4.4 The State party contends that the case is inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, on the basis of rule 91 (c) of the Committee's rules of procedure, as the Committee is said to lack the competence to deal with the communication. In this context, the State party affirms that Australian law and the RDA conform with the provisions of CERD. The RDA was enacted by the Federal Government and implements articles 2 and 5 of the Convention by making racial discrimination unlawful and ensuring equality before the law (Sections 9 and 10). The wording of Section 9 closely follows the wording of the definition of racial discrimination in article 1 of the Convention. Section 15 RDA implements the provisions of article 5 CERD in relation to employment. Moreover, the HREOC is a national authority established in 1986 for the purpose of receiving and investigating alleged breaches of the RDA. Members of the HREOC are statutory appointees and as such enjoy a high degree of independence. HREOC investigated the author's case thoroughly and found no evidence of racial discrimination.

inappropriate for CERD to effectively review the decision of the HREOC. While it concedes that the issue of whet-.e= the decision of the HREOC was arbitrary, amounted to a denial of justice or violated its obligation of impartiality and independence, would fall within the Committee's jurisdiction, it contends that the author did not submit any evidence to this effect. Rather, the evidence contained in the transcript o_ the hearing before the LLC and the correspondence with the HREOC indicate that the author's claim was considered within the terms both of the RDA and of the Convention.

4.6 The State party further submits that the complaint is inadmissible on the basis of lack of substantiation, arguing that the author did not provide any evidence that his treatment amounted to a "distinction, exclusion,

restriction, or preference based c:, race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which [had] the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights..." (article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention). There is said to be no evidence that the author's ethnic or nation-=! origin was a factor in the decision of the LLC to refuse a permanent appointment to the author; rather, he was concerned to fulfil his duty to ensure that the operations of the casino were subject to constant scrutiny and ;.o guarantee public confidence in the casino's lawful operation and management.

4.7 Finally, the State party clams that the author failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as required by article 14, paragraph 7(a), of the Convention, and that he had two available and effective remedies which he should have pursued in relation to his allegation of unfair dismissal. Firstly, it would have been open to the author to challenge the decision of the President of the HREOC in the Federal Court of Australia, pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of 1977 (ADJR Act). The State ?arty emphasizes that the decision of the HREOC President was reviewable under :he ADJR Act: grounds for review are listed in Section 5 of the Act - they include that there is no evidence or other material to justify the taking of