Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Or vets! The fact of the matter is: that seemed to be on the light side. So, if it were a matter that was complex and protracted, I would think that the cost burden on an individual, in this case a student, could have been substantially higher, perhaps even in the scope of $20,000 to $30,000.

In addition to that, we had the costs that would have been borne in this case, I suspect, by the educational facility, the QUT. They no doubt would have incurred costs. I am sure that they looked at their own position as to whether there may have been some contribution on their part to what appeared to be an area that was, for want of a better term, segregated—in this case, facilities at the university that were not available for use by these three students, at least.

We had the Human Rights Commission involved. Obviously, they had a role to play. There is absolutely no doubt that. if one were able to make a cost assumption about their contribution. we could find ourselves in the scope of between $100,000 and $200,000 to deal with a matter that, even if it had been upheld, would seem to have been somewhat on the trivial end, somewhat on the lighter end, in terms of a question that needed to be answered.

When you add to that, Attorney, the human cost to these three students and, I expect, their families—these are young people, so their parents, their brothers and sisters, and partners, if they have been blessed in life with partners—the stress and distress, the fear, would be quite significant. We know of course that they could not help but suffer some reputational damage. I made the point earlier that in decades to come, when fellow students or alumni are reminded of their identities, they will not be remembered for their athletic prowess or their intellect; they will be remembered as being the students involved in this particular incident. I am sure that prospective employers would reflect upon the circumstances that gave rise to their dilemma up when they consider them for employment or some form of appointment.

The statement was made, I think, by one of the students, that the process itself was a punishment. They had to endure this for a terribly long period of time. This all played out eventually in a very public way. I cannot imagine the stress and turmoil in their lives, and the distraction, as they went ahead and battled this. On top of all that, as a matter of expediency, as often happens in civil cases, they settled. They paid $5,000, which, for all the students I know, would mean the sale of a liver, an arm or a leg for them to be able to fund that sort of settlement.

So, all in all, Attorney, we have hundreds of thousands of dollars expended, a great deal of it from the public purse. Important resources, like those of the Human Rights Commission, were distracted in these protracted and otherwise seemingly trivial issues. There were lawyers representing them pro bono, so there is a cost involved in that—we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. I am sure that I have missed four or five other features.

I am sorry that I have spent so much time laying the framework for that, but it does lead me to the question. Without going to the substantive adjustments here to the language, Attorney, are you able to reflect upon what the changes to process might be, notwithstanding all other things, that will to some extent mitigate or help us to avoid circumstances like the QUT case into the future?