Date: 23 March 2022
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Member Hemingway
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 13, 21, 23, 25, 26, 48, 58
Rights Considered: Right to freedom of expression; Taking part in public life, Right to privacy and reputation; Right to protection of families and children
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 19, 20, 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 5, 6, 221, 226.
Keywords: Blue Card; Children and Families: Child protection

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card, following receipt of information that the applicant’s kinship carer certificate had been cancelled following findings that he had failed to protect a child in his care from sexual abuse by an adult member of the household. 

In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal noted there were competing human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), namely the applicant’s rights under sections 21 (freedom of expression), 23 (taking part in public life) and 25 (privacy and reputation), and the competing right of every child without discrimination to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child (section 26(2)).

The Tribunal formed the view that any limitation on the applicant’s human rights was consistent with the object, purpose and paramount principle of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), which is that the welfare and best interests of children is paramount. The Tribunal determined that it was permissible to restrict the human rights of the applicant as described, in order to prioritise the wellbeing, safety and interests of children: at [126]

Visit the judgment: KTG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 157