Education, Employment and Training

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].

This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to refuse their COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form which cited genuinely held religious beliefs. The appellant submitted that the vaccination requirement was contrary to s 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) however the Commission found that the Health Employment Directive 12/21 could not be characterised as engaging this provision.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the respondent to refuse an exemption from COVID-19 Vaccination requirements requested by the applicant.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to permanent. The respondent’s decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The case concerned an application for review of a yellow card negative notice. The Department identified that the rights to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 17) and freedom from work (section 18), so far as they related to vulnerable people, are already incorporated into the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), and the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) supports but does not extend the paramount consideration.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to promote him. Both the appellant and respondent referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their submissions but the Act was not substantively discussed by the Commission.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment to permanent. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The case concerned an appeal against a failed application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers.

Ms Colebourne was an employee Queensland Police Service. She refused to be vaccinated. Her employment was suspended without remuneration. She challenged this on various grounds including that the decision was to punish her, which was an improper purpose under statute: at [34]. Her evidence for this was an admission by Acting Assistant Commissioner Nelson that the decision limited various of her rights: at [80].