HRCN 2022

The matter concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice in respect of TJS’s application for a blue card. The Tribunal did not consider human rights in any detail but observed:

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.

The case concerned the operation of section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Bond JA considered the potential application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and opined that this case did not provide the occasion for a consideration of the factors listed in section 13(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in determining the question of the proper construction of the provision in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the limitation of human rights (section 13) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant.

The applicant was issued a negative blue card notice on the basis of her criminal history. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and set aside the decision as her criminal history was recognised to be of limited relevance.

This case concerned the decision of the appointment for the position of public guardian and administrator of JSC where there were separate applications by both the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as well as the Mother and Grandmother of JSC. In making an order that the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee be appointed these roles pending a review in three years, the Tribunal considered JSC’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19), property rights (section 24) and protection from being subjected to medical treatment without her full, free and informed consent.

This matter concerns an application by JL’s daughter, CL, to be appointed JL’s sole guardian and administrator. JL had previously appointed her son, AL, under Victorian legislation, and then subsequently appointed CL under Queensland legislation to act as her guardian “severally”. The Tribunal found that CL had been validly appointed to be JL’s sole guardian.

The case concerned an appeal by Gold Coast Property Expo against a decision by a member to strike out or summarily dismiss their residential tenancy compensation claim against their former tenants.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, GEE. In weighing the risk and protective factors in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s prior ten child concern reports for children in her care, her history of domestic violence (as both a protected and respondent person) and limited criminal history, the applicant’s ongoing interpersonal conflict with others and authorities, the circumstances in her home, the lack of independent social supports, and the perceived lack of insight and accountability the applicant had for her own actions related to harm suffered to a child in her care.