# data[].attributes.body
The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Sex Discrimination Act is currently in the news following the outcome of a high-profile court case reaffirming transgender rights in Australia.

The controversy concerns the meaning of "sex" in the act and its interaction with gender identity discrimination. The Coalition wants to amend the act to include a definition of biological sex, arguing "the law does not properly protect single sex spaces for women and girls".

But what's missing from the conversation is how the Sex Discrimination Act works and what it was designed to achieve.

What is the Sex Discrimination Act?

The Sex Discrimination Act is a federal law. It originally became law in 1984 and protected people from sex, pregnancy and marital status discrimination.

Currently, the act protects people from discrimination based on a wider range of attributes, called "protected attributes". These include their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy status, breastfeeding or family responsibilities.

Discrimination is prohibited in employment, the provision of goods, services and facilities, education, accommodation, land, clubs, and federal programs and laws. A purpose of the act is to eliminate "so far as possible" discrimination based on the protected attributes.

Unlawful discrimination is either "direct" or "indirect". Direct discrimination occurs when a person with an attribute is treated less favourably than a person without that attribute in the same situation. Classic examples of direct sex discrimination are where a woman is paid less than a man while completing the same work.

Indirect discrimination addresses more subtle forms of inequality. For example, a rule may seem to treat everyone equally, but, in practice, it disadvantages one group that shares an attribute.

Let's say a firm requires all partners to work a 60-hour week. People with family responsibilities could be less able to comply with this rule.

Rules that cause disadvantage based on an attribute can be legal if they are reasonable, but direct discrimination cannot be defended on the basis it is reasonable.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Margaret Thornton on the landmark Tickle v Giggle transgender case

What are the exceptions?

There are limits to protection against discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.

The act contains many exceptions allowing conduct that would otherwise be discriminatory. For example, there are general exceptions for services where they can only be provided to members of one sex.

Exceptions also apply to staff and students in religious educational institutions.

There are exceptions for participation in sports where strength, stamina or physique is relevant.

It is also not discrimination to provide affirmative action or equal opportunity measures. But these exceptions, called "special measures", cannot discriminate on the basis of other protected attributes.

Very few court tests

Despite the act being in force for more than 40 years, it has received little attention from higher courts.

The recent decision of Giggle For Girls v Tickle was the first case of gender identity discrimination heard by the Federal Court. The full bench found a transgender woman had been directly discriminated against on the basis of gender by being refused access to a women-only social media app.

The High Court of Australia has considered only three sex discrimination claims in its history. None of these was made under the Sex Discrimination Act. Two of those were decided in the 1980s, and one was considered in 2006. That means the High Court has not heard a sex discrimination claim in 20 years.

It has never considered the act and its prohibitions on discrimination. This means there is little higher court authority on how its provisions operate.

Read more: A historic court victory has upheld transgender rights in Australia. A legal academic explains why

The 2013 changes

Until 2013, federal law did not protect people from discrimination because of gender identity, sexual orientation or intersex status. While there were protections in state and territory acts for these attributes, they varied greatly. This led to inconsistent protection from discrimination across Australia.

In 2013, the federal Sex Discrimination Act was amended to include the attributes of gender identity, sexual orientation, intersex status and relationship status.

This made it unlawful to discriminate, directly or indirectly, against people based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or relationship status. This protection from discrimination applies in all areas of life captured by the act.

The amendments created definitions of these newly protected attributes. The definition of gender identity was designed to achieve " maximum protection " for gender-diverse people.

It was also designed to recognise that "gender" and "sex" are distinct concepts. The definition indicates both are changeable.

Further, the definition of "intersex status" was designed to recognise that sex is not binary.

The definitions of "man" and "woman" were also removed and are instead understood by their "normal meaning". This means the words aren't narrowly interpreted to exclude transgender people. Women and men (of all ages) would also continue to be protected from discrimination based on their sex.

In 2013, the amendments made to the Sex Discrimination Act were not particularly controversial. As then-Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus noted in respect of a Senate Committee Report on human rights and discrimination legislation:

all parties agree on one issue - the pressing need for protection from discrimination for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community at the federal level.

It was recognised that there was substantial evidence of discrimination due to sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. This discrimination was harmful and created barriers in how people could live their lives.

While controversies have sprung up since, the 2013 changes to the Sex Discrimination Act remain a milestone. For many Australians, the changes marked the first time that federal law protected their right to live free from discrimination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Sex Discrimination Act and how does it protect people?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Sex Discrimination Act is in the news following the high-profile 'Giggle v Tickle' court case. Here's how the act came to be and how it works.

