VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
human rights DIVISION
HUMan rights LIST	
vcat reference No. H379/2022	
CATCHWORDS	
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ss 75 & 100 – Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) s 4 –  Owners Corporation No. 1 PS537642N v Hickory Group Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2015] VCAT 1638 – Noonan v Owners Corporation No. 2 PS409115E [2011] VCAT 1934 – Campagnolo v Benalla and District Football League Inc [2009] VSC 228 [41] – State Electricity Commission of Victoria v Rabel [1998] 1 VR 102 - Brown v Challinger (Human Rights) [2021] VCAT 959 (20 August 2021) – Brown v Victoria Legal Aid (Human Rights) [2022] VCAT 352 (31 March 2022)  – Brown v Hannan (Human Rights) [2023] VCAT 482 (2 May 2023) – Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) s 38 – Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 (Vic)	

APPLICANT	Rohan Brown	
RESPONDENT 	Gary Maas	
BEFORE	Senior Member C. Powles	
where held	In Chambers	
HEARING TYPE	Section 75 application on the papers	
DATE OF ORDER AND WRITTEN REASONS	2 November 2023	
CITATION	Brown v Maas (Human Rights) [2023] VCAT 1220	

Order
The application is dismissed under s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

C. Powles
Senior Member			

Reasons
BACKGROUND
1	On 24 November 2022, Rohan Brown (the applicant) lodged an application against Gary Maas (the respondent) under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (‘the EOA’), claiming to have been discriminated against and victimised because of his political belief or activity in the area of the provision of goods and services.
1	The applicant has applied to the Tribunal a number of times, seeking orders under the EOA against various parties.
2	The respondent is a Labour Party member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly.
3	From the details provided with the application form, the conduct the basis of the application appears to arise out of an incident at a pre-polling booth on or about 24 November 2022.
4	On 15 December 2022, the respondent applied for the application to be summarily dismissed under s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (‘the VCAT Act’).
5	On 11 January 2023, the Tribunal made procedural orders for the provision of submissions in relation to the s 75 application and proposed that, unless any party notified the Tribunal and the other party in writing by 31 January 2023 that they objected to the Tribunal deciding the s 75 application on the basis of written submissions and without hearing, the Tribunal would determine the s 75 application on that basis.
6	No party objected to the s 75 application being decided on the basis of written submissions and without hearing by 31 January 2023. Accordingly, I have decided the s 75 application based on the written materials provided by the parties under s 100 of the VCAT Act.
The legislation
7	Section 75(1)(a) states that, at any time, the Tribunal may make an order summarily dismissing or striking out all, or any part, of a proceeding that, in its opinion is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.
8	The principles that guide the Tribunal when considering an application for summary dismissal are well established. The Tribunal should exercise caution before summarily dismissing a proceeding because such action will have the effect of depriving a litigant of the opportunity to have his or her case decided in the ordinary course. This is of particular importance where an applicant is self-represented. 
9	The Tribunal’s role in determining an application under s 75 is not to examine the evidence relied upon by an applicant but to proceed on the basis that an applicant will be able to prove all the allegations made in the claim. In an application under s 75, it is appropriate to assume an applicant will be able to prove each fact alleged in the claim.
10	It is also established that the Tribunal should not order summary dismissal in circumstances where the outcome of the case might depend on findings of fact based on contested evidence. In considering an application under s 75, the Tribunal must take an applicant’s case at its highest. 
11	The Tribunal should only make an order summarily dismissing or striking out a proceeding when satisfied that, because of one of the grounds in s 75, the case is obviously hopeless, unsustainable in fact or in law, or on no reasonable view can justify relief, or is bound to fail. This includes, but is not limited to, a case where a complaint can be said to disclose no reasonable cause of action, or where a respondent can show a good defence sufficient to warrant the summary termination of the proceeding.
The RESONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS
12	The respondent submitted that:
a.	the application this proceeding is vexatious and hopeless;
b.	the applicant is aggrieved by the alleged actions of various current and former members of the Victorian Parliament, the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, Victoria Police, a Professor of RIT University, the Victorian Parliament’s security department and the Victorian Fixated Threat Assessment Centre;
c.	the application’s submissions in this proceeding are composed of a series of unparticularised allegations against various persons and bodies, including the respondent, but do not articulate on what basis it is alleged that the EOA has been contravened;
d.	the applicant has not articulated what his political belief or activity is;
e.	in previous decisions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has been left to speculate as to the nature of the applicant’s political beliefs or activities;
f.	insofar as the applicant may believe he has been wrongfully arrested and detained by Victoria Police or that Victoria Police, members of the Victorian Parliament or the Victorian government should generally act ethically and in accordance with the law, these are not political beliefs as contemplated by s 4 of the EOA;
g.	the applicant has alleged he is being discriminated against because of a diagnosed medical condition but does not identify what that condition is or how the respondent was aware of that condition;
h.	there is no evidence that the respondent took any action whatsoever because of a medical condition of the applicant;
i.	the respondent was not providing a service as a member of the Victorian Parliament as at 24 November 2022 because on 1 November 2022 the Parliament of Victoria was dissolved in accordance with s 38 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) and, as a result, at that time the respondent was a candidate at an election and not a member of the Victorian Parliament;
