Questions over child porn law after man rejected for job

A demand for a company to compensate a convicted child pornographer could lead to an overhaul of the law.

President of the Human Rights Commission Rosalind Croucher. Picture: Ryan Osland

A “bizarre’’ human rights commission demand that an ­insurance heavyweight comp­en­sate a convicted child pornographer for refusing to hire him will be investigated by the Turnbull government and lead to a possible overhaul of the law.

Attorney-General Christian Porter will meet the Australian Human Rights Commission to examine the decision, saying the case was at “complete odds with common sense”.

Insurance giant Suncorp is refusing to pay the AHRC’s $2500 fine for not hiring a man who has convictions for accessing child porn and being in possession of child pornography.

He is accused of initially concealing his offending from Suncorp and was to be compensated for discrimination to cover “hurt, humiliation and distress’’.

AHRC president Rosa­lind Croucher’s ruling was based on her view that a criminal ­record on its own could not be a basis to impute bad character, casting a shadow over recruitment processes nationally and calling into question existing law.

Professor Croucher accepted that the sex offender had concealed in the first application his sex-offending past.

Mr Porter said a legal overhaul may be required to prevent a ­repeat of businesses, in some ­instances, effectively being told to hire people convicted of serious sex offences or face discrimination proceedings. He spoke out after the case was revealed by Miranda Devine in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph.

“I find this — as I am sure most Australians would — a result at complete odds with common sense,’’ he said. “And I will be ­requesting a full brief on the decision and will meet directly with the HRC to examine the basis on which it was made, as well as, considering all the ­relevant law surrounding this ­decision to see if there are statutory changes that may need to be considered to prevent this type of ­bizarre outcome.’’

The man, known as BE, was convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ jail in 2008 for accessing child pornography via a “carriage service’’ and for possession of child pornography. This sentence was suspended for two years with bonds and charity payments ­totalling $20,000 for two charges.

BE recorded a third conviction in 2015, which the AHRC stated was “failure to comply with ­reporting obligations”. There are no more details of this conviction.

The AHRC ordered Suncorp pay $2500 compensation but the company refused, saying BE was not of sufficient character to work from home as a consultant.

The AHRC did not comment yesterday but the report into BE’s complaint stated that more than just a criminal record must be considered when determining whether to hire someone.

“In previous reports into discrimination in employment on the basis of criminal record, the commission has found good character to be an inherent ­requirement of particular roles,’’ it said. “Nonetheless, a criminal record alone cannot be a basis upon which to impute bad character.’’

Professor Croucher wrote that it could be assumed most ­employers would want to have trust and confidence in their staff. “However, by declaring criminal record as a prohibited ground of discrimination for the purposes of the AHRC Act, Australia has made it plain that the mere fact of having a criminal record should not normally disqualify a person from employment.’’

BE applied for the role of part-time, home-based claims assistant with Suncorp in Melbourne in late 2015.

Professor Croucher conceded that BE had not fully disclosed his criminal history to Suncorp.

Former employment minister Eric Abetz said AHRC was repeating history. “Why the Human Rights Commission constantly feels the need to go in to bat for murderers and pedophiles really is baffling. Suncorp ought be congratulated for its strong stance in ­defiance of this poor ruling,” he said.

Suncorp vigorously defended its decision-making. “We maintain that Mr BE’s criminal record is of a serious ­nature and would impact on his ability to perform the requirements of the role,’’ it said. “Suncorp has comprehensive recruitment procedures and provides ongoing training to employees, including in relation to anti-discrimination and equal oppor­tunity. Suncorp is committed to ­ensuring fair and non-discriminatory methods of assessing a prospective employee’s criminal record against the requirements of the role.’’