receive that document on that day. When you couple ‘JC2’ with ‘JC4’ and finally the conclusion contained in ‘JC11’ the preposterous nature of the respondent claims are exposed. It all swings on a series of clandestine verbal communications designed and practiced by the respondent, requests for evidence in writing by the applicant, and the claim “The non ongoing APS3 exercise in which you were recently a candidate was based on this principle”. (At line 23 of Annexure attached and now termed Annexure ‘JC4’). – (A document I claim I only received through the investigation process of the Australian Human Rights Commission).
  • As set out in the Federal Court Application thereafter the Australian Human Rights Commission suggested by way of conciliation;
  • If anyone was selected from the interviews of late October or early November with a similar age profile to me would I withdraw my complaint. Particularly in the light of the concealed blind copying of the document now called annexure ‘JC9’ and several other experiences; over many Australian Public Service employment applications,
  • I counter offered that I would agree to that provided the further caveat be added that showed those similar aged recruits were not former Australian Public Service who had been made redundant or taken early retirement.
  • That ended the Australian Human Rights Commission investigation and conciliation process.
  • No conciliation was conducted before a Delegate of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
  • Therefore the notification was issued under Section 46PH (1) (i) of the Act.
Sworn / Affirmed by the deponentat Sydney in New South Wales onMonday the 22nd day of March 2013.Before me: )))))
   Signature of deponent

Signature of witness

[Name and qualification of witness]

List of Annexures – copies not provided:

Document Number Details Paragraphs Pages
1 Affidavit of John Citizen in support of an Application in the Federal Court under the Australia Human Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 sworn in Sydney on March 22nd 2013 174 12
JC1 Annexure being an Employment Resume of the Applicant 17 3
JC2 Annexure being Master Degree Testamur of the Applicant 1 1
JC3 Annexure being the Non Ongoing Employment Register Application lodged with Respondent on January 23rd 2012. 12 3
JC4 Annexure being an Email of HR Manager NSW of the Respondent supplied to Australian Human Rights Commission that details Merit based selection policy of Australian Public Service Commission. 2
JC5 Annexure being a Duty Statement of an Employment Application between the parties. (Deponent Reference 60017949 -several positions) lodged during conciliation process. 3 4
JC6 Annexure being an Employment Application Summary for that position in ‘JC5’. (Deponent Reference 60017949 – Several Positions) lodged December 4th, 2012 9 steps  (7 critical questions at pages 5 to 9) 10
JC7 Annexure being a Duty Statement for another Position advertised by the deponent, (Deponent reference 60029214 Several Positions) lodged during conciliation process. 11 3
JC8 Annexure being an Employment Application Summary for that position in ‘JC7’ (Deponent reference 60029214 Several Positions) lodged on December 5th, 2012 9 steps  (7 critical questions at pages 5 to 7) 8
JC9 Annexure of Email by Selection Panel member that is blind copied to Non Government  adresses 1
JC10 Annexure being notes ascribing merit of the deponent in interview of October 26, 2012. 8 2
JC11 Annexure being the last communication between the parties when attempts to conciliate failed 5 1

Application to the Federal Court:


File number: XXXXXXX



John Citizen – Applicant ……and

Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Respondent

APPLICATION – Human Rights

Type of application

This application alleges unlawful discrimination under section 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

First court date

This application is listed for hearing at (court location):


Court date and time (registry staff to insert) at ………….. am/pm.

All parties or their legal representatives should attend this hearing. Default orders may be made if any party fails to attend. The Court may hear and determine all interlocutory or final issues, or may give directions for the future conduct of the proceeding.


(for) Registrar

Date: ………./………../…………..

Part A – Orders sought


  1. Final orders sought by applicant/s

State precisely each order sought by way of final relief. Examples of remedies include an apology from the respondent, employment or re-employment, and compensation.

 If you seek compensation you must provide details of how much compensation you are claiming and how the amount has been calculated; for example, loss of income


  1. A sum of $30,000 to compensate for lost potential wages, and
  2. A sum not specified to compensate for trauma and stress associated, and
  3. A sum relating to reasonable legal costs.

2.  Interlocutory, interim or procedural                orders sought by applicant/s

Complete only if interlocutory, interim or procedural orders are sought


  1. None

Part B – Grounds of Application

3. What discrimination are you complaining of?

The unlawful discrimination must:

(a)     be the same or substantially the same as the discrimination that was the subject of the complaint terminated by the Australian Human Rights Commission, or

(b) arise out of the same or substantially the same acts, omissions or practices that were the subject of complaint.

