PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 131

Date: 11 April 2023
Court: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer: Member McDonald
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 8, 13, 21, 23, 36(2), 58.
Rights Considered: Right to freedom of expression, taking part in public life, right to education
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 19, 20, 24, 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 5, 6, 225, 226, 360, Schedule 2
Keywords: Blue Card

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal identified that the rights to privacy and reputation, to take part in public life and to further vocational education and training may be affected by the decision. The Tribunal reasoned that it was reasonable and justifiable to limit the affected human rights of the applicant in order to uphold the protection of children’s interests in accordance with the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000.

The Tribunal was acting in its administrative capacity when deciding whether PS was an exceptional case for the purpose of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (WWC Act), and therefore should be issued a blue card despite criminal history. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to give proper consideration to any relevant human rights in making its decision, and noted that the Applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), and right to education (section 36), as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant. The Tribunal did not consider each right in turn but reasoned that any limitation on the rights was reasonable and justifiable to “uphold the protection of children interests where the decision is consistent with purpose of the WWC Act in child related employment screening decisions.” There is an implication that where a decision satisfies the purpose of the WWC Act, the Tribunal’s decision will be compatible with human rights. The Tribunal did not otherwise engage in substantive discussion of human rights.

View the judgement: PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 131