I live with a disability as well as a chronic and progressive illness that is life-shortening. I was employed as an apprentice — already a vulnerable class of worker. What happened to me can only be described as disability-based discrimination.
The government agency, Training Services, was fully aware of my disability, my chronic illness, and other significant vulnerabilities I was facing. Despite this knowledge, they chose to cancel my apprenticeship. The termination related to the use of a lawfully prescribed medication which had already been disclosed and cleared as safe by an Order 43 pre-employment medical. No safety risks were identified, and no workplace adjustments were required. I had full clearance to work in automotive and mining environments while taking this medication, with no conditions attached.
Despite that, Training Services still chose to cancel my apprenticeship and labelled my lawful use of this prescribed medication as misconduct. They did so with full awareness of the foreseeable downstream consequences, and proceeded anyway.
That decision did not simply cost me a job. It fundamentally changed the trajectory of my life, particularly given my chronic and progressive illness. It has also had a profound and lasting effect on my young child and his mother.
At present, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) appears to only have powers to conciliate. This is meaningless when the government agency in question does not want to be held accountable for its actions.
From my lived experience, the cancellation of my apprenticeship destroyed my only pathway into a career with earnings of $200,000+ once qualified. Because of my chronic, progressive, and life-shortening illness, my remaining working life is already uncertain — with medical literature estimating 20 years from diagnosis to transplant or death from complications. For context, my diagnosis was more than 10 years ago that notes the highly time sensitive and urgent nature of my concern.
The decision by Training Services not only denied me employment but also denied my son and his mother the financial security and stability I would have been able to provide. In effect, my child and his mother have been indirectly sentenced to a lifelong struggle in financial hardship. The decision was not only discriminatory — it was also fiscally irresponsible. The $200,000+ income I could have earned each year has now been replaced by the burden of ongoing taxpayer support.
My question to this Review is: what can be done to ensure that people with disability are properly protected from exploitation, particularly when the decision is being made by a government agency? How do we guarantee that decisions with life-altering consequences are subject to safeguards, accountability, and independent oversight?