The ACT government has argued a tribunal member who found its medical intern selection policy was racially discriminatory is deliberately trying to run a test case.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The clash between the ACT government and a senior ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal member was sparked by his decision in the case of Qinglin Wang, a Chinese doctor who alleged the territory's policies had discriminated against him.
Dr Wang, a former director of neurology at Tianjin Medical University in China, came to Australia in 2001 with 17 years' professional experience and master's degree in neurology.
He was unable to get a placement as an intern at the Canberra Hospital. The ACT, like most jurisdictions, has a policy of preferring Australian-trained doctors for its intern placements.
Dr Wang launched action in the ACAT, arguing the policy was racially discriminatory.
The case came before tribunal senior member Allan Anforth, who found in the doctor's favour in an interim decision earlier this year.
That decision found the policy directly discriminated against Dr Wang.
Mr Anforth is yet to decide on whether the policy indirectly discriminated against Dr Wang.
But the ACT launched action to try and force the tribunal member to remove himself from the case, alleging reasonable members of the public may see him to be bias.
When he refused to do so in July, the government took the matter to the ACT Supreme Court, where the hearing wrapped up on Friday.
Lawyers for the territory described a "cumulative effect" of Mr Anforth's personal experience with a daughter and a medical college, his publicly expressed beliefs that racism existed in the community, and statements about the "racist crap" in emails sent to him this year, which he appeared to use to galvanise his decision.
Mr Anforth was overheard in casual conversation talking with an expert witness in the case about a Four Corners episode concerning bullying of registrars by specialists in the medical system. He told the witness of his daughter's experience with a royal college, which was criticised for discriminating on gender grounds and against those tutored by overseas-trained specialists.
The territory has argued Mr Anforth's views and personal experience show apprehended bias. It has also argued he appears to be deliberately using the case as a "test case" for discrimination in medical intern policies.
The ACT argued the apprehended bias had both infected Mr Anforth's past decision, and rendered him unable to continue in the case.
If successful, the bid would see Mr Anforth removed as the presiding member on the case. The matter would then be sent back to the ACAT for another member to re-hear.
But Dr Wang's barrister, Marcus Hassall, argued there was no logical connection between Mr Anforth's comments, some of which were described as off-handed and flippant, and his decision.
He said the experience of Mr Anforth's daughter, one of nepotism and favouritism at a medical college, was not connected to his decision on whether the ACT's medical intern policy was discriminatory.
"It's a historical matter, from a different jurisdiction, where there was an outcome favourable to the member's daughter," he said.
"We say the context is quite different."
Mr Hassall said the ACT had to properly establish its case of bias, but said the vagueness and ambiguity of Mr Anforth's comments did not meet the required threshold.
Associate Justice David Mossop has reserved his decision on the case, and will hand it down at a later date.
