Education, Employment and Training

This case concerned an appeal against a decision by the Department of Housing and Public Works not to convert the appellant’s employment to a higher classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a directive that imposed an obligation on decision makers to act in a way that was compatible with human rights, but there was no further discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).    

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MK. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's right to take part in public life (section 23), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)), under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, BE. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ZB. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the proceedings, as they were commenced before the legislation came into effect. However, the Tribunal noted that if the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, its decision would potentially impact ZB’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to a fair hearing (section 31), and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the rights of children (section 26(2)).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, WW. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair trial (section 31), the applicant’s right to not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of theft, drug-related and traffic offences. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the Act’s commencement. If the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Tribunal would have considered the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27) and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), right to a fair hearing (section 31); right to not be tried more than once (section 34), and right to education (section 36); as well as the competing right of every child to protection (section 26(2)).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, Sheraton. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal confirmed the respondent’s decision and was satisfied that its decision was compatible with these human rights.

The applicant in this case applied for an administrative review of a decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether his case was an “exceptional case” in which it was not in the best interests of children for the applicant to hold a blue card.