# data[].attributes.headline
2025 Legal Studies External Question/Response

# data[].attributes.subject
2025 Legal Studies External Question/Response

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal: Marking Guide Extended Response Practice 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal: Marking Guide Extended Response Practice 2025

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal: Marking Guide Short Response Practice 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal: Marking Guide Short Response Practice 2025

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal: Externals Practice Short Response Questions 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal: Externals Practice Short Response Questions 2025

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal: Externals Practice Extended Response Refugee Rights 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal: Externals Practice Extended Response Refugee Rights 2025

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal: Externals Extended Response Candidates for 2025

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal: Externals Extended Response Candidates for 2025

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Recurring Themes Legal Studies Externals 2020-2024 Extended Response

# data[].attributes.subject
Recurring Themes Legal Studies Externals 2020-2024 Extended Response

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.headline
Recurring Themes Legal Studies Externals 2020-2024 Short Response

# data[].attributes.subject
Recurring Themes Legal Studies Externals 2020-2024 Short Response

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mini topic 1.2  5 minutes on the international bill of human rights

# data[].attributes.headline
Resolving Human Rights Complaints in Australia

# data[].attributes.subject
Resolving Human Rights Complaints in Australia

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Topic 3 subtopic 2 Resolving Human Rights Complaints in Australia

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3   1 Rights of Australians 5 minute introduction

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mini topic 1 1 Legal Studies Definitions

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Covenants & Treaties | QCE Legal Studies 3&4

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
External Legal Studies 2024 Question Book

# data[].attributes.subject
External Legal Studies 2024 Question Book

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
External Legal Studies 2023 Question Book

# data[].attributes.subject
External Legal Studies 2023 Question Book

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Studies External Extended Response 2020-2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Studies External Extended Response 2020-2024

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Studies External Short Response 2020-2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Studies External Short Response 2020-2024

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Revision 2023 Q1 Convention on the Rights of the Child

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Revision 2023 Q1 Convention on the Rights of the Child

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal Revision 2023 Q1 Convention on the Rights of the Child

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal Revision 2023 Q4 Australian Human Rights Commission

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT

# data[].attributes.body
AHRC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination and breaches of human rights. You can make a complaint no matter where you live in Australia. Our service is free, impartial and informal.

# data[].attributes.body
AHRC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We protect and promote human rights in Australia and internationally. The Australian Human Rights Commission is an independent statutory organisation, established by an act of Federal Parliament.

# data[].attributes.body
Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In addition to receiving complaints of unlawful discrimination, the Commission can inquire into complaints of breaches of human rights and workplace discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe.

# data[].attributes.headline
Days of protest action to bring Melbourne to a standstill

# data[].attributes.subject
Days of protest action to bring Melbourne to a standstill

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Days of protest action to bring Melbourne to a standstill | 7NEWS

# data[].attributes.headline
Indigenous protests held across Australia on Australia Day

# data[].attributes.subject
Indigenous protests held across Australia on Australia Day

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indigenous Protests Held Across Australia on National Day

# data[].attributes.headline
The push for stronger protest laws across Australia

# data[].attributes.subject
The push for stronger protest laws across Australia

# data[].attributes.body
SBS news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The push for stronger protest laws across Australia | SBS News

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube: Australia Institute

# data[].attributes.body
SBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Navigating the implicit right to protest in Australia | Australia Explained

# data[].attributes.body
Stimulus

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How does UNHCR help people fleeing DRC to Uganda?

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
What happens when people are forced to flee

# data[].attributes.subject
What happens when people are forced to flee

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happens when people are forced to flee?

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UNHCR's Grandi calls for end to the war in Sudan that has displaced millions of people.

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refugees fleeing Sudan's conflict rebuild their lives in South Sudan

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
Revision External Exam Qld Legal Studies 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Revision External Exam Qld Legal Studies 2024

# data[].attributes.body
ATAR Notes

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The United Nations Explained: How Does it ACTUALLY Work? - TLDR News

# data[].attributes.body
Research activity

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The United Nations Is Created | Flashback | History

# data[].attributes.body
PowerPoint

# data[].attributes.headline
Other human rights sources and processes 13.2

# data[].attributes.subject
Other human rights sources and processes 13.2

# data[].attributes.body
Word

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
Declaration  of the Rights of Man and Citizen

# data[].attributes.subject
Declaration  of the Rights of Man and Citizen

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
26th August 1789: Adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by Constituent Assembly

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7th June 1628: Petition of Right ratified by King Charles I

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Cyrus Cylinder: An Artifact Ahead of Its Time

# data[].attributes.body
Word

# data[].attributes.body
Word

# data[].attributes.body
Ilya Milstein

# data[].attributes.body
Questions

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
The Conversation

# data[].attributes.body
The Conversation

# data[].attributes.body
Atomi

# data[].attributes.body
Atomi

# data[].attributes.body
Word

# data[].attributes.body
Overview Topics 1/3

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HOW I GOT A 49 IN LEGAL STUDIES- MY TOP TIPS AND TRICKS FOR SUCCEEDING IN LEGAL STUDIES

# data[].attributes.body
Question and response booklet

# data[].attributes.body
Stimulus booklet

# data[].attributes.body
Marking guide

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Unit 4 Human Rights Notes Topic 1/3

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Unit 4 Human Rights Notes Topic 1/3

# data[].attributes.body
Word

# data[].attributes.body
Stimulus

# data[].attributes.body
Stimulus

# data[].attributes.body
Answers and Marking Guide

# data[].attributes.headline
Special Interest Groups and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Special Interest Groups and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.body
Edrolo

# data[].attributes.body
History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Assemblies of the World Council of Churches (short version)

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The official Youtube channel of the International Committee of the Red Cross. On the ground in over 100 countries, we provide humanitarian aid to victims of conflict and violence. Named in the Geneva Conventions as an authority on the laws of war, we work to regulate the use of weapons, the meth…

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
History of the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention

# data[].attributes.subject
History of the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the difference between the red cross, red crescent and red crystal? | Working For The ICRC

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
"amnesty international" amnesty "human rights" documentary news explainer activism war guns shooting feminism feminist history refugees "asylum seekers" "dea...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 10 million supporters, activists and volunteers who campaign for universal human rights from more than 150 countries. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

# data[].attributes.body
Student 16.4 p459

# data[].attributes.body
The Squiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whenever a scandal is uncovered or a tragic event happens, calls for the government to establish a Royal Commission aren't far behind. But what exactly is a Royal Commission? In this Shortcut we'll look at what a Royal Commission is, the power and effectiveness of Royal Commissions, and a quick look at the ones currently running.
What is a Royal Commission?
In Australia, a Royal Commission is the highest form of inquiry into matters of public importance. Royal Commissions can investigate allegations of wrongdoing, or just provide advice and information to governments on a particular policy issue, though the former is more common these days. They are "connected with the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, or any public purpose or any power of the Commonwealth" according to the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

What are the powers of a Royal Commission?
A Royal Commission is different to a Commission of Inquiry which is launched by the parliament and reports to them. Royal Commissions are not judicial, so they can't actually decide or determine anything, but commissioners are given quasi-judicial powers within the terms of reference of that Commission. The findings in a Royal Commission can then be referred to the police. A Royal Commission offers a number of broad powers to commissioners during investigation, including the ability to call and cross-examine witnesses under oath, obtain evidence (sometimes including classified information), rights of entry and phone-tapping, while also providing protection to witnesses and inquiry members from legal action such as defamation.

How many Royal Commissions have there been in Australia?
Royal Commissions have been part of our system of keeping governments accountable for more than 100 years. There have been more than 130 royal commissions conducted in our history focusing on issues as disparate as television and how it might be introduced in Australia, to the quality and safety of aged care facilities. To some people, that might seem like a lot and to others, not many. But ultimately an inquiry of this type can be commissioned when it's approved by the Governor General.

How is a Royal Commission launched?
In Australia, a Royal Commission is called by the federal government, the state government, or both. The government is responsible for establishing the terms of reference (or limitations) of a Royal Commission. They provide funding and appoint commissioners, who are usually retired or serving judges and are never serving politicians. Within the terms of reference, governments usually include a date by which the commission must finish (or else it could drag on forever). A Royal commission has the power to hear witnesses under oath, collect evidence and offer protection to people who co-operate. And while there is a general framework by which a Royal Commission is carried out, what powers it is given in the investigation process can differ vastly, depending on the terms of reference for the commission, which are established by the government. While some commissions see very broad terms of reference - such as the ability to use electronic surveillance, as seen in the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service in the 90s - others are not given as much power.

What is the aim of a Royal Commission?
The ultimate aim for a Royal Commission is to hold people accountable for doing the wrong thing, and create a plan - or recommendations - to prevent future wrong-doings. But it doesn't always work out that way. That can be because the findings and recommendations are not then being implemented by the government of the day. But there have been Royal Commissions that have changed things significantly.

What are some examples of Royal Commissions in Australia that have made significant changes?
Probably the most recent example is the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse which was established in 2013 and concluded in 2017. The Commission uncovered a massive scale of abuse across institutions ranging from churches, to charities, to children in state care. It covered abuses from way back and also in recent times. In 2018, PM Scott Morrison delivered a national apology to victims of institutional child sexual abuse and their families, and launched a National Redress Scheme for victims, as well as the National Office of Child Safety within the Department of Social Services and a National Centre of Excellence to raise awareness of child sexual abuse and how to support victims.

And of course the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry got a lot of airtime in recent times. It found examples of misconduct and recommend widespread changes to the way the sector works. And of course a number of senior executives and directors have moved on from the jobs at the top banks in the wake of the inquiry.

Does the government have to implement all the recommendations made in a Royal Commission?
No they're not compelled to. An example of that would be the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It was launched in 1987 and finished in 1991. It's now been 30 years since that royal commission, and a recent report from Deloitte found that only two thirds of the recommendations have been fully implemented. Some of those recommendations were aimed at reducing the rate at which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are jailed, such as non-custodial sentencing and diversionary programs. That's right. And thirty years on the rate of incarceration for Indigenous Australians has actually doubled.

What are some Royal Commissions that are currently running?
The Morrison Government has three Royal Commissions on its plate at the moment - let's just run through each of their scopes and due dates quickly Claire. The most recently announced is the one into bushfires. And that's come out of the Black Summer of 2019/2020, this will look into Australia's preparedness, response and recovery efforts, as well as looking at how the levels of government coordinate when responding to national emergencies. The report is due on 31 August 2020.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was launched in 2018 after a damning report by ABC TV Four Corners in 2016 that showed video evidence of the mistreatment of a resident in an Adelaide aged care facility. The report is due on 30 April 2020.

A Royal Commission into disabilities was established in 2019 after prolonged calls from disability advocates, as well as a Senate inquiry. It's called the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and the report is due on 29 April, 2022.

And the Victorian Government has its hands full with the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. It was established by the Victorian government in 2018 following revelations that barrister Nicola Gobbo, or Lawyer X, who represented underworld figures like Carl Williams, was recruited by Victorian police as an informant between 1995 and 2009. That report is due in July 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What a Royal Commission is, the power and effectiveness of Royal Commissions, and a quick look at the ones currently running.

# data[].attributes.body
Australia

# data[].attributes.body
Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights has identified deficiencies in the inquiry which the Commonwealth Attorney-General has set the Australian Law Reform Commission in relation to 'traditional rights, freedoms and privileges'. Members of ALHR are together formulating ALHR's submission, and have identified various problems with the TOR which are fully explained in a paper by Dr Tamsin Clarke which ... Read More >>

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ALHR - Australian Lawyers For Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ALHR is a network of Australian lawyers active in practising and promoting awareness of international human rights standards in Australia. ALHR has a national membership of over 3,000 people, with active National, State and Territory committees.

# data[].attributes.body
Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Australian Human Rights Institute produces world-leading research and advances debate on critical human rights issues. Our strategic and rigorous research transforms practices to mainstream human rights, with a focus on business, climate, gender and health.

# data[].attributes.body
Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Mission:

The QCCL is a volunteer organisation working to protect the human rights and civil liberties of all Queenslanders. Since 1966 we have campaigned for law reform on everything from privacy to protest law, promoted human rights in the media and hosted a range of educational events.

Be vigilant in matters affecting civil liberties and to safeguard and develop respect for human rights and freedoms

Provide information about threats to, and the abuse of, rights and liberties and to foster the study of legal and human rights

Seek solutions to problems related to civil liberties, including prison reform, censorship and rights of minority groups

Provide, when necessary, neutral observers at marches and demonstrations.
Learn More

100% Volunteer Run

The QCCL relies entirely on the financial contributions of our members and on donations. We do not receive financial support from government or corporations and none of our office holders or members receive remuneration for their roles.

There are plenty of ways to get involved with the QCCL and our work. If you're interested in human rights, civil liberties, and building a better Queensland, why not get involved with the Council

Become a MEMBER
Members are invited to collaborate on submissions to parliament, contribute to the Council's position-statements, receive discounted prices on events, and receive exclusive member content. Join today!

Volunteer AT OUR EVENTS
Don't have the time to write submissions? You can still help! Whether your interest is marketing, event management or catering - we're always on the lookout for helping hands.

Make a Donation
If you don't have time to volunteer at events or become a member, you still can support us by making one-off or regular donations. Any amount you can spare would be gratefully received.

"

Though its provenance was humble and its opposition at times immense, the Council was a positive, powerful bastion of rights that many of us in that turbulent period recognised and immediately pledged ourselves to.
- The Honourable Dame Quentin Bryce AD CVO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The QCCL is a volunteer organisation working to protect the human rights and civil liberties of all Queenslanders. Since 1966 we have campaigned for law reform on everything from privacy to protest law, promoted human rights in the media and hosted a range of educational events.

# data[].attributes.body
Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Newsflash

Sex work industry review-The Queensland Law Reform Commission has completed its report on a framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland. The report was tabled on 24 April 2023. The 2-volume report, entitled A decriminalised sex-work industry for Queensland (Report No 80), a report summary and a report overview can be downloaded here.

Sex work industry review-On 11 April 2022, the Commission released a Consultation Paper (WP No 80), A framework for a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland. We invite written submissions in response to the questions asked in the paper. The closing date for submissions is 3 June 2022.

Sex work industry review-On 27 August 2021, the Commission received Terms of reference from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Women, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, to make recommendations for a framework to regulate a decriminalised sex work industry in Queensland and to prepare draft legislation to give effect to its recommendations.

Voluntary assisted dying review-
As previewed in the Commission's Review Update issued on 10 May 2021, the Commission's Report No 79 (and the draft Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021 - Appendix F to the Report) and Report Summary have been tabled in the Parliament. They and a short document that explains A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying in Queensland in a few pages of words and diagrams can be accessed below:

- Full Report No 79
- Draft Bill
- Report Summary
- A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying in Queensland (4 page summary)

The Hon Justice Peter Applegarth AM
Chair
Queensland Law Reform Commission
18 May 2021

Voluntary assisted dying review-
On 10 May 2021, the Commission submitted to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, its final report (Report No 79), A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying, together with its draft Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021-which gives effect to the Commission's recommendations. The Law Reform Commission Act 1968 provides that the Report (and Draft Bill) must be tabled in Parliament within 14 sitting days of receipt. Until such time, please see the Commission's A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying - Review update (May 2021).

Voluntary assisted dying review - On 24 February 2021, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, tabled in Parliament the Commission's review update for A legal framework for Voluntary assisted dying.

Voluntary assisted dying review-Queensland Law Reform Commission review to develop Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation: the path ahead to complete this complex review.

On 16 October 2020, the Commission released a consultation paper (WP No 79), A legal framework for voluntary assisted dying. It invites written submissions in response to the questions posed in the paper. The closing date for submissions is 27 November 2020.

New Chair and members appointed to the Queensland Law Reform Commission - On 31 July 2020, the Hon Justice Peter Applegarth AM was appointed as Chairperson of the Queensland Law Reform Commission. On 17 September 2020, His Honour Judge Anthony Rafter SC, Ms Penelope White, Mr Mark Hinson QC, Ms Clare Endicott, and Ms Constance Johnson were appointed as part-time members of the Commission. For more information .

Voluntary assisted dying review-On 21 May 2020, the Acting Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Leader of the House, gave the Commission terms of reference to develop an appropriate legislative scheme for voluntary assisted dying for Queensland and to prepare draft legislation to give effect to its recommendations. The Commission is to commence the review on 1 July 2020 and to provide its final report and draft legislation by 1 March 2021.

Consent and the excuse of mistake of fact review-On 20 December 2019, the Commission released a Consultation Paper (WP No 78), Review of consent laws and the excuse of mistake of fact outlining the legal issues in the review and inviting written submissions in response to the questions posed in the paper. The closing date for submissions is 31 January 2020.

Consent and the excuse of mistake of fact review-On 2 September 2019, the Commission received Terms of reference from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Leader of the House, to conduct a review and investigation into the definition of consent in section 348 in Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code and the operation of the excuse of mistake of fact under section 24 of the Criminal Code as it applies to Chapter 32.

Civil surveillance and privacy review-On 21 December 2018, the Commission released a Consultation Paper (WP No 77), Review of Queensland's laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies, outlining the legal issues in the review and inviting written submissions in response to the specific questions posed in the paper. The closing date for submissions is 31 January 2019.

Termination of pregnancy review-On 17 October 2018, the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018 was passed by the Parliament. The Bill gives effect to the Commission's recommendations in Report No 76. The legislation commenced on 3 December 2018. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are available here.

Termination of pregnancy review-On 22 August 2018, the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018 was introduced into Parliament by the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Leader of the House, Yvette D'Ath. The Bill reflects the Commission's recommendations in Report No 76, Review of termination of pregnancy laws. The Bill has been referred to the Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee (the HCDSDFVPC) for detailed consideration. The HCDSDFVPC's Report No. 11 was tabled in Parliament on 5 October 2018. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are available here.

Civil surveillance and privacy review-On 24 July 2018, the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Leader of the House, gave the Commission terms of reference to conduct a review and investigation into the issue of modernising Queensland's laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies.

Workplace surveillance review-On 24 July 2018, the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Leader of the House, gave the Commission terms of reference to conduct a review and investigation into the issue of privacy protections for workers in the context of current and emerging surveillance devices in workplaces.

Termination of pregnancy review-On 21 December 2017, the Commission released a Consultation Paper (WP No 76) outlining the legal issues raised in the review and inviting written submissions on the questions asked in the paper. The closing date for submissions is 13 February 2018.

Expunging historical gay sex convictions review-On 10 October 2017 the Criminal Law (Historical Homosexual Convictions Expungement) Bill 2017 was passed with amendment by the Parliament. The Act largely gives effect to the Commission's recommendations in Report No 74. The Act will commence upon proclamation.

Guardianship laws review-On 5 September 2017, the Guardianship and Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. The Bill implements a number of the Commission's recommendations in Report No 67 (tabled in Parliament in 2010). It aims to strengthen the focus on contemporary practice and human rights for adults with impaired capacity, enhance safeguards for adults with impaired capacity, improve the efficiency of Queensland's guardianship system, and the clarity of Queensland's guardianship legislation. The Bill has been referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. The Committee is required to report on the Bill by 2 November 2017.

Termination of pregnancy review-On 19 June 2017, the Commission received terms of reference from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills, to conduct a review and investigation into the issue of modernising Queensland's laws relating to the termination of pregnancy.

Expunging historical gay sex convictions review-On 11 May 2017, the Criminal Law (Historical Homosexual Convictions Expungement) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by The Hon Yvette D'Ath MP, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for Training and Skills. The Bill largely gives effect to the Commission's recommendations in Report No 74. The Bill has been referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for report by 14 July 2017.

Domestic violence disclosure scheme review-Consultation Dates-The Commission will be consulting in various locations around the State in early 2017. As part of its consultation process, Commission staff will be available to meet privately with individuals who may have an interest in the review. For details of the Commission's consultation process, including information about dates, venues and times for consultation, click here.

Domestic violence disclosure scheme review-On 12 December 2016 the Queensland Law Reform Commission released a Consultation Paper (WP75) seeking submissions on whether a domestic violence disclosure scheme should be introduced in Queensland. The closing date for submissions is 3 February 2017. The Consultation Paper is available under 'Publications' at http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/publications#2

Child protection mandatory reporting review-The Child Protection (Mandatory Reporting - Mason's Law) Amendment Act 2016 was assented to on 23 September 2016. The Act gives effect to the Commission's recommendation in Report No 73 that mandatory reporting obligations under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) be expanded to include the early childhood education and care sector. The new mandatory reporting obligations will take effect from 1 July 2017.

Domestic violence disclosure scheme review-On 20 July 2016, the Attorney-General gave the Commission terms of reference to conduct a review and investigation into the introduction of a domestic violence disclosure scheme in Queensland.

Child protection mandatory reporting review-On 9 May 2016, the Government released its response to the Commission's final report. Read the Queensland Government response to Report No 73.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Queensland Law Reform Commission publications and papers

# data[].attributes.body
Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

An inquiry into the legislative framework for corporations and financial services regulation.

An inquiry into the application of anti-discrimination legislation.

The ALRC DataHub offers insights into Australia's statute book and reflects our commitment to identifying, analysing, and understanding complexity in legislation and across the Australian legal system.

The Australian Law Reform Commission is an independent Australian Government agency that provides recommendations for law reform to Government on issues referred to it by the Attorney-General of Australia.

Register now Like Australia, countries around the world have grappled with the question of how anti-discrimination laws should apply to religious educational ...

Restructuring and reframing the legislative framework for financial services Why does the structure and framing of legislation matter? What are the problems with the ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Federal Australian law reform body that has been instrumental in recommending reforms to law since 1975.

# data[].attributes.body
16.3 p455

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
QCAA 2022 Legal Studies Stimulus Booklet

# data[].attributes.subject
QCAA 2022 Legal Studies Stimulus Booklet

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
QCAA 2022 Legal Studies Question Booklet

# data[].attributes.subject
QCAA 2022 Legal Studies Question Booklet

# data[].attributes.body
QCAA

# data[].attributes.headline
Edrolo: Resolving human rights complaints

# data[].attributes.subject
Edrolo: Resolving human rights complaints

# data[].attributes.body
Edrolo

# data[].attributes.body
Research

# data[].attributes.body
QCAT

# data[].attributes.body
Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The prominent academic and author, Prof Chelsea Watego, has brought a racial discrimination case against the state of Queensland and two police officers who arrested and handcuffed her outside a Brisbane nightclub in 2018.

Watego, a Munanjahli and South Sea Islander woman, was arrested outside the Beat nightclub in Brisbane's Fortitude Valley in December 2018, for allegedly failing to leave the premises at closing time. Charges for that offence were not pursued in court.

She argued in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Monday that her treatment by two police officers, whose names are suppressed, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of her race.

In an opening statement to the tribunal, Watego said she had been asked to leave the Beat nightclub at closing time on several occasions. She did not leave when asked "because she sought time to arrange a shared Uber booking before she left the relative safety inside ... and was removed from the Beat physically by security".

Watego, told the tribunal that she was "picked up by my breasts (by a security guard), then dropped on the ground and dragged".

"It was really traumatic," she said.

In her opening statement, Watego alleged that, once outside the nightclub but near the entrance, she argued with an "aggressive white man", who was racially abusive towards her.

Her statement said she was arrested within 18 seconds of police arriving.

It alleges the investigation by the two police officers was "deficient"; that the arrest was "not warranted" and there were alternative options; and that handcuffing her was not justified.

"The reason given by [the arresting police officer] for the arrest of Prof Watego, namely her failure to leave licensed premises, is not an offence the state proceeded with against Prof Watego," the statement says.

"The information gathered by police prior to the arrest of Prof Watego was very limited and constitutes evidence from which one could infer (along with other facts) unlawful discrimination.

"[The officer] did not make any real effort to obtain all available information from other available sources. In particular, the officers did not, prior to arresting Prof Watego, make any effort to speak with the people accompanying [her] or other persons who may have observed the relevant events.

"She was treated less favourably than [the allegedly aggressive] man."

Watego was arrested, handcuffed and put inside a police van. She was later held at a police watch house.

She alleges she suffered injuries, including physical bruising and post-traumatic stress disorder; intense feelings of embarrassment, hurt, intimidation and fear; and damage to her reputation as a respected member of the community.

In response, the state of Queensland argued that Watego's behaviour warranted the attention of the arresting officer, and that there was no evidence to support a claim of unlawful discrimination.

"The applicant was pointed out as an offender by [a security guard] as having refused to leave the Beat on several occasions," the government's opening statement said.

skip past newsletter promotion
Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

"There were no diversion options available ... because of the applicant's behaviour. Her handcuffing was necessary for the safety of officers and others."

The government's statement said "multiple sober witnesses" immediately pointed Watego out to police as the person who had failed to leave.

"The gender of a person or race of a person who is uncooperative with police ... is irrelevant," it said.

"The arrest of the applicant was lawful, reasonable, proportionate and legally defensible."

The government also argued CCTV and police bodycam footage showed justification for the arrest.

"It is not open to the tribunal to ignore the behaviour of the applicant in her interactions with police," the government's statement said.

"Some of her behaviour included insulting police, threatening police and swearing at police."

Watego said during cross-examination that she was "not my best self" at the time. She said she had believed police had arrived to deal with the verbal and racist abuse directed at her given she had already left and was standing outside.

The tribunal heard from a witness - a friend of Watego - who said the arresting police officer was "already aggravated" at the time.

Watego is seeking compensation, aggravated damages, a public apology, and for the police involved to undertake training.

The hearing continues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Queensland author Chelsea Watego launches racial discrimination case over 2018 arrest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
State of Queensland tells tribunal the arrest was lawful, reasonable and proportionate and there is no evidence to support a claim of unlawful discrimination

# data[].attributes.headline
Highview College students discriminated against because of their hair.

# data[].attributes.subject
Highview College students discriminated against because of their hair.

# data[].attributes.body
ABC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two secondary school students are taking their fight against their school's uniform policy to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Highview College students Amayah and Safhira Rowe are concerned about missing classes and assessments

Mother Rebecca Rowe is seeking help from the Human Rights Commission and Independent Schools Association

Highview College principal Melinda Scash says school uniform protocols must be followed

Amayah and Safhira Rowe have been barred from attending the independent regional Victorian high school Highview College until they tie up their hair.

The Year 11 and Year 10 students' father is from Ghana. They both have their African hair braided and say it is painful to wear tied back.

Their mother, Rebecca Rowe, is making a complaint to the commission, saying her children have been treated unfairly because of their race.

The ABC has seen correspondence to Ms Rowe from the commission, providing information about the next steps in the complaints process.

The commission said it was unable to comment on complaints cases due to confidentiality.

Principal Melinda Scash confirmed to the ABC the sisters, who live in Avoca, would not be welcome back at school until they complied with the rules.

"We are accommodating for their cultural requirements, but there are still uniform protocols that need to be followed," she said.

"They have not been excluded from school. This is their choice."

Amayah, 17, and Safhira, 16, said they felt upset and powerless, particularly given Ms Scash had removed their access to online schoolwork and ability to communicate with teachers.

They said they wanted to be able to continue their education without feeling targeted or being asked to wear a hairstyle that caused pain.

"I hope the school will consider changing the uniform policies to be more inclusive," Amayah said.

"My sister and I are the only people of black descent in the entire school.

"I hope they educate themselves further so other kids of colour younger than us and coming into the school can be comfortable in the environment."

Ms Rowe said she believed the principal's enforcement of the uniform policy was racially insensitive, not racially motivated, but she could not understand the extremity of the response.

"Even if they were walking around with pink mohawks, this seems like an extreme punishment for something that doesn't impose a threat to anyone," she said.

Ms Scash has banned Ms Rowe from entering the school grounds for breaking the school's code of conduct by posting about the issue on social media.

Hairstyle dilemmas

The box hair braids worn by the girls are a protective and low-maintenance hairstyle for African hair.

Amayah said she loved her hair, but it took 30 minutes every morning to get ready when her hair was in its natural state, which is why she turned to braids.

"Going into VCE, it is a lot of stress I don't need, so having the braids cuts time and effort out of everything. It is a comfortable and easy style to maintain," she said.

Amayah said having to tie up braids caused hair breakages and head and neck aches because the braids were heavy and thick.

The sisters have instead been wearing the front part of their hair tied back, to keep it neat and off their face.

Mother says principal 'won't budge'

The uniform policy dispute came to a head on Tuesday when Amayah and Safhira refused to tie up their hair on the principal's orders and were removed from their class.

Their mother was called to take them home, with her daughters reportedly in an emotionally distressed state.

Ms Rowe said Ms Scash was not open to negotiating the uniform policy and she felt there was no other option than to seek help from higher authorities.

She has contacted Ecumenical Schools Australia and Independent Schools Victoria.

Both bodies are member organisations and do not have authority over school policy.

"She [Ms Scash] is holding their education ransom until they do what she says," Ms Rowe said.

"I have asked her to revisit the uniform policy and take input from people of diverse cultural and gender backgrounds to make sure it is as inclusive as possible."

Ms Rowe said she was concerned about the school's approach to conflict resolution, and her daughters felt bullied and targeted.

"The girls were begging to go to class yesterday. One of them was in tears saying 'just let me go to class'," she said.

Ms Scash said she disabled Amayah and Safhira's online learning system because it was not an "appropriate option" when they were able to return to school.

She said she was happy to have conversations about making the uniform policy more inclusive.

Ms Scash said she only wanted the girls to use a ribbon to tie up their hair at the nape of the neck, without causing them pain, but both said this did not work for heavy and thick braids.

Learning opportunity lost, campaigner says

The Human Rights Commission launched a new national anti-racism campaign earlier this month, including a focus on stamping out racism in schools.

It Stops With Me campaign ambassador Tasneem Chopra said schools were places of learning, not "conformity to the point of losing individualism".

"Rather than using this as an opportunity to demonstrate inclusion, which is a learning tactic schools should be embedding, the school is doing the exact opposite," she said.

"It is showing a lack of flexibility, a lack of recognition, and a lack of cultural inclusion. Whether that is unwittingly or not ... demanding that children assimilate as opposed to letting schools be a place of integration is a fine point here."

African Community and Cultural Association of Victoria chairperson Nze Nkem Anele said he was "appalled" and "disappointed" hearing of Amayah and Safhira's struggles.

"I would find it really appalling in 2022 with the level of enlightenment and education around the whole globe, that a school would impose that on young children," he said.

Local news direct to your inbox
ABC Ballarat will deliver a wrap of the week's news, stories and photos every Wednesday. Sign up to stay connected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These students have been excluded from school because of their hairstyle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two students of African heritage are barred from an independent regional Victorian high school for not tying up their braided hair, with their mother saying she will report the school to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brisbane Christian school found to have discriminated against a Cook Islands boy by demanding he have a haircut

# data[].attributes.subject
Brisbane Christian school found to have discriminated against a Cook Islands boy by demanding he have a haircut

# data[].attributes.body
Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A private Christian school in Brisbane has been found to have discriminated against a five-year-old Cook Islands boy for threatening to expel him for having long hair, grown for cultural reasons.

The Australian Christian College Moreton was ordered to apologise to Cyrus Taniela after it told his family the boy's hair must be cut by the start of semester two on Monday, or he would have to leave.

The school said Cyrus's hair, which he wore in a bun, breached school rules requiring boys' hair to be neat, tidy, and not hanging over their faces.

His mother, Wendy, took the matter to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, saying Cyrus's hair was being grown for a traditional haircutting ceremony.

A hearing last month focused on whether the college breached the anti-discrimination and human rights acts, and if it was lawful to expel the boy if he did not cut his hair.

The school denied it was discriminating against Cyrus and said it would treat any student disobeying school rules the same.

But the tribunal on Friday found the college had breached Queensland's anti-discrimination laws.

QCAT member Samantha Traves ordered the school to end its bid to expel Cyrus and send a written apology to his family for its actions.

"I find that there was direct discrimination on the basis of race," she wrote in her decision.

Traves also rejected the school's argument that allowing Cyrus to attend class with long hair could lead to "a loss of discipline" and "further pressure on the principles underlying the uniform policy".

"While I accept that it is important for schools to have uniform policies that require certain standards of dress and appearance be maintained, I do not think it is reasonable to apply those policies without exception," she said.

However, Traves rejected Cyrus's family's bid for compensation, saying there was no evidence he had suffered any emotional distress and the college had allowed him to attend school while the court battle played out.

Earlier, the tribunal heard it is a Cook Islands custom for a family's eldest son to grow his hair until he comes of age.

Cyrus's family has decided this will happen on his seventh birthday, in about 13 months.

Cook Islands elder Nga Toka told Traves haircutting ceremonies were usually prayer-filled events with lots of singing and dancing.

The child's hair is tied with ribbons and a pastor administers blessings as members of the community help cut it, she said.

The parties have two weeks to file submissions for cost orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brisbane Christian school found to have discriminated against Cook Islands boy by demanding haircut

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australian Christian College Moreton ordered to apologise to Cyrus Taniela after 'discrimination on the basis of race'