This is quite unique. All discrimination legislation in Australia is in effect handled at the State level. (Their is also the federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 which provides a procedure by which the Human Rights Commissioner may attempt to conciliate complaints of sexual preference discrimination in the paid workforce).
Most Acts in other States are called Anti-Discrimination Acts. In Victoria they have the Equal Opportunity Act 1995.
The wierd part is that the Victorian legislation has this section:
Discrimination against club members
60. Discrimination against club members
A club, or a member of the committee of management or other governing body of a club, must not discriminate against a member of the club-
(a) by refusing, or failing to accept, the member's application for a
different category or type of membership;
(b) by denying or limiting access to any benefit provided by the club;
(c) by varying the terms of membership;
(d) by depriving the member of membership;
(e) by subjecting the member to any other detriment.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is an amalgamation of 15 bodies and is responsible for
# purchase and supply of goods
# credit
# discrimination
# domestic building works
# guardianship and administration
# legal profession services
# residential tenancies
# retail tenancies
Under discrimination, VCAT may make any of the following orders if a complaint has been proved:
* That the respondent stop committing any further act of discrimination against the complainant;
* That the respondent pay the complainant compensation fixed by VCAT;
* That the respondent perform any act with a view to making good any loss, damage or injury suffered by the complainant;
* Find the complaint or any part of it proven but decline to take any further action;
To me they seem to have overstepped their authority. I will say that the Peel, acting as a club, rather than a public house, probably is entitled to a greater say in the makeup of club members. However it seems to operate as a public house, in that anyone can enter, and I cannot see where the current discrimination legislation would allow this decision.
