Progress indicator 4.13 [PBS target] Instances where participation in the investigation and conciliation process results in increased understanding of rights and responsibilities in the law. Commission evaluation survey data highlights the educative effect of the Commission’s complaint process. For example, in relation to conciliated complaints, 79% of surveyed participants indicated that involvement in the complaint process had assisted them to better understand their rights and responsibilities under federal human rights and anti-discrimination law. These case studies are an example of outcomes under the above indicators. Case studies 10 and 11: Complaint of family responsibilities discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) The complainant applied for a coordinator position with the respondent retirement village. She alleged the recruitment officer asked her if she had children and commented that a staff member with children sometimes took time off due to the needs of the children. On being advised of the complaint, the retirement village indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retirement village write to the complainant apologising for the incident, develop a policy on equality of opportunity in employment and ensure staff are aware of the policy. The retirement village also undertook that its staff would not ask similar questions in future recruitment processes. Complaint of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) The complainant is 71 years of age and a long-term customer of the respondent bank. He made enquiries about obtaining a home loan. He alleged he was told it was the bank’s policy not to offer home loans to persons over 70 years of age without taking into account his ability to repay the loan. The complainant received a superannuation pension and owned significant assets. The bank claimed that the complainant was ineligible to proceed with a loan application due to his income and the potential for the loan to place him into financial hardship. The complaint was resolved. The bank acknowledged that its staff did not ask for, or collect, all relevant information before making an assessment about the complainant’s request and apologised for his experience. The bank undertook to offer the relevant staff member additional training and to ensure that all staff are aware of their obligations when assessing loan applications. It was also agreed that the branch manager would contact the complainant directly to discuss the information needed to ensure a thorough assessment of his request. Annual Report 2020–2021 Australian Human Rights Commission 75