Discrimination (Human Rights)

The case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption from the operation of specified provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to operate a manufactured home park reserved for people over 50. In making its determination to not grant the renewal, the Tribunal acknowledged that the application affected the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and property rights (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent to refuse payment of a HomeBuilder Grant to the applicants on the basis that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal noted the applicants’ rights to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), but found that, in the circumstances, any limitation of such was compatible with human rights because the Tribunal lacked discretion to make a different decision.

This case concerned an application for an interim order to prohibit the respondent from restricting the applicant’s communications with Matthew Flinders Anglican College or their staff, pending resolution of a discrimination complaint before the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

This matter concerned a successful application made by Mr Anthony Ferry ('the First Respondent') and the State of Queensland, through the Department of Employment, Small Business and Training ('the Second Respondent') for leave to be given to be legally represented before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

This case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption of specific provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal granted an extension of the exemption for an additional three years and noted that the exemption was compatible with human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by a Queensland-based defence contractor, in order to ensure compliance with US laws prohibiting sharing technology and data with persons holding citizenship or permanent residency in a group of specified countries. The Commission considered that the exemption would impact on the entitlement to equal protection of the law without discrimination (section 15(3)), and right to equal and effective protection against discrimination (section 15(4)), but that the limitation was justified on the basis of contract compliance and national security. The exemption was ultimately granted.

This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.

The case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to allow Terrace-Haven to operate a retirement village with an age restriction. The Tribunal considered that the limitation on the right to equality, which would only be impacted in a small way, could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom by facilitating the freedom of residents to live as they choose, with similarly-aged and similarly-minded people, and enhancing dignity by allowing people to live as they choose, and that there was no less restrictive and reasonably available way to achieve the purpose.

This matter concerned an application for exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) concerning a proposed policy with the effect of allowing the applicant to grant permits to conduct certain tourism businesses on Council land solely to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Applicant brought a claim against the Respondent Council and alleged that the Council had indirectly discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities in not providing sufficient car parking arrangements. The Tribunal determined that the Council’s term requiring people using the car park to park in accordance with regulated signage was reasonable in all the circumstances, such that there had been no indirect discrimination.