The applicant applied for work with the respondent on January 23, 2012 through their temporary non ongoing register.

The respondent interviewed the applicant on October 26, 2012 for a non ongoing APS 3 position, and rejected the applicant on November 13th, 2012 for employment claiming without proper specificity the Merit Principle of the Australian Public Service Commission (APS) prohibited further consideration.

This is demonstrably false. An APS 3 position is a graduate level entry position. Every critical evidence throughout is verbal or recollection of a verbal communication.

In that interview I was verbally instructed to confine my critical selection responses to examples in the last 2 -3 years despite Section 15 & 18 (1) (a) of the Age Discrimination Act. (2004). Full details in applicant’s deposition.

Those verbal responses led to one document being produced in conciliation which clearly misquotes me, and thereby diminishes and vilifies me.

When asked to give specific feedback, the respondent routinely does not respond and in AHRC relies upon non specific feedback, by reference to DIAC policy and procedure (including APS Merit standards).

In conciliation the Respondent offered under section 15 of the act to prove that potential hires, of a similar age to the applicant were indeed recruited in this process thereby not discriminating according to age.

Due to the consistent lack of accountability and transparency, the applicant asked the respondent to prove that those few recruits were not former APS employees who were returning to work after taking early retirement or redundancy, thereby distorting the appropriateness of that apparent data. Advanced Standing.

That request saw the conciliation process break down. The failure to address the merit based policy of APS employed and relied upon by DIAC that includes Equal Employment Opportunity.

4. Under what Act is the discrimination you are complaining of unlawful?

X  the Age Discrimination Act 2004

 the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

 the Racial Discrimination Act 1975

 the Sex Discrimination Act 1984

5. State all sections of the Act that are relevant to this claim

Section 14 through to Section 18 – Ageism

Part C – The applicant/s

6. Full name(s)
Attach extra page for any additional applicants

X  Mr



Family name:


Given names:


7. Home or contact address (incl postcode)

xxxxxxxxxx St,

xxxxxxxx    NSW  xxxx

8. Telephone/Fax No.

Business hours:


After hours:


Fax no:

9. Are you over 18 years?

X  Yes    No

10. What is your first language?

This includes languages such as Sign and Auslan


11a. Do you need an interpreter at the  hearing?

11b. If yes, please state language or type

 Yes   X  No

12. Do you have any special requirements?

If yes, please give details; for example, wheelchair access,

hearing loop, presence of personal assistant or carer.

 Yes   X   No

Part D – The respondent/s

13. What is your relationship to the person or organisation against whom you bring this application?

  Employee of person/organisation

  Former employee of person/organisation


  Customer of person/organisation

X   Other (please specify) Potential employee

Part E – Extension of time

14. Do you need an extension of time?

You must complete this section if your application and claim is made more than 60  days after the date of issue of written notice of the termination of the complaint by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. If yes, please provide reasons.


 Yes   X  No

Part F – Required documents

15. These documents must accompany your application and claim

X     A copy of your original complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (if available).

X     The notice of termination of complaint given by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission

Signature of applicant/s or lawyer

Signed by (print name/s) John Citizen

X  the applicant/s or   lawyer for the applicant/s

Date: …………/…………/………..


To the respondent (name): Commonwealth of Australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship

of (address): 5th Level, 26 Lee Street, Ultimo, New South Wales. 2007

If there are two or more respondents, provide details: …………………………………………………………………..

You should seek legal advice about this application. You may file a response. If you file a response, you must file and serve the response within 14 days of receiving this application. If you do not file a response, you must file and serve a notice of address for service before the hearing.

Form approved by the Chief Federal Magistrate pursuant to Subrule 2.04(1A) for the purpose of Subrule 41.02A(1) – November 2009

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.Thankyou.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s

EYE-BALL’s ‘Herman’ …

  1. June 8, 2013 at 7:20 am

    It is most apt to consider this in the light of the current debate over DIAC not being able to function in relation to Sayad Latif. This court filing has now evolved considerably. It is an epic. That only makes things sadder. The inability for any matter to be settled expeditiously and in a conciliatory way.

    There are so many issues to this, and cultural change in this public circus is front and centre. Mr Latif should not be tried on the floor of parliament or on the steps of parliament at press conferences. It should never have come to this.

    Everything about what is above, holds the same. A government in all of its forms, personality and tentacles that has no concept of jurisprudence, only self interest. Create work rather than look to serve. Inwardly focused to the point where there is no point, just a tetra headed monster, we know as public service.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: