Make a complaint

      News: Anti-Discrimination Act reforms delayed

      On 30 April, further amendments were made to delay the legislated reforms, with no future date announced for the new laws to come into effect.

      The reforms - the result of extensive community consultations - would have strengthened Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which has not been significantly improved since its introduction over 30 years ago.

      These important reforms will now only happen if and when the Government fixes a date of commencement by proclamation. 

      To date, there have not been any further details released regarding further consultations.

      • You can read the Queensland Government’s announcement here.
      • You can read the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner’s latest statements to these developments here.

      The reforms would have meant:

      • Businesses, organisations and government agencies would have had a legal requirement to prevent harmful conduct rather than respond to problems after they occur.
        • This is called a ‘positive duty,’ a feature of anti-discrimination law in Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the Northern Territory (NT) and at Federal level.
        • The duty would have required entities to take reasonable steps to prevent, as far as possible, discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification, and other conduct covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act.
        • The duty would have covered discrimination on the basis of all the characteristics already protected under our Anti-Discrimination Act – including sex, race, age, religion, and sexuality among other things.
      • More Queenslanders would have been protected from discrimination, including victim-survivors of domestic and family violence, and people experiencing homelessness.
      • More Queenslanders would have been better protected from vilification, making the law more effective and responsive to the harm caused by vilification.
      • Workplace reforms based on the federal Respect@Work report would have been introduced, making sex-based harassment at workplaces which are offensive, humiliating or intimidating, unlawful.
      • Discrimination on multiple grounds would have been better recognised, allowing people to make complaints on combined grounds.
      • Definitions and legal tests would have been made easier to understand and apply, and people would have had longer timeframes to make complaints to the Commission.

      The amendments were the result of extensive collaborations, community consultations, focus group meetings, submissions, and surveys.

      The new laws would have signified an important shift towards a preventative focus through the introduction of a ‘positive duty’ – a key recommendation of the Commission’s review into the Act in 2021-2022 (‘the Building-Belonging Review’).

      The Commission would have had a role in helping businesses, organisations and government agencies prevent discrimination by developing guidance materials, providing education and working with them to facilitate understanding and positive action to build safe, inclusive workplace cultures.

      You can subscribe to our email bulletins to stay up to date on any new developments.

      Changes to the Act that have been paused

      Shifting focus to a preventative, positive duty

      A ‘positive duty’ is a legal requirement to be proactive in addressing discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification, victimisation and other harmful conduct.

      The ‘positive duty’ would have required businesses, organisations, and government to take steps to prevent discrimination and harassment as:

      • Employers (whether the workforce is paid or voluntary), and/or
      • Providers of education, accommodation, or goods and services.

      These entities already hold a legal responsibility, and can be the subject of a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act if an employee, client or customer is discriminated against, sexually harassed, or vilified. The ‘positive duty’ would have been aligned to this existing responsibility.

      The Act currently relies on complaints being made by individuals about things that have already happened, in order for discrimination, sexual harassment, vilification, and other conduct to be addressed. Shifting the focus to prevention would have meant businesses, organisations and government needed to take action to prevent these from happening instead of responding to problems after they occur.

      Extended protections from discrimination: who would have been covered?

      Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act protects people from discrimination which is based on one or more personal characteristics (called ‘attributes’).

      Protected attributes are generally based on personal traits (for example, race), protected beliefs (such as religious belief or activity), or groups that experience high levels of stigma (like sex work activity).

      The changes would have extended protection from discrimination to:

      • Victim-survivors of domestic and family violence
      • People experiencing homelessness
      • People with expunged criminal convictions or irrelevant criminal or medical records
      • People discriminated against because of their physical appearance (for example, their height, weight, size, birth marks, and other features).

      These characteristics would have been added to those already protected by the Act:

      Some of these characteristics, which are already protected, would have had their definitions updated, addressing existing gaps in protections created by outdated terminology or definitions – for example, ensuring that all people with caring responsibilities, not just immediate family members, are covered.

      In addition, complaints to the Commission would have been able to be made on combined grounds, to better recognise the impact of intersectional discrimination and the harm it causes.

      Extended protections from discrimination: where would coverage have applied?

      Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act applies in specified areas of public life, including:

      • Workplaces – including when you are applying for work, volunteering or doing work experience
      • Education settings – including schools, TAFEs and universities
      • Accommodation – including holiday and long-term rentals
      • Using goods and services – including shops, cafes, medical centres, taxis and rideshares, public transport, and government services.

      The positive duty would have also applied across all these settings.

      Extended protections from vilification

      Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act protects people from vilification, which is based on a personal characteristic (called ‘attributes’).

      Vilification is different from discrimination and is a serious type of conduct that involves expressing hatred, disrespect, or ridicule for people because of who they are, and encouraging other people to think and do the same.

      Vilification can occur through any form of communication to the public, including online. It can include spoken or written communications, signs and gestures, and clothing or flags.

      The changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act would have meant:

      • Something that happens on private land and/or in places that ‘the public’ doesn’t always have the right to enter, such as workplaces, schools or hospitals, could still have been considered vilification if it was able to be seen or heard by people other than the target of the vilification.
      • It would have been relevant, in deciding whether something is unlawful vilification, to focus on the harm caused to individuals or people who are members of a group with a protected attribute.

      The changes would have extended protection to people who are vilified because of their:

      • Age
      • Sex
      • Disability

      These characteristics would have been added to those already protected from vilification by the Act:

      • Race
      • Religion
      • Sexuality
      • Gender Identity
      • Sex Characteristics

      The reforms would have allowed protections from vilification to be more responsive to the harms caused.

      More effective legal tests and complaints processes

      The legal tests and definitions of discrimination in the Act can be complex and interpreted in different ways.

      Key concepts in the Anti-Discrimination Act would have been refined so the law is easier to understand and apply. This included better recognising the impact of intersectional discrimination, to which reforms would have allowed people to bring complaints on combined grounds.

      Under the new reforms, the timeframe for people to lodge a complaint would also have been extended from 12 months to 24 months.