j.	the applicant fails to set out any coherent basis on which it can be alleged conduct of the respondent amounted to discrimination, how the respondent could have been aware of any alleged protected attribute, any basis on which the applicant was victimised or what detriment the applicant suffered;
k.	the applicant makes scandalous allegations about the respondent and other members of the Victorian Parliament throughout his submissions;
l.	the Tribunal has directed the applicant not to copy non-parties to correspondence in the proceeding but despite this the applicant has copied correspondence to the Premier and Attorney-General of Victoria in a way that is designed to frustrate and embarrass non-parties to the proceeding;
m.	by doing so, and continuing to make inappropriate and irrelevant allegations and submissions, the applicant is bringing the administration of justice into disrepute; and
n.	in light of the above, the application is vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance and an abuse of process.
The APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
13	The applicant’s submissions were somewhat generalised and lacking in clarity. While this is not uncommon where a party is self-represented, the applicant’s submissions also included a range of allegations and unfounded assertions against various non-parties to the proceeding. Putting aside those allegations, I understand the applicant’s submissions in response to the s 75 application to be that: 
a.	various standards and guidelines of the Victorian Parliament, including those set out in the Code of Conduct and Statement of Values in the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 (Vic), establish that members of the Victorian Parliament provide services to their constituents;
b.	the respondent accordingly cannot deny that they are a service provider to their constituents;
c.	the applicant was detained by Victoria Police on 9 August 2021, and subsequently sought assistance from the respondent in relation to the applicant’s detention;
d.	the respondent did not respond to the applicant’s request for assistance nor provide any assistance to the applicant in relation to that incident;
e.	the applicant was arrested by Victoria Police on 11 August 2021;
f.	the applicant provided footage of that incident to the respondent; and
g.	the respondent has not provided the applicant any assistance in relation to that incident.
14	The applicant sought a further opportunity to provide written submissions in response to the respondent’s submissions made 7 March 2023. Considering the material already submitted by the applicant in relation to the application in the proceeding and the s 75 application, I am not satisfied any further submissions from the applicant could assist me in deciding the s 75 application. 
15	Accordingly, the Tribunal has not made any orders for further submissions from the applicant. 
16	I note that no further correspondence has been received from the applicant since 7 March 2023.
FINDINGS
17	Having considered the parties’ submissions on the s 75 application and all material provided by the applicant in support of the application in this proceeding to date, I am satisfied, on balance, that the application in this proceeding is vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance and an abuse of process for the following reasons.
18	The application fails to include any substantive explanation of the attribute the applicant alleges is the reason for any discriminatory treatment by the respondent. The applicant repeatedly refers to a political belief or activity but does not provide any basis to establish that he holds a particular political belief, or has engaged in a particular political activity, within the meaning of s 4. The details provided on the application form refer to the applicant ‘talking with two candidates, one from Freedom Victoria, the other from Liberal Party, it was a friendly conversation’ but I am not satisfied there is any basis on which socially talking with political candidates is political activity in and of itself.
19	In Brown v VLA, Member Thwaites found the applicant had ‘not clearly stated what is his political belief or activity that he claims is the reason why he has been discriminated against’ and, on the information before him in that matter, speculated that ‘the applicant’s belief is that the Parliament, government, courts, police and the system of justice are being corrupted or are corrupt.’ 
20	I am not satisfied on the information before me in this proceeding that I can find that the applicant holds such beliefs. However, even if I were to make such a finding, I would not be satisfied such beliefs are political beliefs or activities for the purposes of the EOA for the same reasons given by Member Thwaites in Brown v VLA: because they have ‘no bearing on the form, role, structure, feature, purpose, obligations, duties or some other aspect of government’.
21	The only other attribute on which the applicant appears to rely is some form of medical condition of which no particulars whatsoever have been provided.
22	Further, the applicant does not provide any particulars whatsoever for why he claims to have been victimised by the respondent in any of the circumstances set out in s 104.
23	Given the fundamental failure of the applicant to specify the attribute on which he seeks to rely in this application or the circumstances in which he has been victimised, even if the applicant’s claims are taken at their highest, the application is misconceived, lacking in substance and so hopeless and bound to fail.
24	In light of the above, it is unnecessary for me to make findings in relation to whether the respondent, as a member of the Victorian Parliament, has provided or refused to provide a service to the applicant to which the definition of service in s 4 of the EOA applies.
25	As noted above, the applicant made a range of applications against Victorian government figures and authorities, all of which appear to have been unsuccessful. His submissions in this and other proceedings contain scandalous allegations against a range of parties for which there appears to be no basis and are generally of no relevance to the criteria required to be met in those applications. This application is no different. 
26	In that context, I am satisfied that this application is vexatious and an abuse of process.
27	Accordingly, I order the dismissal of the application in this proceeding under s 75 of the VCAT Act.

C. Powles
Senior Member