Human Rights Bill 2018
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill creates a Human Rights Act for Queensland, establishing statutory protections for 23 human rights drawn from international law. It requires all government agencies, councils, police and contracted public service providers to act compatibly with these rights, and sets up a complaints process through a renamed Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Who it affects
Every person in Queensland gains protected rights when dealing with government bodies. Public sector employees, local councils, police and private organisations delivering public services must consider human rights in their decisions. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have distinct cultural rights specifically recognised.
Key changes
- Establishes 23 protected human rights including the right to life, freedom of expression, privacy, property, education, health services, and distinct cultural rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
- Makes it unlawful for public entities (government agencies, councils, police, contracted service providers) to act or make decisions incompatibly with human rights
- Requires all Bills and subordinate legislation to include statements or certificates assessing compatibility with human rights
- Creates a complaints process where individuals can escalate unresolved issues to the Queensland Human Rights Commission for conciliation
- Renames the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland as the Queensland Human Rights Commission with expanded education, review and complaints functions
- Requires courts to interpret all legislation compatibly with human rights where possible, and allows the Supreme Court to declare laws incompatible
- Parliament retains sovereignty and can override the Act in exceptional circumstances such as war or public emergencies
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee31 Oct 2018View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee
The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee examined the Human Rights Bill 2018 over approximately three months, receiving 149 written submissions and 135 form submissions, holding a public briefing with the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, and conducting a public hearing with stakeholders. The committee recommended that the Bill be passed, noting broad support from the majority of submitters for the proposed dialogue model of human rights protection. Opposition members filed a statement of reservation expressing concerns about whether the Bill added substantive legal protection beyond existing law, the potential for frivolous complaints, and the impact of declarations of incompatibility on the separation of powers.
Key findings (5)
- The majority of stakeholders expressed support for the Bill and its dialogue model, which gives the executive, legislature, and courts each a role in protecting human rights while maintaining parliamentary sovereignty.
- The Bill draws primarily on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with additional rights to education and health services from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, modelled on Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
- Numerous submitters sought to expand the scope of protected rights beyond those in the Bill, including rights to housing, an adequate standard of living, environmental rights, and workplace rights, but the government considered a graduated approach appropriate.
- Significant debate arose over the obligations on public entities, with the Bill adopting a 'piggyback' cause of action model that does not create a standalone right to sue but allows human rights claims to be added to existing legal proceedings.
- The committee noted concerns from some submitters about the limitation clause (clause 13), the override declaration provision, and the potential impact of declarations of incompatibility on the traditional separation of powers.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends that the Human Rights Bill 2018 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading26 Feb 2019View Hansard
That the bill be now read a second time
Vote on whether to advance the Human Rights Bill past the second reading stage. ALP, Greens and Independent Bolton voted in favour (49); LNP, KAP, PHON and Independent Costigan voted against (42).
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (42)
▸22 members spoke11 support11 oppose
As Attorney-General, introduced and championed the bill, arguing it creates a dialogue model between the three arms of government while giving parliament the final say. Rebutted LNP claims about separation of powers, noting only one declaration of incompatibility in Victoria since 2006.
“Since they introduced the charter in Victoria in 2006, there has been one declaration of incompatibility issue—one. There is no evidence to back up the claims of those opposite.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
As Attorney-General, introduced and championed the bill as delivering on the Palaszczuk government's commitment to a modern, fair Queensland. Defended the dialogue model, the role of courts in making declarations of incompatibility, and the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and human rights protection.
“This is our commitment to making sure that we put people first in all that we do: in our actions, in our decisions and in our interactions with one another.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Led the LNP's opposition to the bill, arguing it is fundamentally undemocratic, undermines Westminster democracy, and distorts the separation of powers by empowering judges over elected representatives.
“The LNP is opposing the bill on the grounds that it is fundamentally undemocratic, it undermines Westminster democracy and it achieves very little of itself.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
As shadow Attorney-General, argued the bill is unnecessary given existing protections in common law, the Constitution and legislation. Opposed the bill on grounds it would distort the separation of powers by empowering courts to evaluate legislation against abstract rights standards, and foreshadowed an amendment to remove declarations of incompatibility.
“The problem we face is that there is no evidence to suggest that a human rights act has provided any additional protection or helped service delivery to the vulnerable throughout the world.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a transfer of power from elected representatives to the judiciary, arguing existing common law and legislation already provide adequate human rights protections.
“The bill distorts the separation of powers by empowering judges and disempowering elected representatives.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Spoke passionately in support as committee chair, citing expert submissions including from the University of New South Wales that described the bill as the best drafted human rights shield yet seen in Australia. Highlighted the accessible complaints mechanism as an improvement over Victorian and ACT models.
“It is without any doubt that a federal bill of rights would be a great thing for the people of Australia but, as is often the case, it is left to the Queensland government to do the heavy lifting on social change.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Opposed the bill, raising concerns about implications for freedom of religion and the right to life for unborn children, and arguing the Westminster system already protects human rights.
“There are also implications in terms of human rights and freedom of religion that perhaps on some other occasion I will get to address.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Opposed the bill as fundamentally undemocratic, arguing it distorts the separation of powers by empowering judges and disempowering the legislature. Raised concerns about unknown costs, potential for frivolous complaints by prisoners, and the absence of protection for victims' rights.
“We will not support a bill which will give judges the ability to ignore the intent of parliament and to scrutinise the intent of every piece of legislation that comes before it to determine whether it is inconsistent with a broad and fixed definition of human rights.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Supported the bill as an historic day for Queensland, arguing it will promote substantive equality and create mechanisms for resolving human rights complaints through conciliation.
