Sport - conciliated outcomes

Last updated: 2008. For more recent outcomes please refer to the Commission's conciliation register

On course

A man with a mobility impairment complained that his golf club charged an extra fee for use of golf buggies, which disadvantaged him as he was unable to get around the course without one. The complaint was resolved when the club agreed to absorb golf buggy costs into general fees. (2008)

Aiming to eliminate discrimination

A man who has restricted mobility due to arthritis complained that when participating in sporting shooting events he had been prevented from using a head rest to enable him to shoot from a prone position. The sporting body concerned was not prepared to recognise a competitor shooting in this manner as equivalent for all purposes to other participants (including for purposes of awards and national selections) but the complaint was resolved with an agreement to permit participation and record results.

Access to karate school

A mother complained that her son, who uses a wheelchair, had been excluded from access to a karate school because of insurance concerns. At a conciliation conference the respondent indicated that the concern was not about the boy's participation in karate activities but rather about lack of safe means of wheelchair access to the 2 nd floor premises where the karate school was conducted. The matter was resolved when participation at an accessible venue was arranged. (2006)

Golfers with disabilities

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

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 The complaint was withdrawn when the Australian federation undertook to raise the issue of eligibility rules with the international body which controls the rules of the sport (2002).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

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

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

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

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).