“The real advantage of the legislative or constitutional protection of human rights may well be that it would enhance the prospects not only of justice for women but justice for all members of our society.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill as an historic moment, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and praising the dialogue model over punitive enforcement. Particularly proud of the inclusion of rights to education and health services, unique among Australian and international jurisdictions.
“To stand here in this House and speak in support of the introduction of a human rights bill is something that I have the utmost pride in doing.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Supported the aspirational nature of the bill while expressing uncertainty about its practical protection capabilities, noting it adds process requirements and relies on negotiation rather than legal recourse for contraventions.
“While I support the aspirational nature of this bill, I am uncertain of the level of practical protection that this bill is capable of providing.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Opposed the bill as unnecessary given existing robust protections, arguing it would completely change the function of courts and be a costly 'lawyer's picnic'. Cited examples from the ACT and Victoria where human rights legislation led to outcomes inconsistent with community standards.
“Coming into this honoured place is not about doing popular things because they sound good.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Supported the bill from her perspective as Minister for Communities and Disability Services, highlighting the importance of human rights protections for people with disability and seniors, particularly regarding property rights and elder abuse.
“Too often people with disability and their families feel that they have to battle to be heard or understood, and clearer accessible processes will be valued.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Supported the bill as a progressive step for Queensland, highlighting clause 27 on cultural rights from her experience as a school principal. Welcomed the rebranding of the Anti-Discrimination Commission to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
“Right across Queensland on a daily basis there are decisions made by our government and its employees that impact the rights of our young people and those in our communities who are most vulnerable.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Opposed the bill as creating 'overlords of democracy' through unelected judges, arguing that good government through a robust parliament and incorruptible judiciary already protects human rights, and criticising the government's own record on children in watch houses.
“Members can go down to the Brisbane watch house right now and ask the eight-year-olds and 10-year-olds who are locked up in cells there if their human rights are being protected by this government.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a waste of parliament's time and resources, arguing existing Commonwealth legislation and common law provide sufficient human rights protections. Described it as legislative duplication that would create a false sense of security.
“What is being achieved by this Human Rights Bill is nothing but a false sense of security, presenting a mirage of great promise sitting on the horizon that, if actually relied upon, would quickly vanish into nothing.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Supported the bill as delivering an election commitment, arguing it provides a safeguard against autocratic government behaviour, drawing on Queensland's history under the Bjelke-Petersen and Newman governments.
“This legislation will help protect Queenslanders against autocratic and dictatorial behaviour by an errant government, agencies or officials who disrespect the human rights of Queenslanders.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
As Minister for Environment and a Quandamooka woman, gave a powerful personal speech about why the bill matters for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, noting her grandfather was never counted as a human being and never had the right to vote. Argued the bill ensures future legislation will be passed through a human rights lens.
“I am the daughter of a Quandamooka man who, until the year before I was born, was not even counted as a human being in this country.”— 2019-02-26View Hansard
Supported the bill, arguing for the inclusion of a right to housing and urging investment in community legal centres to ensure the act's effectiveness for the most vulnerable.
“A human rights act cannot promote and protect human rights effectively unless it is accompanied by continued strong political leadership on human rights issues.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a former police officer, arguing it creates uncertainty in the division of powers and that existing legislation already provides adequate human rights protections. Called for removal of the declaration of incompatibility power.
“Transferring power from parliament to the courts to shape future legislation could in itself be perceived as taking democratic rights away from the people.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Opposed the bill on the grounds that it shifts power from parliament to the courts, arguing that real change comes through the legislative process not through court arguments about abstract human rights questions.
“No court can—no court should—be the body that sets out the rules and framework for how people's rights need to be interpreted and what action the government should take.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing the Westminster system has delivered advances in human rights over 900 years and that bills of rights in other countries including Nazi Germany and Zimbabwe failed to protect citizens.
“To suggest otherwise—to say that we need more because we are not protecting rights when we have some of the proudest traditions of protecting and enhancing rights in the world—is both absurd and denigrating.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
▸In Detail27 Feb 2019View Hansard
Four LNP amendments moved en bloc to remove the declaration of incompatibility provisions from the Human Rights Bill, including: removing references to Part 3 Division 3 from clause 4; removing the override declaration's reference to the Supreme Court from clause 45; and consequential amendments to clauses 5. The amendments sought to prevent courts from issuing declarations that legislation is incompatible with human rights.
That the preamble be agreed to
Vote on whether to agree to the preamble of the Human Rights Bill, which sets out the bill's purposes and principles. Same voting pattern as previous divisions.
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (43)
Moved the LNP's amendments during consideration in detail to remove the declaration of incompatibility provisions, arguing they make courts superior to parliament based on UK experience where parliament was subservient to judiciary recommendations.
“In the United Kingdom we have seen in practice what a declaration of incompatibility means. It means that the rights of this legislature—us as parliamentarians—are secondary to the demands of the judiciary.”— 2019-02-27View Hansard
▸Third Reading27 Feb 2019View Hansard
That the bill be now read a third time
Final passage vote on the Human Rights Bill. ALP, Greens and Independent Bolton voted in favour (49); LNP, KAP, PHON and Independent Costigan voted against (43).
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (43)
That the long title of the bill be agreed to
Formal vote on the long title of the Human Rights Bill following third reading. Same voting pattern as previous divisions.
The motion passed.